MS, AT&T, IBM


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 115

Thread: MS, AT&T, IBM

  1. #1
    Mark Jerde Guest

    MS, AT&T, IBM

    I was born before 1960 and was young when the IBM and AT&T
    monopolies were broken. I was at a biometrics standards meeting
    today and one of the informal pre-meeting discussions was on MS
    v IBM v AT&T. One viewpoint was:

    "IBM, AT&T & MS were all monopolies, but IBM and AT&T were at
    least interested in their customers."
    - The mainframe computer may have been expensive, but when
    there was a problem, IBM had technicians coming in by parachute.
    - The phone may have been expensive, but AT&T would get you a
    dial tone.
    - MS, on the other hand, ....



    I admit it. I worked long and hard to master VB Classic
    (versions 2-6), COM, DCOM, VC++6, & ATL. I wrote "niche"
    software that was successfully deployed worldwide. I resent
    that MS, by fiat, has obsoleted my hard-won knowledge. I agree
    that eventually .NET will benefit me as a software developer,
    but I also believe that *MY* benefit of .NET dominance is
    0.000004% of the benefit of MS's .NET dominance. That is to
    say, my impression is that MS went with .NET because it benefits
    MS, not their users or developers.

    My (argumentative ;-) viewpoint is this:
    "Microsoft is a functional monopoly. They are abusing their
    monopoly. They are acting as a non-benevolent monarchy."

    My question is:
    "Is Microsoft qualified to lead us into the 'Promised Land'?"

    Personal option for argument's sake: Had MS given a d*mn about
    their customers they'd have gone with Java and J2EE rather than
    creating functionally identical but incompatible strategies.

    Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten behind Java
    & J2EE? Where would computing be today?)

    -- Mark



  2. #2
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.00000059.01a6443e@spicedhamverizon.net...

    > Personal option for argument's sake: Had MS given a d*mn about
    > their customers they'd have gone with Java and J2EE rather than
    > creating functionally identical but incompatible strategies.


    As I understand it, MS did try to go with Java (even if only to protect
    itself). Sun's absolute autocracy was [not suprisingly] unacceptable to the
    company that had worked hard for years to win the biggest slice of the pie.
    MS felt it could do better and many now believe it has.

    > Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten behind Java
    > & J2EE? Where would computing be today?)


    Sun must be kicking itself (in some manner). ;-)

    I'm just glad that the additional competition is likely to spur both sides
    to produce ever better tools/products.....

    Kunle



  3. #3
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    > That is to say, my impression is that MS went
    > with .NET because it benefits
    > MS, not their users or developers.


    <snip>

    > "Is Microsoft qualified to lead us into the 'Promised Land'?"



    For example, MS claims that there are approximately
    543,569,334,892,034,994,406,781
    PestPort subscribers. My question is, how may are *willing*
    subscribers? I'm a subscriber, because at a former job the
    employer provided MSDN Universal Subscriptions, and the only way to
    access the MSDN site was to have a PestPort subscription. I'm a
    subscriber, but d*mnit, they had a gun pointed at my head!
    PestPort or no access -- some choice! "No, boss, I didn't download
    the update because I didn't want to get a Microsoft Passport
    account." Yeah, right. Bye!


    Please don't get me wrong. I am not "Anti-MS" just to be
    "Anti-MS". Repeat: I am not "Anti-MS" just to be "Anti-MS"!
    On the contrary -- I have often used MS as an example of what a
    determined group of people can do. (Remember when the press was MS
    had missed the internet?) I just wish MS would concentrate on
    their core competentencies and form partnerships with all the rest!


    For example, I believe that MS has conclusively demonstrated time
    after time after time after time after time after time AFTER TIME
    AFTER TIME AFTER TIME!!!!! .... that they *cannot* handle
    security issues. I'd almost rather post my Visa # on my web site
    in clear code as to put it in MS PestPort and assume it will stay
    confidential ever and anon! Since they choose to not work well
    with other industry leaders, they damage their creditability in
    their other areas, areas where they are clearly dominant and
    world-leading. "If they insist that their crap security is
    excellent, which is clearly isn't, why should I believe the claims
    on the rest of the products?"


    "Please, MS, realize your place in the
    cosmos, and GET ALONG with the others
    that are expert in areas you are not!"

    This is my viewpoint; this is my plea. Convince me otherwise.

    -- Mark



  4. #4
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Kunle,

    > As I understand it, MS did try to go with Java (even if only to protect
    > itself). Sun's absolute autocracy was [not suprisingly] unacceptable to the
    > company that had worked hard for years to win the biggest slice of the pie.
    > MS felt it could do better and many now believe it has.


    I don't want to excuse Sun -- for all I know, they're as cutthroat as anyone
    else. But let me tell you personal experience.... <g>

    Many years ago I helped put together the (as far as we know) the world's
    first client/server 100% commercial-off-the-shelf fingerprint matching
    system. (Grabs diary off the bookshelf to look up dates.) The first
    successful test was in San Diego, California, November 7, 1991. That pilot
    had 8 PCs connected to 3 engineering workstations. One of the three
    workstations was a Sun SparcStation2 running the Informix database. The
    second was a Sun SS2 running fingerprint matching. The 3rd workstation was
    an HP-720 (one of the VERY first off the line ;-) running fingerprint minutia
    extraction. (We played the political card to get the HP-720 running on a
    U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service project ;-)

    This project was a complete BEAR to get working. At one point I grabbed a
    SS2 from my office in Washington, DC, and went to the PC framegrabber
    manufacturer in Indianopolis, IN. (Targa) I was met there in Indiana by a
    developer of the PC software from a California company. (Compile time for
    each Microsoft C++7.0 compile/run: At least 7 minutes!!!!!) We were there
    about 2.5 days. The Win3.x PC crashed & crashed & crashed. The Sun SS2
    workstation, running ALL THREE FUNCTIONS (!!!!!!) (Informix, matching, &
    extraction) stayed up the entire time. Not a single hiccup! Not a single
    problem.

    Fast forward to 2001. I'm a partner in a biometrics consulting firm:
    http://www.idtechpartners.com
    A partner and I travel to another country to assess a biometrics
    implementation. The client is running an important ID system. The "guts" of
    the system is running on two separate Sun multiple-processor computers
    running Oracle. The client also has fingerprint matching running on a
    4-processor Compaq WinNT 4.0 computer, as the vendor of the particular
    fingerprint matching system runs only on WinTel.
    - The Sun Oracle computers never never NEVER have problems.
    - The NT 4.0 computer has problems. Blue Screen-of-Death, etc.


    I worked on DEC PDP languages in the 1970's. I worked on SCO Unix, HP-UX,
    Sun-OX, and Windows in the 1980's & 1990's. I worked on *.nix and Windows in
    the 2000's. IMHO:
    - Windows is very appropriate "for UI & 'The Masses'".
    - *nix is appropriate for essential data.
    - Windows and *nix can work & play well together when egos are set aside
    ;-)

    Why can't we all get along? <g>

    -- Mark



  5. #5
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    > I worked on DEC PDP languages in the 1970's. I worked on SCO Unix, HP-UX,
    > Sun-OX, and Windows in the 1980's & 1990's. I worked on *.nix and Windows in
    > the 2000's. IMHO:
    > - Windows is very appropriate "for UI & 'The Masses'".
    > - *nix is appropriate for essential data.
    > - Windows and *nix can work & play well together when egos are set aside
    > ;-)
    >
    > Why can't we all get along? <g>


    I am over 40 years of age. I would (and do) trust Sun/Oracle for my medication
    tracking needs. I don't trust DOS / Win3.x / MSAccess / Win9x. ".NET Uber
    Alles" is *NOT* where I want to go today.

    Does MS understand that when I go to the grocery store I don't want to by Ford
    Coffee and Ford Instant Mashed Potatoes and Ford Bread and Ford Tomato Soup and
    Ford Milk and Ford Cherry Ice Cream and Ford Eggs and Ford Ham and Ford Doritos
    and Ford Coca-Cola? I don't want "One grocery store under Ford" and I don't
    want "One computer system under Microsoft." IMHO MS should concentrate on its
    strengths rather than persuing its demonstrated "mediocrity everywhere"
    strategy.

    -- Mark



  6. #6
    David A. Rothgery Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Mark Jerde <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:
    > For example, MS claims that there are approximately
    > 543,569,334,892,034,994,406,781
    > PestPort subscribers.


    And I'm two of them (not that I have a problem with this).

    --
    Dave Rothgery
    Picking nits since 1976
    drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
    http://drothgery.editthispage.com

  7. #7
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    P.S.

    > IMHO MS should concentrate on its strengths


    Do you want to be sitting in seat 16E, 1/2 way down the runway,
    doing 115 knots, and hear the airline captain come on the
    intercom, "We are running MS WinME to control the ailerons,
    rudder, elevators, & engines ... " ???

    -- Mark



  8. #8
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    David,

    > I'm two of them (not that I have a problem with this).


    So you trust MS with your private info? (Not that I have a
    problem with that... ;-)

    -- Mark



  9. #9
    Who Cares? Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.00000059.01a6443e@spicedhamverizon.net...
    >
    > Personal option for argument's sake: Had MS given a d*mn about
    > their customers they'd have gone with Java and J2EE rather than
    > creating functionally identical but incompatible strategies.



    That's how I see it. MS has proven that they're
    willing to "do anything to win", including the
    sacrifice of some of their own customers
    and developers.







  10. #10
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.0000005b.01fc972b@spicedhamverizon.net...

    > Kunle,


    Hey Mark,

    > The Win3.x PC crashed & crashed & crashed. The Sun SS2
    > workstation, running ALL THREE FUNCTIONS (!!!!!!) (Informix, matching, &
    > extraction) stayed up the entire time. Not a single hiccup! Not a single
    > problem.


    Windows 3.x was *definitely* not suitable for mission critical , server
    processes.
    Of course, it wasn't aimed at that market either....

    > - The Sun Oracle computers never never NEVER have problems.
    > - The NT 4.0 computer has problems. Blue Screen-of-Death, etc.


    While NT had it's own problems (not aided by funky SPs), my experience is
    different to yours. It stood up to 24x7 pretty well. Win2K is even better. I
    have no qualms with Un*x (Solaris/Linux/SCO/HP-UX) either. Except on the
    price and poorer dev tools. Kudos to FSF/GNU....

    > I worked on DEC PDP languages in the 1970's. I worked on SCO Unix, HP-UX,
    > Sun-OX, and Windows in the 1980's & 1990's. I worked on *.nix and Windows

    in
    > the 2000's. IMHO:
    > - Windows is very appropriate "for UI & 'The Masses'".
    > - *nix is appropriate for essential data.
    > - Windows and *nix can work & play well together when egos are set

    aside
    > ;-)


    IMO, Windows 2000/XP competes favourably with Un*xes on the desktop and
    servers. As a server OS, it stacks up as well - compare Un*x and Windows on
    the same hardware and you'll get my drift. Once again though, hardware
    scalability is an issue because Un*x runs on vastly more hardware than
    Windows especially those high-end Un*x servers that can take more than 32
    CPUs. Fortunately (for MS), most situations/solutions do not need (or
    benefit from) that kind of horse-power in a single box, especially when you
    consider the prices.

    Kunle




  11. #11
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.0000005c.02223d5d@spicedhamverizon.net...

    > I am over 40 years of age. I would (and do) trust Sun/Oracle for my

    medication
    > tracking needs. I don't trust DOS / Win3.x / MSAccess / Win9x.


    DOS? Win 3.x? Win9x? In 2002?

    I guess you still using SunOS and Oracle 6 right?

    Kunle



  12. #12
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.0000005d.02314353@spicedhamverizon.net...
    > P.S.
    >
    > > IMHO MS should concentrate on its strengths

    >
    > Do you want to be sitting in seat 16E, 1/2 way down the runway,
    > doing 115 knots, and hear the airline captain come on the
    > intercom, "We are running MS WinME to control the ailerons,
    > rudder, elevators, & engines ... " ???


    Nope. Isn't that WinCE's job. Win9x/Me wasn't made for that you know,
    neither was Solaris or Oracle.....

    Kunle



  13. #13
    David A. Rothgery Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Mark Jerde <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:
    > David,
    >
    > > I'm two of them (not that I have a problem with this).

    >
    > So you trust MS with your private info? (Not that I have a
    > problem with that... ;-)


    The information that's associated with my Passport is either
    1) convenientally available to anyone with a phone book OR
    2) things that only Microsoft has any use for (like the ID# for my MSDN
    subscription)

    --
    Dave Rothgery
    Picking nits since 1976
    drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
    http://drothgery.editthispage.com

  14. #14
    MarkN Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:
    > > Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten
    > > behind Java & J2EE? Where would computing be today?)

    >
    >Mark: I believe MS tried that with Visual J++, arguably the best Java
    >implementation for Windows at the time, and Sun shot them down.


    Not defending Sun, but I don't think (conjecture) that MS's purpose was to
    get behind Java ('tried') as it was to keep developers tied to them and Windows
    - a really good preventative measure.

    >I wonder if
    >we would even have .NET today if Sun had been willing to compete, rather
    >than go running to the courts?



    Nope. As I gaze into my crystal ball I see we would have WindowsJava and
    Java. Now I see my grandfather and he is angry ... oops, forgot to put flowers
    ... gotta go!

  15. #15
    MarkN Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    Mark Jerde <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:
    >Phil,
    >
    >> I believe MS tried that with Visual J++, arguably the best Java
    >> implementation for Windows at the time, and Sun shot them down. I wonder

    if
    >> we would even have .NET today if Sun had been willing to compete, rather
    >> than go running to the courts?

    >
    >I think we discussed this awhile ago... ;-) That whole situation could

    have
    >gone much better for users...
    >
    >Hey, as long as I'm dreaming, what if MS & IBM had finished OS2 together?


    >For the time it seemed to be a pretty good OS.
    >
    > -- Mark
    >
    >


    It was and still is. We still have it running on some machines and it just
    works. Try that with Win 3/9x/NT. Yeah, they are history and W2K is much
    more reliable. But so is OS2 - reliable and history.

    The technology graveyard is full of many tools/technologies that were(and
    maybe still are) much better than their surviving [existing] counterparts.
    And considering that, since .Net is so much better than anything else, beware!



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center