|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
People please take this off forum. I am getting tired of deleting these off
topic posts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "countachl" <countachl@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:26 PM
Subject: OT: MS Innovation [was: Cost of in-house trading software
development
> 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.
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
|