Are Customers Microsoft's Number 1 Priority?

[Dave Keighan]

Hi YAG

> Actually, we do this regularly - we ask people to come in (or we go to
> them) and either:
[...]
Actually and in retrospect, suggesting a usability study to MS?? Yea, that
was a bright moment - my kids will find this on Google in 10 years, laugh
and poke fun at me. Every once in a while I come out of "lurk", things like
this help me get perspective and it gives the guru's a giggle - good thing
no one got hurt

Thanx for the response and the link ... reading.

--
Dave Keighan

[Yair Alan Griver [MSFT]]

Feel free to come out and give a giggle - or a swift kick - anytime... <g>

yag

"Dave Keighan" <dkeighan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91A5E43B116CBkeighandhotmailcom@209.1.14.29...
> Hi YAG
>
> > Actually, we do this regularly - we ask people to come in (or we go to
> > them) and either:
> [...]
> Actually and in retrospect, suggesting a usability study to MS?? Yea, that
> was a bright moment - my kids will find this on Google in 10 years, laugh
> and poke fun at me. Every once in a while I come out of "lurk", things
like
> this help me get perspective and it gives the guru's a giggle - good thing
> no one got hurt
>
> Thanx for the response and the link ... reading.
>
> --
> Dave Keighan

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:03:39 -0800, "Yair Alan Griver [MSFT]"
<yag@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Feel free to come out and give a giggle - or a swift kick - anytime... <g>

Don't tempt me!

MM

[Mark Hurd]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c55aa5f.1144502@news.devx.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:09:27 +1030, "Mark Hurd"
> <markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3c4c7c6f.38322075@news.devx.com...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:09:16 +1030, "Mark Hurd"
> >> <markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Many (or at least two) of Microsoft's competition is too obsessed with
> >beating
> >> >Microsoft.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh? And do they have Conclusions in Law against them as well?
> >>
> >> MM
> >
> >No they helped bankroll the plaintiffs.
>
> So they DIDN'T have any Conclusions in Law against them! Could that be
> because they hadn't been found guilty of monopolistic practices? Well,
> I never! Now, think of a company that begins with M and ends with t
> where this actually was the case I think we can both agree that
> Microsoft's competitors are models of equitable business practice by
> comparison.
>
> MM

I suppose my position is that the above result was fairly US-specific, and
IMHO Microsoft has helped the industry, and me, more than hurt.

And it is getting better too:

1986 (+/- a couple of years): A leading hardware & O/S provider for a major
share of the market (majority? of Unix boxes) dropped the C compiler from the
standard package.
(This did have the good side-effect of giving open source and GNU a push
along.)

2002: A leading O/S provider for a major share of the market offers C/C++,
VB.NET and C# compilers for no more cost than the O/S itself.
(I hope they push this point, strongly!)

The joke around the time of the first event was that the next version of the
system "unbundled" the Enter key!

Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)

[Jay Glynn]

Mark,

>
> Consider the homeowner analogy.
>
> - How many homeowners replace the faucet washer without wanting to
become
> plumbers?

But while my head is under the sink I am a plumber.


> - How many homeowners attach a bookshelf to the wall without wanting to
> become carpenters?
>

As each shelf goes up I am a carpenter

> - How many homeowners shovel snow off the driveway without wanting to
> become materials-handling engineers?

We don't have much snow down south, but the point remains the same.

As I am doing the plumbing or hammering or shoveling I have to know (to a
certain level) the same things that the professional plumber or carpenter
does. I have to know how to cut a piece of wood straight, how to measure the
length properly, etc etc. During the process I am a plumber and I am a
carpenter. I've been restoring a house over the last year and during that
year I have been a landscaper, painter, plumber, carpenter, brick mason and
tile layer. When someone writes a piece of code whether it's VB or a Word
macro or whatever, then during that process they are a programmer. They may
not be professional programmers, and probably are not very good at it, but
they are programming, therefore they are programmers.

[Rob Teixeira]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>
>Ah! Wake up call! This is the problem, and I'm glad you've recognised
>it at last! "there's no tool that will help with that", you say. Can
>you see the problem now?
>
>I paraphrase: There. Is. No. Tool. For. People. Who. Can't. Program.
>At. All.
>
>Why not?
>
>Yes, why NOT?

You are absolutely right. Thank you for falling into my line of thinking
(finally)!
If someone can't program, *** is VB (a *PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE*) going to do
for them!?
They need a tool, an *APPLICATION*, not a *programming language*... because
THEY DON'T PROGRAM!

Go look at something like SoftCircuits instead.

And PS, this thread has nothing to do with IQ, whatever that ramble was all
about.

-Rob

[Mike Mitchell]

On 30 Jan 2002 07:24:24 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
wrote:

>You are absolutely right. Thank you for falling into my line of thinking
>(finally)!
>If someone can't program, *** is VB (a *PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE*) going to do
>for them!?
>They need a tool, an *APPLICATION*, not a *programming language*... because
>THEY DON'T PROGRAM!

Great! Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, an application. Mind you, I
believe that VB is first and foremost an application, but okay, I'm
not one to split hairs.

But not just any old application -- please not! We have applications
galore, and they are just the same, boring button clicks and combo
drop downs, yuk! What I'm envisaging here is a huge dollop of AI,
wrapped up in an interface that can be spoken to, shouted at, gestured
at, that will ask questions for feedback, and also elicit commands
and/or responses via that old-fashioned crazy rodent, the mouse, if
the AI smarts aren't refined enough to get input any other way.

Such an application wouldn't really be an application in the
old-fashioned sense (i.e. now), but much more "the" OS, or "the"
computer -- something that is there from boot-strap to shutdown with
lots of 24/7 in between, and of course, it would never crash or be
infected with a virus. In fact, shutdown could be seen as the
equivalent of death in a human.

So, instead of programmers (The Closed Shop) sitting down for weeks,
months, years, typing in the same old, same old, we would have the
ability to churn out programs on a whim. Ten apps before lunch, then
throw them away in the afternoon, their jobs done. All the grunt work
being done by the computer, based on standard computing models which
any user could buy like a phone card from a news vendor, and then
modify to his heart's content. And always the
computer/application/OS/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would never let
things get out of hand, never have someone purloining your bank
account, never try and get hold of illegal drugs, and so on.

And if it cannot be done by computer, why not clone the very best
programmers, then dissect the brains of the clones until we find out
what and where the smarts are stored, or whether there are any at all.
Clones can't feel pain, can they? Obviously we wouldn't hurt the
originals -- they are all priceless, naturally. Still bluesky at the
moment, sure, but who's to say what will be round the next corner over
the next fifty years, especially when you recognise that the world is
run by corporate greed?

MM

[Rob Teixeira]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>
>Great! Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, an application. Mind you, I
>believe that VB is first and foremost an application, but okay, I'm
>not one to split hairs.

Sorry dude, but this is significant. VB's IDE was just a pretty front-end
to a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, which goes right back to what I was saying earlier
- that VB makes programming *easier*, but it is not the cure-all for people
who can't program - because, after all, it is a *programming language*.

>But not just any old application -- please not! We have applications
>galore, and they are just the same, boring button clicks and combo
>drop downs, yuk! What I'm envisaging here is a huge dollop of AI,
>wrapped up in an interface that can be spoken to, shouted at, gestured
>at, that will ask questions for feedback, and also elicit commands
>and/or responses via that old-fashioned crazy rodent, the mouse, if
>the AI smarts aren't refined enough to get input any other way.

That's a grand notion, and sure, it'd be great - but it *ain't* VB.
So far, nobody has the Enterprise's computer in their living room, and I'm
guessing it'll be a LONG time before someone could afford one anyway. In
the meantime, go look at Softcircuits like i told you.

>Such an application wouldn't really be an application in the
>old-fashioned sense (i.e. now), but much more "the" OS, or "the"
>computer -- something that is there from boot-strap to shutdown with
>lots of 24/7 in between, and of course, it would never crash or be
>infected with a virus. In fact, shutdown could be seen as the
>equivalent of death in a human.

So, it's evil to bundle software, particularly web browsers, with the OS,
because that would make you an evil monopoly, but somehow incorporating an
extremely complex, artificial AI, dummy-proof development environment in
the OS is fine?

And never crash or be infected with a virus? Well, that ain't VB (particularly
1-6) either.
At least with VB.NET, you can digitally sign/hash the code which the loader
then uses to confirm the contents haven't been changed.

>So, instead of programmers (The Closed Shop) sitting down for weeks,
>months, years, typing in the same old, same old, we would have the
>ability to churn out programs on a whim. Ten apps before lunch, then
>throw them away in the afternoon, their jobs done. All the grunt work
>being done by the computer, based on standard computing models which
>any user could buy like a phone card from a news vendor, and then
>modify to his heart's content. And always the
>computer/application/OS/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would never let
>things get out of hand, never have someone purloining your bank
>account, never try and get hold of illegal drugs, and so on.

Grand utopia. Go build it.
But what you're ignoring, is the fact that this has been the holy grail of
computing for decades. Why isn't here? Well, aside from the obviously monstrous
hardware it would take to run such a beast (and you thought the .NET runtime
was big...), the fact is that you have a law of conservation in effect: The
easier you make it, the more generic you make it. More ease = less flexibility,
which can in turn, result in less power. If it were possible to run all systems
with some generic generated code, don't you think companies would be doing
it by now? The fact is that a lot of systems that claim to be able to generate
this utopian code falls short - hence, programmers are still needed. It'd
be great if all your plumbing could fix itself too, but until it does, some
jobs are just going to require a plumber.

>And if it cannot be done by computer, why not clone the very best
>programmers, then dissect the brains of the clones until we find out
>what and where the smarts are stored, or whether there are any at all.

Uh.. 'cause half the population thinks cloning is evil? And even if it were
possible (both physically and morally), you'd be in for quite the Nobel prize
if you had a thought scanning device that nobody's heard of yet.

>Clones can't feel pain, can they?

Go pinch Dolly and see if she bleats.

>Obviously we wouldn't hurt the
>originals -- they are all priceless, naturally.

You're stepping on moral ground here.

>Still bluesky at the
>moment, sure, but who's to say what will be round the next corner over
>the next fifty years,

Bluesky? How about just plain weird?
Anyway, it has nothing to do with VB, which was my point to begin with.

>especially when you recognise that the world is
>run by corporate greed?

Would you prefer socialist greed?

-Rob

[W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3c57fc46$1@10.1.10.29>,
"Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> writes:

> Mark,

> > Consider the homeowner analogy.

> > - How many homeowners replace the faucet washer without wanting
> > to become plumbers?

> But while my head is under the sink I am a plumber.

Not unless you have the requisite education, training and (in most
parts of the US, UK, and Canada) license. In fact, the act of declaring
yourself to be a plumber without the mandated qualifications is enough
to subject yourself to legal proceedings - even arrest, fines, and/or
imprisonment. Especially when you are so obviously ignorant of even the
basics (you generally do not put your head under the sink to replace a
faucet washer). At most, you are a handyman under those circumstances.

A plumber is not just a person who fixes faucets and the like. A
plumber is required to have extensive knowledge of relevant principles,
materials and techniques as well as relevant building codes and
commercial law. And to have demonstrated specific relevant skills.

Here you reveal once again the central flaw in the position taken by
certain of the pro-.NET posters here: You are basing the argument on
the indefensible fallacy that there is no difference between a trade/
profession/career and even the most trivial activity associated with
that t/p/c. Without that preposterous fiction of yours, your entire
argument falls apart.

The fact that you attempt to raise that unwarranted claim of
professional equivalence - repeatedly - in attempted defense of your
central theme speaks volumes about the irrationality of that theme.
And the proponents thereof.

[...]

> As I am doing the plumbing or hammering or shoveling I have to know
> (to a certain level) the same things that the professional plumber
> or carpenter does.

Only a relatively trivial functional subset. Chances are that you
don't know a thing about flow dynamics, tensile strength, or even
building codes - or the other things which differentiate the skilled
tradesmen in question from a homeowner with a few tools and a how-to
book or two.

> During the process I am a plumber and I am a carpenter.

No, you are just a person somewhat ignorantly engaging in some of
the activities associated with plumbers or carpenters.

> I've been restoring a house over the last year and during that
> year I have been a landscaper, painter, plumber, carpenter, brick
> mason and tile layer.

Are you sure that your local authorities would see it that way? Why
don't we notify them of your public claim to be a plumber and see
what they have to say? Are they willing to accept your judgment - as
a plumber - about the extent to which your water and sewage piping
meets current codes? Are you even certain that you have acquired the
requisite permits, inspections, etc.? It would be a shame to see you
ordered to tear out much of that work (as has happened to a number of
people like you) just because it doesn't meet some standard or
certification of which you were not aware.

> When someone writes a piece of code whether it's VB or a Word
> macro or whatever, then during that process they are a programmer.

By that standard, when someone adds two numbers together that person
is a mathematician. And when you wrote those sentences you were a
novelist. And when I removed a splinter I was a surgeon. And the last
time you had sex you were both(?) prostitutes. And other such blatant
nonsense. If you really want to arrogate such undeserved titles to
yourself, that is between you and your local authorities. But when you
try to inappropriately apply those labels to other people, and then base
other claims on such labels, you do nothing but debase your own
position and degrade the language.

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Rob Teixeira]

"W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>By that standard, when someone adds two numbers together that person
>is a mathematician.

If the shoe fits...

>And when you wrote those sentences you were a
>novelist.

Not unless these sentances were part of a novel.

>And the last time you had sex you were both(?) prostitutes.

Was there money involved?

>And other such blatant nonsense.

Exactly my point.

>If you really want to arrogate such undeserved titles to
>yourself,

Kinda like... Nah, that would be too easy.


Anyway, all this crap to defend your use of the word "non-programmer", when
what you really mean is someone who isn't proficient enough to code his/her
way out of a paper bag.
Whatever.

-Rob

[Bob]

In article <3c584a64$1@10.1.10.29>, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
says...
>
> "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >By that standard, when someone adds two numbers together that person
> >is a mathematician.
>
> If the shoe fits...
>
> >And when you wrote those sentences you were a
> >novelist.
>
> Not unless these sentances were part of a novel.
>
> >And the last time you had sex you were both(?) prostitutes.
>
> Was there money involved?
>
> >And other such blatant nonsense.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> >If you really want to arrogate such undeserved titles to
> >yourself,
>
> Kinda like... Nah, that would be too easy.
>
>

Rob,

Remember what Phd stands for and it will all make perfect sense.

Bob

[Kunle Odutola]

> Remember what Phd stands for and it will all make perfect sense.

Yeah, bs, ph & d too!!

Kunle

[Rob Teixeira]

I have no problem whatsoever with people who don't program professionally,
and only write the occassional code to do some specific task. Having accomplished
a piece of programming, means you were able to solve a programming program
using a programming solution. Yes, that alone doesn't make you a professional
programmer, but you did it. I tip my hat. You have my respect.

However, someone who can't program, can't program. That is a function of
their aptitude and willingness to follow through, not a function of what
their programming employment status is.

-Rob


Mark Jerde <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>I assert that the example I wrote up, "CD data -> MS Word macros ->
>PageMaker" is an example of, if you will, "programming within the confines
of
>a paper bag." It's not for global distribution, no one else other than
me
>will ever run it, but it allows me more productivity in this narrow, specific

>area than a Pentium-1GHz has over an 80486/33MHz (and I own one of each
so I
>know). Who are you to decree that "programming in a paper bag" is an invalid

>use of computers? Remember what the "P" in "PC" stands for?
>
> -- Mark
>
>

[Mark Jerde]

Jay,

> When someone writes a piece of code whether it's VB or a Word
> macro or whatever, then during that process they are a programmer.

... but he or she may not feel that way.

Tell me, is "Joe Six-Pack" also a programmer because he looks up the
number for "Baywatch" in TV Guide and punches it in his VCR remote?

-- Mark

[Mark Jerde]

PhD,

> And since you sometimes wear that "programmers hat" some of the "all
> or nothing" crowd will declare that you are an example of their "people
> who ever write programs are programmers" position, instead of
> recognizing your point.

I thought my examples were too clear for that to happen, but ... <g>

-- Mark