Posted on 08/26/2005 6:31:03 PM PDT by Bush2000
Microsoft is number one for several reasons. Bill got lucky and had his OS used on the new IBM system. Since IBM owned business, this is that got used by everybody. Then Microsoft made its windowing system sit on top of DOS, making an easy upgrade. Then it built another windowing system using the same APIs so it would be compatible with the previous, allowing an easy upgrade path again. So, take IBM's dominance and predatory business practices, throw in a few of Microsoft's own predatory practices, and you have the reason Microsoft is number one in a few areas. You also have the reason why Microsoft operating systems are far behind others in architecture and security.
I'm not a fan of Dell at all; however, I do see the business sense in having standard servers. I'd rather see a different standard than Dell; however, from a business case it's hard to beat. It's not 100% cost. If that were the case, you'd end up with a modge podge of unsupportable hardward and software. It's all about best value.
Huh? Who said all M$ infrastructure? All I'm saying is the choice they make tends to be the right choice. In fact, those that chose Linux over a windows desktop (out of spite of Windows) have proven to be the wrong choice as they've had to go back to M$ for desktops. So in the end it costs them even more. That's not to say 100% of people that chose Linux was wrong, but some of the big early adopters of Linux on the desktop was just flat out wrong. But generally the suits know what they are doing and they chose what's best for their business (as long as they don't have ideologue techies working in the basement that will suggesting anything but M$).
MS is now getting to a point where they can do that since XP brought the 9x OS over to the NT platform. Now Vista can close that gap. So yes, they were a victim of their own success.
The most advanced technical solution is often not the best solution. Most die hard techies just don't understand that. Because when you play that game, what happens when M$ jumps past their competitors? Companies will just keep moving from one IT solution to another.
BTW: Your "Luck" example is very liberal of you. So Microsoft won life's lottery. What about Microsoft Exchange? How did they leverage IBM's stranglehold over business to make Exchange #1?
I never meant to imply you thought that I was just expanding on a point we agreed on..
Why not? As long as you provide backwards compatibility. There's no reason Vista couldn't have been completely modern, with Virtual PC running in the background to handle old applications. This is like how Apple will handle the PPC-Intel transition, with "Rosetta" in the background doing emulation for PPC apps. Apple's OS change was also very well planned-out.
And Microsoft never got a real OS, mainly because of the decision to be compatible with Windows 3.1.
Because when you play that game, what happens when M$ jumps past their competitors? Companies will just keep moving from one IT solution to another.
The best solution is a happy medium, a mix.
Your "Luck" example is very liberal of you. So Microsoft won life's lottery. What about Microsoft Exchange? How did they leverage IBM's stranglehold over business to make Exchange #1?
By leveraging desktops into servers, and the fact that Notes really sucks. But then Exchange really sucks compared to other software out there. It just takes too much Admin time to run it, and you need to buy too many servers to run a large organization.
I know the admin will warn the one reporting it as well. That's how I know adam_az is the boy that cried to mommy.
That's because they're doing it before Linux on the desktop is not ready for prime-time in many cases (especially where there a lot of app-specific migration issues). Of course, they could have chosen Apple, which is more ready than Windows is.
But generally the suits know what they are doing and they chose what's best for their business (as long as they don't have ideologue techies working in the basement that will suggesting anything but M$).
Or as long as their techs don't only know Microsoft, and always tell the suits that's what they need to get.
Once again explain how they leveraged Exchange into the best selling email solution in the world?
I don't see the desktop connection that you claim, but go ahead and expain it. And when you're finished explaining how they leveraged the desktop to win the email server platform...tell me why they aren't winning the firewall/proxy war.
Just so I make sure we're talkign about the same issue...which is it now. The suits don't know what they're doing? Or is it the techies don't know what they're doing? It looks like you're now saying the suits make the right choice assuming the techies make the right suggestions. Therefore, it's not the suits, but the techies that are the problem. Which BTW is NOT what we were discussing. But I'll be happy to claim victory that the suits do know what they are doing and then move to a discussion on techies. I just want to make sure we are discussing the same thing. So we don't start mixing arguments.
Unfortunately, extreme adherence to single vendor hurts just as much. In the case I mentioned, they couldn't afford the Dell they needed, so the server is underpowered. To get a capable Dell would not only cost much more, but also cost twice the precious rack space in the datacenter. Actually, they could have gotten an Opteron costing almost the same as the Dell and been able to consolidate servers, freeing up even more rack space.
BTW, there are Opteron server vendors on the GSA Schedule.
Both. The suits don't know better to challenge tecchies with an allegiance. This happens a lot with Microsoft, and as you saw, also with Linux.
You don't remember the European anti-trust suit about leveraging a monopoly desktop into servers? But in Exchange's case, the email client that comes with the monopoly Windows client and the monopoly Office works best with Exchange.
..tell me why they aren't winning the firewall/proxy war.
Microsoft's powers only go so far in pushing a lemon these days when people are getting wise. But I have seen them used widely in our Microsoft-centric government.
" Note to self: Don't discuss anything else with adam_az. He'll cry to mommy when he loses."
You clearly didn't read either my post on this thread which you replied to, GE's which I replied to, or the one GE linked to.
If you did, your level of reading comprehension is a shame to all FReepers.
"I know the admin will warn the one reporting it as well. That's how I know adam_az is the boy that cried to mommy."
GE was trolling.
He was insulting other users with personal epiteths, lying about what they said, accusing people of saying things they did not say and having positions the opposite of what they enumerated, responding to direct questions with red herrings and misdirection... generally, trolling.
That's what the abuse button is for. This board is supposed to maintain a certain level of discourse, and GE isn't it. If you don't like it, go find another forum that doesn't have an abuse button.
Complaining about a FReeper using the abuse button is as silly as complaining that they use FReepmail to ping friends to a thread.
"I don't see the desktop connection that you claim, but go ahead and expain it. And when you're finished explaining how they leveraged the desktop to win the email server platform...tell me why they aren't winning the firewall/proxy war."
Outlook is not available for UNIX desktop clients. Even Outlook Web Access isn't full featured on anything other than IE. It's embrace and extend again... the Outlook functionality can only be fully used on Windows.
Firewalls and proxies meanwhile are standards based. If Microsoft tried to do with TCP/IP what they do with app protocols, it just wouldn't work.
Is it too hard to admit that they provide good products at a good value for their user base? There must harbor some deep resentment for M$ in order to pull off that type of twisted logic.
Actually you're right I didn't read your thread. However, when one spouts off saying the admin mod corrected your behavior generally tells me that we have a whiner and cry-baby in the house.
Yeah, but the funny thing is you got scolded by the admin mod too. So we have the pot calling the kettle black.
But I'll ignore your posts from here on out (or at least try to resist the urge to respond) as I don't want to get in a heated discussion to have someone pull the "abuse" button on me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.