backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by mars777.. on Oct 6 at 3:21 PM

Ballmer speaks on Internet advertising, the economy, mobile phones and more

It's odd to hear the Microsoft juggernaut describe itself as the David to anyone's Goliath. Yet that is exactly what Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said to BBC News.

Ballmer was interviewed by BBC News and talked openly about Microsoft, the economy, and the firms search goals. Speaking on internet advertising Ballmer said, "Do I wish we'd started the investment in search a few years earlier? Yes. We may be the David up against Goliath but we're working on it."

According to Ballmer, the big concern for Microsoft is the lead that Google has built in the online advertising market. Microsoft still plans to challenge Google in the advertising and search arenas, even after the much ballyhooed and publicized failed talks of purchasing Yahoo.

Ballmer sounded more like the Microsoft most are used to when speaking about rival Smartphone operating systems. He stated, "You've got to remember Android is version one....and it looks like version one. They've got one handset maker, we've got 55. They're available through one operator, we've got 175."

Ballmer maintains that Microsoft will hold other mobile operating systems at bay and remarked that open-source is not the most attractive solution to phone manufacturers. The open source operating system Ballmer was referring to was Google's recently released Android OS.

Google has said that it went open source with its OS to allow phone makers and mobile carriers to change Android to their needs. Google is much more interested in opening new advertising mediums on Internet enabled mobile phones than charging phone makers for using Android.

When asked about the maligned Vista operating system Ballmer said, "With their Windows PCs people have what I would call a love/hate relationship. There are things they'd like us to do better but if you asked them if they loved what they're able to do with their PC, I think they'd say 'Yes'."

Ballmer says that Vista has been Microsoft's most popular operating system to date.

Speaking about the economy in the U.S., Ballmer stated, "I don't think there's any confusion in Washington that they need to make smart choices to help the US economy." Ballmer warned that the poor economy could impact technology spending.

Many of the largest computer makers including Dell have already announced that the slow economy led to the inability to meet Wall Street profit projections. HP still maintains that it will be able to hit projections for the quarter. Retail stalwart Best Buy was also unable to meet projections for the quarter. When the computer market that relies on Windows products for the vast majority of their computers sees slowing sales, it makes sense that Microsoft would see sales lag as well.

One could see slowing sales of Microsoft's Vista operating system on the back of slowing overall PC sales as a reason Microsoft recently relaxed the requirements for using Windows XP on netbook computers. The netbook segment is surging thanks to the lower average cost for a netbook compared to a traditional notebook. Many netbook computers run Windows XP and expanding the amount of systems that can use XP would be a benefit to Microsoft in a sluggish economy.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Advertising
By chmilz on 10/2/2008 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 4
I like Microsoft, but I think they should stay out of anything advertising related... they're just not any stinking good at it.




RE: Advertising
By silversound on 10/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Advertising
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2008 3:14:20 PM , Rating: 5
Windows 7 is a retuned Vista man. Get off it. Vista is a good OS. A bit memory hungry, but a good OS.


RE: Advertising
By AnnihilatorX on 10/2/2008 3:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Vista isn't that bad. It's just not that revolutionary to the users (not really the case technically, like new driver model) when they compare the switch from ME to XP, and XP to Vista.


RE: Advertising
By chmilz on 10/2/2008 4:04:22 PM , Rating: 5
Oops, forgot the article had the word "Vista" in it, and didn't do the symbolic let's-get-this-out-of-the-way post:

1: Vista sux
2: Have you even used it? Vista is good
1: I pwns joo
2: Great, another useless a$$hat that spews uninformed blather
1: Your mom...
2: No wonder Macs sell so well, simple computers for simple folks


RE: Advertising
By kristof007 on 10/2/2008 4:12:47 PM , Rating: 5
You forgot:

3:No I use linux and its free and its better than both!


RE: Advertising
By quiksilvr on 10/2/2008 7:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that Linux is definitely on the verge towards being the best operating system out there. However there are a few problems that I feel needs to be addressed:

1) YouTube on Windows runs smooth and watching it in high quality with the h.264 format (just add &fmt=18 at the end of the URL) runs smooth on the browser as well. Ubuntu YouTube is a different story; it chugs at full screen. Ubuntu needs better flash support and hopefully Ubuntu 8.10 will address this issue.

2) I can say with full confidence that Media Player Classic along with the K-Lite Codec pack destroys any video player on Windows, Mac or Ubuntu. Divx, WMVs and even the space hog MOVs run incredibly well (even at 1080p). Ubuntu? They run, but cut down the bitrate to compensate for framerate. Again, Ubuntu needs better drivers for HD playback.

3) An easier way for game support. I know that you can utilize the drivers by typing away in the terminal (that's Linux c-prompt for those that don't know) but it's far from perfect.

I know that if I upgrade my computer alot of these issues will go away but if I can do it now using Windows why not with Linux? Linux is faster, more stable and has better software for alot of the other applications and gives me cool ways to navigate (cube, wiggly windows, multiple and amazing ways to cascade windows), but for video and gaming playback it has a ways to go before I can say "Linux is the only OS I use".


RE: Advertising
By Alexvrb on 10/2/2008 11:57:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Linux is faster, more stable and has better software for alot of the other applications

Faster? You just pointed out multiple speed issues with Ubuntu, and yet its faster. Better software? If it runs on Linux and is open source, who says it can't run on Windows? Chances are, it already does. You can't always say the reverse.

Windows hardly has a problem with software selection or speed. I have some concerns with Vista, but those aren't it, some can be fixed simply by changing a few settings, and the rest will probably be addressed by Windows 7.


RE: Advertising
By Radnor on 10/3/2008 5:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Although there are some issues with linux, witch several are being adressed each version, thus, improved, linux is a much better OS.

Much faster, safer, stable.

What runs in Linux will not run in Windows.
What runs in Windows ussually runs in WINE (Is not a Emulator).

Your post only reveals a bit of ignorance. Try Ubuntu 8.10.
Really. You will be surprised.


RE: Advertising
By B3an on 10/3/2008 8:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
Linux is so great that many many people use it.

Oh wait... no they dont because it's not so great, and no where near as user friendly as Windows. Even the most basic things are usually less simple. Then theres the facts already pointed out, like not being able to do pretty simple things like run youtube and HD videos smoothly.

It has a long way to go before the average computer user would be comfortable with it. And at the rate it's improving i cant see that any time soon.


RE: Advertising
By Nekrik on 10/3/2008 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's been making improvements for over 15 fricken years and they still, as great as an OS it is deemed to be, cannot seem to make any real traction. Hundred's of more distros are out there now (whoopee), and finally one has kinda seperated itself from the pack, but that's all we've really seen. They now seem to have a favorite distro amongst themselves (or at least one that has a decided majority of users). But all this seems to do is confuse college kids and make them wonder why it hasn't replaced all those other shitty OSes in the world


RE: Advertising
By mindless1 on 10/5/2008 11:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no that's all nonsense. Windows is dominant because of the shady deals MS made with OEMs to gain popularity. Popularity, user familiarity, was all that really mattered for an OS to snowball. After that, the world just settled on supporting the winning OS regardless of whether it should've won or not.

The thing you are missing is how much more development there would have been for 'nix OS and apps if the userbase was what windows is now.

Last, the average computer user would be comfortable with anything they can have the equivalent of a start menu on, run the browser, email client, and an office app they are familiar with. To the average person the OS is a distraction, not the central feature.


RE: Advertising
By therealnickdanger on 10/3/2008 12:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(just add &fmt=18 at the end of the URL)

Rather than do that every time, go into your settings (assuming you have a Youtube account) and change your default to high quality video. All videos will be HQ (if available).


RE: Advertising
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2008 6:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that Linux is definitely on the verge towards being the best operating system out there


The best OS that can't run jack shit in terms of app's and games that everyone uses ?


RE: Advertising
By jmurbank on 10/5/2008 6:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
1) It is not Ubuntu's fault. It is mainly Adobe writing the Flash plug-in poorly. It mainly uses X11 to draw objects instead of using OpenGL. Flash video does not use H.264 codec.

2) That is false that with the k-codec pack and Windows Media Player is better than what Linux or Mac has to offer. Linux supports the codecs equally. Pre-compiled distributions do not show what Linux has to offer, so please do not compare Linux using Ubuntu. Since mplayer is supported an 80x86 based Mac can have the same support.

The bit rate does not slow down to handle 1080p content. If you think it is gets low is because your bandwidth does not allow the full bandwidth that 1080p needs, so it reduces video quality. Bit rate is the same.

FYI, there is no HD hardware decoding in Linux that is done in Windows. I doubt Mac OS X have such feature too. nVidia left out XVmc for GeForce8 cards and probably GeForce9 cards. Though Xorg is working on a hardware decoding infrastructure that will be modular to handle video codec and leaving out XVmc.

Quicktime or MOV files are not space hogs. They have different features that makes them for editing compared to AVI and stamps each frame, so video and audio are near perfect. MOV files can contain almost the same video codecs that AVI can use. MOV files does have its data out of order like AVI files, so the media player does not have to create its own ways for syncing.

3) I can strongly say, Linux is the only OS that I use. You have a lot to learn about Linux. Ubuntu just holds you back. It is bash not terminal. Do not have to manually load modules (drivers).

An easier way to do game development is using QT library from TrollTech. It can simplify the tasks to create a program and compile for any OS with out changing the code and having multiple teams for each OS that the developer is supporting. Though SDL makes it harder for game developers to write games because of its limited design, but SFML might be a better alternative.

Sorry went off topic, but there were some misconceptions of Linux that needs to be corrected.


RE: Advertising
By N Aunimus of ECC on 10/4/2008 9:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
nah, linux is probably something best used for priority hardware i.e. psp and mobile software as opposed to something that of an os. I've tried various software and nothing saves me more time than vista in general.


RE: Advertising
By omnicronx on 10/2/2008 4:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
You say this as though you have tested the OS.. Microsoft has actually managed to keep its testers quiet this time around, we have no idea what exactly is in store for windows 7. Basically all they have said is that it will follow the Windows Vista kernel approach and driver model, that does not mean re-tuned Vista. Looking back at Windows XP, Microsoft said the same thing when comparing 2000 to XP, and although similar, I would definitely consider XP the superior all around OS, although I found that W2K was the stability king.


RE: Advertising
By mikefarinha on 10/2/2008 5:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
Yes Microsoft has keept a tight lid on Win7 however there is still quite a bit of info out there. Paul Thurott just published a summary of what we currently know about Win7... lots of good stuff here!
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/win7_shipping...

It is hard to label how evolutionary/revolutionary Win7 is.

Here is how I understand it. Windows Vista's underpinnings were revolutionary compared to XP. This is why it was such a big jump for hardware manufactures and software manufactures. They had to rewrite their drivers to cope with the new driver model and app developers needed to rewrite their apps to properly deal with the new security model. There are also many more 'under the hood' enhancements to Vista like SuperFetch and Previous Version(aka updated shadow copy) plus many more I probably don't know about... it was a huge step technology wise.

However the user experience didn't advance as much as the underlying technology.

Win7's underpinnings is going to stay close to Vista's however the whole user experience in Win7 is going to be completely revolutionized. Although it will have the same underpinnings as Vista people are going to be blown away by the Win7 experience... watch out Apple!


RE: Advertising
By Pirks on 10/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Advertising
By mikefarinha on 10/3/2008 11:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what the promiss of WinFS was?

All of the useable functionality they promissed through WinFS has been delievered in Vista.


RE: Advertising
By Pirks on 10/3/2008 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't seen any relational databases in place of file system in Vista. Have you?


RE: Advertising
By mikefarinha on 10/3/2008 9:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Read this

"Why do you want WinFS?"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=516

quote:
Every time I hear someone pining for the return of WinFS, I ask the same question as Larry. Why do you want WinFS? What problem are you trying to solve? Although it made for great PowerPoint slides, WinFS was a terrible idea, and killing it was one of the smartest things Microsoft ever did.
quote:
The reason WinFS was cut is that it didn’t actually solve a user need, it didn’t offer any compelling benefit to developers, and it dragged down overall system performance.


RE: Advertising
By Pirks on 10/4/2008 1:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason WinFS was cut is that it didn’t actually solve a user need, it didn’t offer any compelling benefit to developers
Then why was MS boasting about this useless piece of crap in the first place?


RE: Advertising
By rdeegvainl on 10/4/2008 5:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
reading comprehension pal, he already answered that question. it was boasted cause it looked great on paper.


RE: Advertising
By Pirks on 10/5/2008 7:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
And so this is why I and Apple can't stop laughing - 'cause MS keeps boasting its paper towers :P Or should I say sand castles?


RE: Advertising
By kelmon on 10/3/2008 8:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the whole user experience in Win7 is going to be completely revolutionized.


I bet that it is not. What you will almost certainly get is a version of Windows that looks a bit different but is ultimately Windows. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your opinion of the OS as a whole, but Microsoft risks a revolt if they make significant changes to the user experience. This is further compounded by Microsoft's need to keep both home and business users happy. Suffice to say, deployment of Office 2007 has not happened much in my corporation because it just looks so completely different to prior versions that users just feel lost. Users like familiarity and you can't change things too much when you have such a diverse range of users.

Revolution would be nice to see but most users don't want it. After all, who wants to learn Windows again?

And, no, I don't think that Apple has too much to worry about. Theoretically they should have been worried about Vista and look what happened there. A good release of Windows 7 may stem the defections from Windows to Mac but I can't see it reversing the trend, particularly since Apple is not standing still. If Microsoft wants switchers like myself to come back to the Windows platform then they really need to Apple to go into self-destruct again.


RE: Advertising
By Lord 666 on 10/2/2008 4:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
After one month of issues with Outlook 2003 slowness (E6600)in Vista Ultimate 32-bit and then upgrading to a Q9550 with minor improvement, I went to XP 64.

After some application issues (no Cisco VPN client for 64-bit), now happily back on XP 32


RE: Advertising
By omnicronx on 10/2/2008 5:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
The office 2003 slowness issue is usually due to add in's.. When I upgraded from XP to Vista, I had to disabled all addins. In fact if you have a Dell PC, Office 2003 comes preinstalled with the cyberlink add in, once you remove it outlook speeds up ten fold.


RE: Advertising
By Flunk on 10/2/2008 5:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's an office bug, if you upgrade to the newest version... they fixed that.


RE: Advertising
By mars777 on 10/6/2008 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
(If you pay, they fixed it) - no wonder.


RE: Advertising
By rudolphna on 10/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Advertising
By mikefarinha on 10/2/2008 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
Vista SP1 has the same kernel as Server 2008


RE: Advertising
By Flunk on 10/2/2008 5:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the user space is the same too.


RE: Advertising
By codeThug on 10/2/2008 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 3
I think L. Ron Ballmer has been hitting the Ibogaine a little heavy as of late.


RE: Advertising
By Ramshambo on 10/2/2008 3:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I just came out of a "Microsoft Momentum Event" and the free promo version of Vista Ultimate they gave me is worthless because the pin number they included is expired. Good job marketing team!


RE: Advertising
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2008 3:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fine give it to me. I'm smart enough to call them, explain their mistake, and get the free copy.


RE: Advertising
By mars777 on 10/6/2008 3:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
You should add that you have enough time and nerves to do it.


RE: Advertising
By saiga6360 on 10/2/2008 5:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a PC and I agree with that statement.


Search engine...
By InvertMe on 10/2/2008 2:47:12 PM , Rating: 5
I just don't see Microsoft displacing Google ever as the search engine of choice.

Honestly if I were Microsoft I wouldn't even try.

I would partner with Google, buy stock in Google and try to influence Google to be more inline with Microsoft's motives.

But to displace them? As big of a Microsoft fan as I am (I truly am - I love the company) they just won't ever hold a candle to Google.




RE: Search engine...
By arazok on 10/2/2008 3:31:17 PM , Rating: 4
10 years ago I would have said that nobody would ever displace Yahoo as the search engine of choice.

There is nothing tying users to Google. The minute somebody comes up with a way to present better search results, users will abandon them.


RE: Search engine...
By Tamale on 10/2/2008 4:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not too sure about that..

google got popular right when the internet's popularity also skyrocketed out of geekdom and into the common man's living room.

"googling" is totally synonymous with searching on the internet, and even a slightly more accurate search engine, however impossible that might be to create isn't going to change that anytime soon in my opinion.


RE: Search engine...
By omnicronx on 10/2/2008 4:56:32 PM , Rating: 4
Google got popular when people realized that their searching technique was better, and it resulted in better searches. PageRank is pretty ingenious if you ask me, it is the backbone of Google, and chances are it will be a while before someone thinks of a better idea. It is little known, but the main technique used behind Google searching dates back to the 1950's, and weirdly enough, the actual patent on the technology is owned by Stanford university(although google has exclusive rights which they bought in exchange for shares) and took quite a few years to develop.

Neither Yahoo or Microsoft have come up with a system that truly compares to pagerank, and the problem is even if they do, Webmasters have put so much into raising their Google PageRank, that it is going to be very hard for Google to be overtaken.


RE: Search engine...
By Oregonian2 on 10/2/2008 5:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Must be newer stuff. Patents from the 50's would have expired by now. Even with brand new patents, they only last 20 years from the time it's granted (or less if payments aren't made periodically).


RE: Search engine...
By JustTom on 10/3/2008 12:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
The actual patent is from 2001 and is owned by Stanford U.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT...


RE: Search engine...
By Solandri on 10/2/2008 5:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
10 years ago, Yahoo was an index/portal site. You went to AltaVista for searches. If I want a portal site, Yahoo is still the first one that comes to mind. DEC never really put as much effort into AltaVista as it deserved (I heard it only indexed like 3% of the net), so Google really capitalized on an underserviced market at the time.

Microsoft has never been very good at Internet stuff. Their past successes have mostly involved seeing what other people are doing, and leveraging their dominance of the OS to beat their competitors:

- Excel (Lotus 123) and Word (WordPerfect), both of which missed the transition from DOS to WinAPI.
- transparent file compression (Stacker) which they simply added to the OS when Stacker refused to sell.
- IE (Netscape) which they bundled for free so people would stop downloading Netscape.
- DirectX (3Dfx's Glide and OpenGL) where I actually think they did the graphics world a service by supplanting two contentious and poorly updated standards, even if it is a pain to code in.

The notable exception is Photoshop, where I think Adobe managed to hold out because initially the bulk of Photoshop users used it on Macs.

When it comes to stuff independent of the OS, they've fared poorly. They totally missed the boat when the Internet first became mainstream. Gates thought the CompuServe/AOL model of glorified proprietary dialup BBSes would win out, and so refused to put a TCP/IP stack (necessary to access the Internet) into Windows until Win95. That was a full year after I started seeing URLs being advertised on billboards and TV (granted I was in Boston at the time). MSN actually started out as a dialup competitor to AOL, before they put it on the Internet at large. When they needed a web-based mail service, they didn't even bother trying to make one, they just went out and bought the already-successful Hotmail.

They make some good products (their Outlook/Exchange combo for business completely owns anything else I've tried). But their poor Internet efforts IMHO support the claim that if they didn't dominate the OS market, they'd just be a mediocre software company.


RE: Search engine...
By PrinceGaz on 10/2/2008 8:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
It could be argued that MS abused their market dominance with the introduction of Windows when it came to how both WordPerfect and Lotus 123 fared. WP for Windows was held back by lack of access to Windows API leading to early stability issues (WP for Windows 5.1 was a nightmare, unlike WP for DOS 5.1 which was rock-solid). 123 never really made much of an impact on Windows, they betted on the wrong team (OS/2) and lost, which is a shame as at the time OS/2 was the superior operating-system.

I don't think transparent file-compression really mattered.

IE definitely did matter as it all but destroyed Netscape and other browsers.

DirectX or more accurately Direct3D was important as along with OpenGL, it helped replace the numerous proprietary APIs then in existence. It's worth noting that OpenGL is still more important than Direct3D as OpenGL is central to the entire professional design market. Direct3D may have won for most games, but OpenGL is where all the real work is done. It was good that they both came into dominance as the situation before could have killed PC gaming- where games had to support multiple incompatible graphics APIs like Rendition, PowerVR, Glide (sometimes more than one version), Virge, Rage, Number Nine, etc. Every GPU manufacturer having their own API was madness, and I for one am glad that 3dfx went bust so as to eliminate Glide.

Far from supplanting Glide and OpenGL, DirectX (Direct3D) led to the removal of Glide, but has allowed OpenGL to gain in strength to a dominant position outside of gaming.

MS won't throw the towel in, but they're so far behind Google in the online area that they have little hope of coming back short of a miracle.

MS's strength is still Windows and everything that runs on it, which means they have a vulnerable foundation. Windows won't be dominant forever, and once it starts to falter, everything else MS has built on top of it will collapse.


RE: Search engine...
By Gzus666 on 10/2/2008 4:03:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would partner with Google, buy stock in Google and try to influence Google to be more inline with Microsoft's motives.


Isn't this the kind of crap that always gets them in court?


RE: Search engine...
By mikefarinha on 10/2/2008 6:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
You should check out a lot of the microsoft live offerings. I was checking it out today and they have some crazy-awesome new stuff coming out.

The only thing stoping me from having live mail host my domain is the fact that it doesn't use Google's conversationing method for emails (that I know of). Once they get that feature... plug me in and hook me up baby!

"We are the PC Resistance is futile."


By phxfreddy on 10/2/2008 3:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
because I refuse to use "walled garden" devices.

When

-1- I can have unlimited internet for a reasonable price.
-2- I can install any app I want
-3- not sure what else

I will use cell phone internet. Until then its still only a phone and pointless to talk about any more.




BallmerTECH?
By enlil242 on 10/2/2008 4:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
It is interesting to note that as I open up DailyTECH, I see four images/stories about him. Kinda unnerving, in a way...




By Lotus SE on 10/2/2008 8:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Windows Mobile 6.1 phone (HTC Touch), and I have an early copy of Android running in Linux in Windows Mobile 6.1...

It's pretty neat, but so far it feels like just a smart phone OS. It can browse, use maps, text, and even dial, but that is about it so far (on my hacked copy).

Windows Mobile 6.1 is much more powerful right now. That may change as Android gets better developed and more programs are written.

For multitasking, and availability of applications and hacks, windows mobile can't be beat. The only thing that I feel is missing is the multi touch that the iPhone has!

Oh and I'm writing this in Chrome, I definitely want to see Google succeed.




Altavista
By Nachomal on 10/5/2008 12:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
Google was never able to beat AltaVista in terms of product quality(and certainly not on index freshness, AV was adding pages LIVE). The reason why Google won that war as nothing to do with the product itself, but as always, it was because of good marketing, compared to abysmal marketing for Altavista.(Including 4 logo changes in 1 year.) People usually don't remember that but for that autumn when Google was first released Northern Light was by far the hottest search product...then...Google became the Kleenex of Search. What MS is probably hoping for is a brand dilution over time for Google. (Tons of clones being released, slowly but surely diminishing the hive's market share) Cuil is an example of such start up.

Also, there will be a 2nd war for search when voice recognition technologies will be advanced enough to pass your queries directly to the search engines. This could " reset " the search market completely. And Microsoft got a huge head start there.

Pagerank a great concept? Give me a break. It's only a good concept to fill the pockets of Google's stocks owners. Pagerank is a simple recreation of the order of things present in the real world.(Reputation, Thrust and popularity) Don't get me wrong, it could be a valid search filter of a more global engine, but I find it quite scary that great information as to be popular for Google to think it's great information. And it's even scarier to think about the users of Google who are not realizing that they are using a search engine engineered to show them the Walmarts of this world more than the specialty shop at the corner of their street. That small shop that just opened with a new and innovative product. Actually, Google is currently making sure that those small shops doesn't have a shot in hell at competing for at least 1 year. Google is everything consumers don't want and we are just starting to see it. A big juggernaut controlling(Google's official mission is to organize all the information in the world) all the information of the world, on top of amassing all the information in the world from their dominant position in advertising. (Google, the company that "won't do evil" read: "won't do evil until it's necessary")

HTML 5.0 is coming next year(it's almost already here) and it brings the first (serious)forays in semantic coding. It is my opinion that a well engineered semantic search engine could really give Google a big run for it's money in the future.

And no, I'm not anti Google, not anti Microsoft either, I just want to warn everyone that a company with a monopoly in search could be much, much worse than an OS company. Controlling the desktop is nothing compared to being the guide of the cyberspace. On this Id like to support Yahoo! by saying that they have for the past year the best search engine out there. SES Strategies agrees with me.




By HakonPCA on 10/2/2008 3:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
we get it, you don't like vista.......


By Regs on 10/2/2008 3:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's not vista I don't like, it's those 64 bit drivers floating around I don't mind for.


By FITCamaro on 10/2/2008 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
The 64-bit version of Vista is the better version. The drivers are better too because they have to be signed.


By omnicronx on 10/2/2008 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
.. I was under the impression that in order to release a ms certified signed driver that you have to release both 32 and 64bit versions.. which was one of the reasons many vendors chose not to to release drivers for Vista. So drivers really are not better, you are just forced to use a signed driver in x64 unless you press F8 on startup and allow unsigned drivers to be loaded. In otherwords, if you can get an 64bit signed driver, a 32bit also has to exist.


By overzealot on 10/3/2008 12:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
F8 is a pain.
Those who know, use the Readydriver Plus.
It's a cheap hack, but sometimes the ends justifies the means.


By HeavyB on 10/2/2008 9:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
My 2 cents is that I've have very good luck with 64 bit Vista as well, and I'm not the most savvy tech person. I suppose I'm a cool-aid drinker as I have Vista 64 bit on the workstation, an XBox 360 on the big screen TV, and 1.5 TB of storage in my homebrew Windows Home Server Box backing up the workstation and streaming media to the 360. Hell, I even have an 80G Zune that gets way more action than my iPhone, especially since I bought in to the Zune marketplace pass. Its all working very well for my needs, and I'm looking forward to the Xbox360 dashboard update this fall.


By WTFiSJuiCE on 10/2/2008 4:03:13 PM , Rating: 3
Disclaimer: Sense of humor is not included within Windows Vista. Please purchase separately


By Gzus666 on 10/2/2008 4:06:18 PM , Rating: 1
Wait for the Service Pack 1 Sense of Humor before getting it, always bugs in it before then.


By enlil242 on 10/2/2008 4:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
coming: Windows 7: SenseOfHumor Edition


By tastyratz on 10/2/2008 4:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
eh its true, its a marketing thing. Saying Vista is the most popular os to date is like saying George Bush has the highest approval rating since Hoover.

Whether or not people want to point out its merits or flaws, and whether you hate or love vista - it simply statistically has a far lower approval rating compared to XP. Whether or not one is "better" people seem happier with xp than Vista, Microsoft knew that so they did the "Mojave" experiment and now run the "I'm a pc" commercials.

I am not arguing points for either side and want to remain neutral with this post keeping my personal opinion out of it.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki