|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Jen, your knowledge of PC history is impressive, but selective. Everyone
now knows that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox. But then Microsoft stole it
from Apple (well, they licensed it, then stole it. Remember the look-and-feel
suit in the '90's?). The Windows we know and love came from Windows 3.0
(1989). Versions 1.0 (1983) and 2.0 were dogs - DOS-style black-and-white,
with *non-overlapping* windows. And version 3.0 was originally a joint
project with IBM. That's innovation ?
As for the Tablet PC, this is not innovative either. Fujitsu has been selling
sophisticated tablets for years. No, they are not the equal to laptops, but this
has been a niche market - warehouses, construction, data collection, etc.
Now that the populace is PC-savvy, and mobile processors are very fast,
and hi-resolution LCDs are cheap, and people have gotten to like portable
PDAs, a true PC tablet can be put together for a reasonable cost. And why
does Microsoft lead the effort ? Because THEY HAVE THE Operating
System MONOPOLY ! And billions of dollars.
For extensive analysis of Microsoft's 'innovation', see
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml
You can also read enlightening court documents from Microsoft's suit against
Lindows at:
http://info.lindows.com/lindows/
Earlier this year the judge in this case ruled that Microsoft could not copyright
"Windows". In fact they didn't even register "windows" with the USPTO
until 1990 ! (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24093.html)
That tells me that they didn't even think they had a viable product until
Windows 3.0
Don't get me wrong - I like Windows (but then I know how to live with it).
It is wonderful to have a solid, stable, almost trouble-free OS in Windows 2000.
But it's been almost 20 years to get here ! ! !
donc
>
>
> Subject: Re: Cost of in-house trading software development
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:21:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: Calandra Sikes <jen450us@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Kent,
>
> Precisley my point. Microsoft has always looked for
> ideas that sold well somewhere else then implemented
> them on the PC. In "overcrowded markets" that are
> active and have players. Trying to establish a market
> is a lot more risky and usual death wish.
>
> I don't know how you can say they don't innovate
> though. From their Windows platform, to their
> software features, to their implementation inside the
> software, to the features and adaptation to windows,
> to their keybaords and mouses with the little scroll
> wheel, to their megalithic .net development platform.
> They're all innovative new products for the pc world.
>
> You obviously hate MSFT and have a thing against them.
> But they do innovate. Do you think Apple innovates?
> Mac was a rip off from Xerox but it added stuff and
> introduced the retail world to a windows platform.
> Yet everyone says Apple innovates. True innovation as
> it sounds like you define it doesn't come along every
> day. And innovation costs BIG $$$. Innovation by
> your definition equates to R&D and huge risk. Taking
> smaller perhaps well tested ideas and making them into
> something big is not a bad way to build software
> though people who hate you will always criticize no
> matter what. Espically is you're succesfull.
>
> And as for MSFT building some of the best software --
> they do. They do it better than anyone else in
> Windows. I love MSFT software and I've tried the
> others. The other crud that's out there with their
> layers nad layers of toolbars, and menus and windows
> in confusing at best and unworkable at worst. MSFT
> software isn't perfect, but it's better than most
> other stuff.
>
> And what about all the digital pad stuff coming out of
> MSFT. That's all new stuff that MSFT is designin
> virtually from scracth. So they do innovate A LOT.
>
> So people need to drop the old ideas spread by
> netscape and Sun lovers and start seeing things for
> the way things are.
>
> Microsoft out builds, out designs, out innovates and
> out performs the competition. They can out last the
> competition because they build great sofwtware that
> people respond to and are willing to pay up for.
> Corporatins wouldn't buy itif it didn't work or help
> them. MSFT spends millions every year making sure
> they build software that people can use. They are
> spending more on RD now than any other time in their
> history. What more evidence do you want?
>
> Their software isn't perfect but no software is. MSFT
> has cotninued to build on their success in version
> after version and steadily taken marketshare because
> their products not only equals the competition does
> but they do it better in mosat cases.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|