backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by captainBOB.. on Mar 6 at 2:22 PM


Steve Ballmer
Former CEO Steve Ballmer threw a fit until he got his acquisition

Microsoft and Nokia have had a close relationship over the years, where Microsoft provided the Windows Phone software and Nokia made the hardware. But when former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wanted his company to become a hardware maker, many top executives disagreed with such a move -- including current CEO Satya Nadella
 
According to Bloomberg, Ballmer was set on getting his way when it came to the acquisition of Nokia's Devices and Services division last year, despite opposition from top-ranking execs in the company. Ballmer reportedly threw a fit that everyone could hear last year when he learned of their opposition. 
 
Microsoft co-founder and current Technology Advisor Bill Gates along with Nadella and former Skype CEO in charge of Microsoft's business development Tony Bates all initially opposed Microsoft's move into hardware, as well as the idea of an expensive Nokia acquisition.
 
The board didn't back Ballmer's plan to acquire two Nokia units at the time, but after Ballmer's hissy fit in June 2013, the board signed off on a $7.2 billion USD purchase of Nokia’s mobile phone business. Nadella had also reportedly changed his mind about the Nokia acquisition, saying it was a good idea after all.
 
“Nokia brings mobile-first depth across hardware, software, design, global supply chain expertise and deep understanding and connections across the mobile market,” said Nadella. “This is the right move for Microsoft.”

Bates, on the other hand, remained strongly opposed. Earlier this week, it was announced that he is leaving the company immediately, which could be a result of being passed up for CEO earlier this year. There could also be internal frustrations with his opposition of Microsoft's move toward hardware. 
 
But Microsoft team members had a right to worry about the company's future in hardware, as the past has been quite telling. For instance, Microsoft's first homemade tablet called Surface was largely a flop at launch in October 2012. Windows RT was seen as a half-baked Windows product that didn't run legacy apps, and the Windows 8 Pro version was much too expensive for the typical consumer, and Windows 8 in general created a storm among users who just wanted their Start button back and the live tiles on their desktops to go away. 
 
In July 2013, Microsoft reported the largest earnings miss in at least a decade and took an unexpected $900 million charge due to the Surface flop. 
 
Ballmer announced that he would be retiring as Microsoft's CEO within a year last August, and Nadella was named CEO in January. 
 
Nadella is currently shaking up the executive ranks and unraveling certain parts of Ballmer's restructuring process.

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


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

By DanNeely on 3/5/2014 2:55:03 PM , Rating: 3
...with Nokia selling the vast majority of WP8 handsets they had a huge amount of shakedown potential to force MS's hand. They could point to the work they were doing with Android internally and threaten to switch platforms entirely. This would effectively kill WP8; meaning that unless MS was willing to abandon mobile entirely Nokia had them at their mercy.




By amanojaku on 3/5/2014 3:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
I think the move was a necessity. Without a mobile platform, MS will definitely sink. The most popular computing platforms are mobile, and they come from two companies: Apple and Google. Hardware vendors can't get access to iOS, so the only options are Android and Windows Phone/RT. Unfortunately, Windows Phone/RT devices have seen little traction and hardware vendors are quietly phasing them out. Just compare the number of Android offerings to Windows Phone/RT offerings.

MS messed up mobile in many ways, but the worst is that it took too long to address the threats from Apple and Google. With iOS becoming the de facto mobile winner on the high end, MS would have had to release something truly stunning to compete. Even Google is struggling with that, although HTC, LG and Samsung have released offerings that are decent rivals. The problem is that the public just doesn't believe anything outside of Apple could be high quality.

This leaves MS with the low end. The problem there is that Android already owns this market, as well. Android is free, so companies just have to spend on hardware R&D. MS charges an outrageous amount of money for Windows Phone/RT in comparison.

The result is clear: no hardware vendor is going to risk money on a large number of high-end devices (only Samsung makes significant sales here), and Windows is just too expensive to license for low-end hardware. MS has to do mobile on its own, and be willing to lose money for 3-5 years until it can turn around the public's perception. By then, most Android and iOS devices will be up for a refresh, and Windows may have a chance in the mobile space. MS isn't like BlackBerry - it has a large product portfolio, so it can use its successful units to offset the ones that are struggling until they turn around.

The biggest issues at MS are the internal conflicts between the senior leadership team, and the SLT and the investment board. Hopefully, the restructuring solves this. Read the source article; it has some interesting information, including the reason Alan Mulally was passed over.


By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 5
" They get hacked every day, they crash, they lock you in to the Redmond ecosystem"

Your myopic analysis is wrong as usual.

"People don't want that. Plain and simple."

MS's 90%+ Desktop market share says otherwise.


By inighthawki on 3/5/2014 4:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
God you just never stop do you? Could you for once make a post that isn't just a bunch of random comments about how much you hate Microsoft? We get it already. You think their software is garbage.

Everyone else: Please stop encouraging him.


By amanojaku on 3/5/2014 5:26:05 PM , Rating: 4
You are so right. Read Argon's response to another of my posts:
quote:
By Argon18 on 3/5/2014 4:58:05 PM , Rating: 2

"Since Linux predominantly ran on servers, the kernel was adjusted to support PAE." [amanojaku]

What a bizarre statement to make. The same Linux kernel that runs an email server is also running your Android phone, and also running the most powerful supercomputers on earth. It's the same kernel, same code.

If someone came out with a super smartphone right now today that had 64 CPU cores a 1 Terabyte of RAM and a 4k display, Linux and Android would work on it perfectly. Right now today. No modifications required. Nobody else can make that claim. Certainly not Microsoft with their dinky Windoze Mobile and RT tinker toys.
I'm gonna ignore how he sidestepped my proof that 32-bit Linux suffered from the 3GiB memory barrier before PAE was enabled.... No, no, I can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMIO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_hole
http://techfiles.de/dmelanchthon/files/memory_hole...

And...

The same Linux kernel code runs unmodified on supercomputers, email servers, and smartphones?

Linux can run on a smartphone without modification ??

Android can run on any device that has 64 cores, 1TiB of RAM, and a 4K display without modification ???


By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 4:41:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Funny, if you ask all the consumers who aren't buying their crappy me-too tablet and phone products, I don't think this would even be on their list.
Yet, sales of Windows 8 alone surpass that of all linux desktop distros combined.

quote:
They get hacked every day, they crash
I guess that's why Android accounts for 97% of all mobile OS malware. Because Linux is more secure.

http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/03/04/f-secure-a...

quote:
they lock you in to the Redmond ecosystem
As do ecosystems and services based on Linux and UNIX - Android, iOS, Ubuntu...

At least with Microsoft's ecosystem, their services are available on all major platforms which allows for flexibility.


By sprockkets on 3/5/2014 5:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
So what about Linux? If we count android as Linux, win8 is currently having its ass handed to it.

quote:
I guess that's why Android accounts for 97% of all mobile OS malware. Because Linux is more secure.


Bullshit. Malware is made for android because it allows people to install what they want. To claim it is insecure because of that is ridiculous. Android doesn't allow apps to snoop on each others data, and the base os is untouchable and read only, even more so now with SELINUX.

quote:
As do ecosystems and services based on Linux and UNIX - Android, iOS, Ubuntu...

At least with Microsoft's ecosystem, their services are available on all major platforms which allows for flexibility.


More bullshit. MS has historically made most of their software for windows only like directx, exchange, active sever, and many others, and some for osx, while every Linux program out there works on windows as well, like handbrake, GIMP, libreoffice, and others. Hell, even KDE wants to make their desktop run on windows.


By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 5:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
Calm down, pal. My intention was only to counteract Argon's irrational hatred towards Microsoft.

quote:
So what about Linux? If we count android as Linux, win8 is currently having its ass handed to it.
I said desktop operating systems. Read again.

quote:
Bullshit. Malware is made for android because it allows people to install what they want. To claim it is insecure because of that is ridiculous. Android doesn't allow apps to snoop on each others data, and the base os is untouchable and read only, even more so now with SELINUX.
Replace Android with Windows and it's exactly the same.

quote:
More bullshit. MS has historically made most of their software for windows only like directx, exchange, active sever, and many others, and some for osx, while every Linux program out there works on windows as well, like handbrake, GIMP, libreoffice, and others. Hell, even KDE wants to make their desktop run on windows.
In the same way that Google provides none of its services in AOSP, or doesn't provide Google Play services for competing platforms, or how Apple doesn't provide iCloud, iMessage, and its other services on competing platforms.


By sprockkets on 3/5/2014 6:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough then. But that stuff you mentioned isn't anything oss.


By Mint on 3/5/2014 9:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Waiting too long to address a changing marketplace is a common mistake of big companies (Google, by contrast, did well to respond to the iPhone ASAP).

It's the root cause of Nokia's downfall. They were between a rock and a hardplace when Elop took over, as they should have switched to Android a year earlier. At that point, the choice was starting from zero with Android or taking a risk (and a $250M/quarter bribe) from MS.

And, as you mention, it's why MS is so far behind in mobile. They came up with a good OS, but you can't twiddle your thumbs for that long without consequences.

I also agree that entering hardware was necessary for MS's long term presence in mobile.


By CaedenV on 3/6/2014 7:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
Completely agree with you here. If nokia moved to Android 1-2 years earlier then they would be Samsung today... but they didn't, so when it came time to move to a new platform then they had the option to become another "Me Too" company attempting to compete with Samsung... or take over a niche market. Making the move when they did, Android would have been suicide. With no other OS contenders, WP was the only right choice available. A few years later then perhaps FirefoxOS or Ubuntu's phone OS would be an option... but they did not exist at the time.

On the other hand, MS has had a rough time with WinMo and WP7/8 because the company wanted to make a good smartphone, while the board just wanted a patent generating machine without the liability of a consumer product. Because of this WP has a lot of great technology built in... but it is often incomplete or short sighted from a consumer viewpoint. Thankfully (and I say thankfully because I am a WP user) MS has done a 180 on this viewpoint over the last 2 years, and they are really developing the OS as a true product now. Where winMO and WP7 had major issues, WP8 is much better. WP8 is still lacking a lot of features, but the WP8.1 leaks show that almost all of those features will be addressed this year.
It is a company playing catchup, but they were catching up. 2013 was all about catching up on hardware support, and they did that successfully. 2014 is all about feature support and building the app store. 2015 will be all about WP9 and completing the merge with winRT in order to potentially add more PC-like features, and fix development and store issues to get app developers to take them seriously. They are constantly on the verge of "too little too late", but so far have kept up good enough to not be blackberry. And at least they have a roadmap in a time when Android and iOS seem to be stagnating. MS may never catch up in the US phone market, but I think that a year from now the landscape will look very different in a worldwide perspective with WP and iOS neck and neck in most markets.


By melgross on 3/6/2014 11:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't agree that this was necessary. The question for Microsoft is what they want to be ten years from now.

If they insist on being a consumer, as well as a business oriented company, then perhaps, this was a good move. But the real question is whether they should continue trying to be a consumer company. The truth is that they haven't been very successful at it.

I know some people will fry me for saying it, but their Entertainment Division has been losing money ever since the XBox first came out. It's lost over $12 billion over the years. Despite their attempts to hide those losses, first by adding the small devices division into it, and the latest, by adding the income from Android licensing, seen by digging into the financial statements, has shown that the division lost $1.25 billion in 2013. There seems to be no way out io this.

They're losing hundreds of millions each, every year, on phones, tablets, Bing, etc.
These are objective facts, seen in their own financial statements.

On the other hand, their Server and Tools are doing very well. Office is still doing well, but sales increases are being dragged down by the poor reception of Win 8, another attempt to rope consumers in.

There is a lot of sentiment out there for Microsoft to drop these, what are being called "distractions", so that their business divisions can concentrate on what they do best, and to stop worrying about how they can integrate with the consumer divisions, which are doing poorly.

I understand why Ballmer wanted to buy the phone division of Nokia. The real question is whether they should just drop phones altogether. Despite sales increases over the year, there was a substantial Nokia phone drop in sales during the last holiday quarter, which is a time when phones sales increase. Overall, Win Phone lost marketshare during 2013, after gaining some earlier in the year.

RT seems to be done, and Pro tablets aren't selling very well. Of all the embarrassment, a friend of mine, an executive with IBM, bought a surface Pro last year. Three months ago, IBM gave him an iPad Air. What does that say?

Perhaps Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree.


Blaming Ballmer
By coburn_c on 3/5/2014 5:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
See now, in principle Gates is right, and in a world without vertically integrated, borderline duopolistic competition that would be the proper course. Ballmer was running a company however, not an ideal.




funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: funny
By amanojaku on 3/5/2014 2:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
The above post was brought to you by someone who admits to not having used a Microsoft product in 20 years, and claimed Linux didn't suffer from the 3.2GiB memory limit that affected all 32-bit operating systems. Not to mention the claims of increased security (see GnuTLS and OpenSSH vulnerabilities, or Linux vulnerabilities in general).

Argon, you're either a liar or an idiot (or both). Stop posting here.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: funny
By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 4:09:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Linux and other open source OS's are far far far more secure than any trash from Redmond. The vast majority of Linux and BSD vulnerabilities are privilege escalation. I doubt you understand what that means, but I'll explain it. It means existing users who already have an account on the system can gain additional rights.


http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/03/critical-c...


RE: funny
By inighthawki on 3/5/2014 4:35:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Microsoft purposely crippled their 32 bit desktop OS's by artificially disabling PAE support.

PAE support is not enabled on client versions of Windows because it requires drivers to know about it. Due to the vastness of the Windows ecosystem, this is not really viable.

Other versions of Windows have had support for PAE for a long time. Linux didn't have PAE enabled by default until 2009, at which point why aren't you just on 64-bit?


RE: funny
By Da W on 3/5/2014 3:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Pointing toward the idiot.


RE: funny
By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. This guy not only has it out for MS, but is consistently wrong on many points about them and their place in the industry. It's actually pretty amusing.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: funny
By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 5:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are truly delusional. MS has alot of shortcomings, and alot of their software is a major PITA, enterprise and consumer, but if you can give credit where credit is due for basically revolutionizing the way the whole world runs its business then you are totally full of s$%t... End of story.


RE: funny
By nikon133 on 3/5/2014 9:22:36 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like you remained lost in '80. Honestly.


RE: funny
By captainBOB on 3/6/2014 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 1
What technical points? All I see above are hearsay.

With regards to privilege escalation, that was certainly true in XP where every program expected admin access whether it needed it or not. Its not 2005 anymore though.

Since Windows Vista, Microsoft has hardened their OS with UAC, mandatory signatures of all kernel mode and user mode drivers in 64 bit versions of Windows, mandatory ASLR, SecureBoot, ELAM, EMET, SmartScreen, and a bunch of other features. They also are also consistently releasing patches to fix any new vulnerabilities that are found and are quick to release critical updates out of band for serious issues. (Such as the recent IE 10 zero day)

The funny thing is, Microsoft fortified Windows so much that black hats started focusing on IE. When Microsoft hardened that with IE 10 and IE 11, they then switched to gaining system access through third party software like Adobe Flash (who had their source code leak earlier last year...oops). Privelege escalation attacks in Windows are possible (no system is truly secure), but exceedingly hard now.

Linux isn't perfect either, around this time last year a vulnerability in sudo was discovered that.... you guessed it! Allowed privilege escalation to root.
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Securit...

Another one in May of '13 was even uglier:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/critical-l...

What's even worse is that the denial of Linux not being as secure as its evangelists would like to believe results in serious bugs and vulnerabilities NOT being reported and downplayed. The Linux Kernel devs are notorious for doing this. Here is an example.

https://lwn.net/Articles/548819/

Get your holier than thou attitude checked, Microsoft isn't perfect, Linux isn't perfect, they both have a place in this world.


RE: funny
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: funny
By inighthawki on 3/5/2014 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah seriously. Sometimes I question you and retro, but compared to Argon18 you guys sing campfire songs about Microsoft. I don't know what's wrong with this guy.


RE: funny
By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 3:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
He's fooling no one other than himself.

He needs to constantly criticize anything that Microsoft does because of his own inability to properly administer Windows servers, bragging that none of the 127 servers he administers run Windows.

No one cares, Argon.


RE: funny
By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, he also places alot more importance on those non-widows servers than reality dictates. "Well, I don't admin them at my company, so the world doesn't need it" Sorry Argon, the whole business world primarily runs off MS software. No-one has ever done what MS has done and no-one else has even tried. They are without a doubt the single most important software company on Earth by a HUGE margin with no one in second place.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: funny
By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 4:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Mr Ballmer? Is that you?"

Far from it. I call MS on thier crap, and I know you have been involved in some of those threads as well so you have seen me. Xbox, Win8, Kin, etc. Alot of rediculously bad moves, but you just hate to hate and ignore all the good MS has done, and as you can see by this threaad everyone sees that and calls you on it.


"Sorry, but the world does not run on Windows, not even close"


Actually it does. Naming a few things on a few companies is fine and all but it doesn't change the fact that the whole world runs off Windows, Windows servers, exchange, Office etc... When I say the whole world runs of Microsoft I'm not speaking literally of course. What that means is that the majority of business does run off of Microsoft in one form or another every company uses them. They are by far the dominant force in the enterprise market as well as the PC market. No one has ever done what they do. Of course there are other parties running Linux, Unix, Sun, Oracle and IBM mainframes too, a lot of companies use them but it's only part of the picture. Microsoft is the only one that does the whole package, and they are firmly entrenched in that.

(a re-post, but if its not sincing in, then you need to be re-educated). Let me put it another way... If hypothetically, a single company were to close its doors and disable all of their products like Apple, Oracle, Google, Sun micro, UNIX, any (or all) Linux house, SAP, or any the number of other companies. If one of them we're too close their doors and suddenly deactivated all products, life will go on on... Some companies that depended on the software would stumble and have to figure out another solution, some would lose money for it. Some might even go out of business... But if MS were to close up and all products deactivated, the entire world's economy would come to a grinding halt. It would literally be the end of the world as we know it. No other company can say that. Dont forget, every iDevice, Mac, Android phone and pretty much every other major product on earth is made in factories that run their businesses of MS PC's. Every planning, purchasing, inbound logistics, warehousing, shop floor, shipping, accounting, reverse logistics, CRM software etc etc... It all runs on MS software.

Almost every product we produce and purchase relies on it. Google doesn't, but Google doesn't make physical products, they are a software company . If Windows disappeared suddenly, you wouldn't have a job because the people that pay you wouldn't have a job, becasue the people that pay them wouldnt have a job. It wouldn't matter if you did have a job or saved money, because there would be no food in the grocery stores. It would be total anarchy. Yes, sorry my friend, the whole world relies on Windows and its 1000x more complex than just "spreadsheets".


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: funny
By retrospooty on 3/5/2014 4:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Yes true, I give you credit for this. I've seen you make some rational arguments here, and I can respect that."

Thank you. But is it only rational when I call an MS terd a terd (like the Win8, Xbox One, Surface, Kin terds)? When I am not railing against MS, is it irrational?

"Microsoft is a niche player that only does front-office business apps and OS. MS Office, Exchange, and Sharepoint"

First off, that alone is huge, second, you are missing SQL, and "MS Windows servers" in general, Hyper V and all that goes with it... Not to mention a little known product called "Windows" that all users use to access all of these systems, and even most end users accessing the systems you mentioned that aren't MS. You aren't just massively underestimating the impact, you are totally ignoring cold hard facts on some sort of mission to minimize 30 years of MS's often (but not always) solid efforts.

"The level of effort involved in switching a desktop user from XP to Win Eight, isn't much different from switching them from XP to Mac OS or to an enterprise desktop Linux distro. If Microsoft disappeared tomorrow, corporations would do exactly that."

Your complete lack of knowledge is showing here (either that or you are just trolling). No, you are totally wrong 100%. If Windows disappeared suddenly, you wouldn't have a job because the people that pay you wouldn't have a job, because the people that pay them wouldn't have a job. It wouldn't matter if you did have a job or saved money, because there would be no food in the grocery stores. Money wouldn't move and the entire worlds economy would crash. Fortunately that cant happen, but MS is the only company that can make that hypothetical claim. Every other software company, Google included is childs play. MS IS the business world, whther you like it or not.


RE: funny
By nikon133 on 3/5/2014 9:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
From what I can find, Linux does well in "publicly accessible servers, such as web servers, mail servers or DNS servers on the Internet", with 33% (against Microsoft's 35%). Around 30% is unknown, and rest is Unix, BSD...

But based on server hardware sales, as provided by hardware manufacturers, MS was still on 46% vs. Linux 20%, as of beginning of 2013... a year ago. Not as dominant as on desktops/laptops, but dominant for sure.


RE: funny
By ppi on 3/5/2014 6:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
The trick is that ultimately the big companies management makes decisions (including operational ones) based on information prepared in ... guess what, MS products (Excel, PowerPoint).

This of course would not happen as MS can't turn off the locally installed software. Which is the point - the lock-in in the MS products is rarely so tight, that you do not have an escape route.

Linux/UNIX is good for situations, when you can afford to pay quality IT dept. Which is exaclty the big stuff you mention.


RE: funny
By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 4:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amazon, Ebay, Netflix, Facebook, Google , etc. all run their business on Linux. The biggest of the big. Millions of servers in total, all running Linux, all the core of their business. Only the handful of front office pee-cee's that the bean-counters and secretaries sit at run Windows.
All of which produce intangible products, or are in direct competition with Microsoft.

Their licensing fees would be astronomical, and since they are primarily software/digital services companies, they develop their own infrastructure loosely based on Linux.

It has nothing to do with the capabilities of Microsoft's products.

I guess there must be a hell of a lot of bean counters, since Microsoft takes the lion's share of the profits.

Funny also how Microsoft's Windows Server business is a multi-billion dollar business alone. It must be because no one uses it.

quote:
Critical infrastructure like traffic lights, draw bridges, locomotives, cargo ships, all these run embedded UNIX like QNX, VxWorks, and Linux.
POS terminals, tourist information terminals, ATM machines, industrial printers, manufacturing systems, healthcase terminals and servers, handheld scanners, and many more.

Sorry, but the world really does run on Windows, whether you want to continue to deny that or not is your problem.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/14, Rating: 0
RE: funny
By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 5:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
It was one example, not a best example, and not an example of a critical application. It was an example of an industrial application that Windows is well suited. Don't be an idiot about it, finding cherry picked arguments.

You know that there are many mission critical applications that run Windows, ranging from car manufacturing to cruise ships.

More than likely, many of the things you own came from a production line run on Windows.


RE: funny
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 7:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
Argon I admire your passion - I guess - but you are just using a bunch of rhetoric here and coming off looking silly.

Nobody is going to debate you that Linux/Unix is king of mission-critical and special use deployments. Well, I'm certainly not.

But for you to focus exclusively on that, and ignore it's obvious shortcomings in a desktop environment, reeks of bias and dishonesty.

If it can run a nuclear power plant but can't play the game someone wants to play, or be user friendly, then I don't see how most people should give a damn about how superior you think it is.

p.s memory limitations on 32bit, who cares? It's been a long time since we've used a 32bit desktop CPU...


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/2014 3:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
"and claimed Linux didn't suffer from the 3.2GiB memory limit that affected all 32-bit operating systems."

Here you go dunce amanojaku, for the whole DT world to see your stupidity on 4 GB RAM limitation in the crippled garbage OS from Redmond:

"Microsoft limits 32-bit Workstation (client) versions of Windows to 4 GB as a matter of its licensing policy."

"The Linux kernel includes full PAE mode support starting with version 2.3.23"

FYI, kernel 2.3.23 was released in 1999, about the same time that PAE enabled hardware first became available, and well before any consumer hardware supported more than 4 GB of RAM anyhow.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension


RE: funny
By themaster08 on 3/5/2014 4:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft limits 32-bit Workstation (client) versions of Windows to 4 GB as a matter of its licensing policy
Why are you arguing over a technicality where the amount of people affected is virtually non-existent? PAE is nothing more than delaying the inevitable, of which has already occurred. Many servers now run with 64GB of RAM and above. The vast majority of new workstations run 64-bit operating systems.

Furthermore, this only affected client OSs. Windows server fully supports PAE.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/2014 4:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Why are you arguing over a technicality where the amount of people affected is virtually non-existent? PAE is nothing more than delaying the inevitable, of which has already occurred. "

I dunno, ask amanojaku, he brought it up. My post was a reply to him. I was only pointing out how ignorant he is on the subject.


RE: funny
By amanojaku on 3/5/2014 4:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, you show YOUR ignorance.

The 3.2GiB limit was not an OS limitation. It was a BIOS and chipset limitation. All devices have a memory addresses allocated by the BIOS. Since the BIOS and and the chipset used 32-bit memory addresses, this meant that device addresses came from the 32-bit address space. Consequently, a computer with 4GiB of RAM had holes. To get around this, you needed a BIOS/chipset combination that could address more than 32-bits. This was unusual and expensive in the desktop space, but common in servers. Since Linux predominantly ran on servers, the kernel was adjusted to support PAE.

Windows was also modified to support PAE, however, only for servers. The reason was legacy driver support. Since it was uncommon for desktops to have 4GiB or greater, and very common for desktops to have legacy drivers, it made sense not to modify desktop Windows and break compatibility. Especially since a lot of legacy drivers came from companies that either ceased updates, or went out of business.

http://linux.livejournal.com/1754389.html?nojs=1
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-gene...
http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive...


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/2014 4:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? This isn't at all what you claimed. Here you go, these are YOUR words:

"and claimed Linux didn't suffer from the 3.2GiB memory limit that affected all 32-bit operating systems."

So is it an OS limitation or not? You claim that it is, then you claim that it isn't? Huh? You seem so confused amanojaku, you can go back to sleep now.


RE: funny
By Argon18 on 3/5/2014 4:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Since Linux predominantly ran on servers, the kernel was adjusted to support PAE."

What a bizarre statement to make. The same Linux kernel that runs an email server is also running your Android phone, and also running the most powerful supercomputers on earth. It's the same kernel, same code.

If someone came out with a super smartphone right now today that had 64 CPU cores a 1 Terabyte of RAM and a 4k display, Linux and Android would work on it perfectly. Right now today. No modifications required. Nobody else can make that claim. Certainly not Microsoft with their dinky Windoze Mobile and RT tinker toys.


RE: funny
By inighthawki on 3/5/2014 5:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone came out with a super smartphone right now today that had 64 CPU cores a 1 Terabyte of RAM and a 4k display, Linux and Android would work on it perfectly. Right now today. No modifications required. Nobody else can make that claim. Certainly not Microsoft with their dinky Windoze Mobile and RT tinker toys.


Windows supports all of those things out of the box.


RE: funny
By drycrust3 on 3/5/2014 11:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Argon, you're either a liar or an idiot (or both). Stop posting here.

Excuse me, but it isn't your place to tell Argon whether or not he should post, and it isn't your place to claim he is a liar when he merely stated an opinion. Are you saying he lies about his opinions? What evidence do you have that he states one thing here but secretly harbours another opinion? As far as I can tell you have no evidence at all.
What is wrong with him (or her) saying Microsoft should give up selling software? Look at the latest idea that's come out of Redmond: a Windows-Android hybrid. That isn't Argon's idea, it's straight from the horses mouth. Look closely what Microsoft want to do: Android OS with a Windows Desktop, accessing 60% of the third party apps in Play Store. Notice that? Most of the software development is done by others, not by Microsoft! Does that sound like the Microsoft of old? So what is Argon to think when he heard that? Maybe that Microsoft is cutting back on software development? Or that maybe they want to go out of selling their own software?


RE: funny
By inighthawki on 3/6/2014 12:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
If you were up to speed on all the cr*p and false truths that he spews in his comments you'd understand. Just click his name and look at any comment rated a -1, or some of the 0's. He never has anything constructive to say, and anything even close to a "fact" is usually just stuff that hasn't been remotely true about MS software for 10+ years.


RE: funny
By inperfectdarkness on 3/6/2014 5:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have nothing further to add, except the irony of MS--a software company--branching out with the Xbox. From my point of view, you either love both Xbox and the Nokia acquisition, or you hate both.

Me personally, I'm against both--not the least of which is due to MS putting out "beta-test" versions of OS's for windows (the latest 2 being Vista and 8/8.1). If branching out into hardware nets us lackluster software, MS should just stick to software.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














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