MS CEO Steve Ballmer Sez

[Alex Franke]

I would love choice too. However, letting users run whatever OS they want can be an administrative nightmare. For instance, supporting both Windows and Mac users means you have to know two versions of SW, two OSes and what to do when one of them breaks.

Well put. We have one Mac user (who essentially gets no support), and our only linux users are uber-geeks who support themselves.

On the same note, rolling out new OSes or even major office suite updates can be an administrative nightmare, too... This is why we prefer S/360 and punch cards.

[drumpriest]

I use XP pro currently across the board, because Vista just has issues for what I do. MS forcibly removed the most popular audio API for games when they did Vista, broke all kinda stuff. Fortunately OpenAL allowed for an fairly easy reimplementation of the audio code in my engine. They tried to use DX10 features to force an OS switch, but there are too many DX9 cards still out there, and the features were exposed in OpenGL on XP.

The big thing will be the move from the Platform SDK to .net framework. When it first came out, Platform was faster, and of course it's what people have coded for over the past 10 years, but now I hear that they are starting to reimplement the Platform stuff via .net, ensuring that it will be slower in an attempt to get people to make the switch, which will necessitate a new OS.

Germdoc, I'm sure you are correct, there is a significant amount of the windows install base that doesn't care, Vista works just fine for them. That same install base were buying Lindows machines a few years back and didn't realize it wasn't a MS product. If you use your computer to surf the web and check e-mail, and write a letter on occation, you don't care, linux works great, mac os works great, windows 95 would work great. It's the people who do more specific stuff who have to care. To get all of the hardware and software that I use daily working on an OS is a pain, and so a switch like that can be VERY problematic for me, and the same holds true for many larger companies.

What I'd REALLY like is for a new version of windows to come out that honestly offers some OS feature that wasn't available on a unix platform in the 90s. Vista has some neat features, but nothing that has convinced me that it really needed to exist.

As to the $$ vs. Intelligence, that certainly presupposes that everyone in the world with intelligence would want to spend their time making $, when honestly it isn't true. Sure, if you ask they may even answer that way, but in reality it isn't the case. I could be a salesman and make more $$$ than I do now, but I wouldn't want that job. I know quite a few people with a lot more $$ than I have, and I wouldn't want to be them for the world.

[JSUPreston]

Okay, looks like Ballmer's been drinking the Kool-Aid again.

I am the senior network guy at my shop. We have about 80 desktops/laptops and about 15 servers, not counting VOIP. We are pretty much an all MS shop (government agency).

I have one person asking me to move to Vista, and he's in IT, serving as the DBA. I'm inclined to allow him to move to Vista if he wants. I'm currently moving to Vista 64 as we speak, mainly to take advantage of the x64 architecture in my new laptop and to run most of my stuff in VM.

We have a lot of software and hardware that will not work under Vista. On top of that, we have been told to halt all spending except for emergency/absolute necessary purchases. Plus, with all the bad experiences we've had in testing Vista and all the problems that other users have had with Vista (including my IT Manager on a trial laptop with factory Vista load), we've decided that we are going to wait until Win7 comes out to consider moving. It is going to cost us a lot of money in upgrading apps and hardware to even consider moving from XP. Vista does not offer us anything of value at this time for the average user.

If we change our minds and start moving users to Vista, I'm pretty sure the developers will be the first. Then, we're looking at each developer having VMs with XP so that the apps can be testing under both OS's. Fortunately for me, I've pretty much moved completely away from desktop support. I mainly do servers and VOIP/infrastructure, and am hoping to pass off the servers in the next couple of years.

[cgallery]

But wasn't he essentially business manager or at least a veep since MS went public back in 1980? I think he was even president for a while. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong guy, but it seems he's been a driving force behind MS Success for quite a while now...

Regardless, we're still not installing Vista for everyone at work.

Ballmer is to Gates as Scully is to Jobs.

I think he was an ineffective/middling manager all along. I think Gates felt comfortable w/ putting him in charge, figuring Ballmer would just run the Gates play book.

But (I know a lot of you are going to gasp at this) I do believe Gates is a visionary. Ballmer is no visionary, more like a technocrat. And software is all about vision.

[cgallery]

I have one person asking me to move to Vista, and he's in IT, serving as the DBA.

Yep, DBA's are all about Vista. Let him switch. Some of the DBA's I support in the hedge fund industry can't get it done w/ XP.

[leehljp]

Push for choice? By choosing Apple, a company that is the most restrictive of all their options in terms of SW and HW? I understand what you are trying to say, but the irony is thunderous.

I would love choice too. However, letting users run whatever OS they want can be an administrative nightmare. For instance, supporting both Windows and Mac users means you have to know two versions of SW, two OSes and what to do when one of them breaks. Plus you need at least two different HW platforms, etc. The list goes on. That said, my company has an official Windows client (they take the standard load and tweak it a bit plus add SW) a standard Linux client (or at least a standard set of packages you can install) and even a Mac client. Although, my company is big enough that there is enough demand for all of them.

IRONY - CHOICE: LOL, . . . I wrote that intentionally . . pulling your leg here! I know that "Choice" has been a Windows "mantra" for sometime.
What is really ironic is that the word "choice" has been used by so many people to designate a Window's eco-system and exclude other companies OS systems, HW and SW. Doesn't that make the word 'choice' an oxymoron?

Limiting choice to one OS System is about like saying "you can chose any color you want as long as it is "Black".

I agree with what you wrote about the support night mare for different OSes. I used to think IT's purpose was to make the system adaptable to wide ranges of choices by users to get the job done efficiently, transparently and without having to conform like clones.

[LinuxRandal]

"Corporations that stay with Windows XP for too long risk facing a user backlash"

That said, I agree with him and plan to move my laptop off XP soon.... to Linux.

I agree with the statement, but not the timeframe. VISTA ME BOB. If a corporation, was now installing ME or BOB, then they would face backlash, as well as compatibility issues.
I think Vista is an improvement, IF you don't have any older needed software or peripherals that are unsupported (printers, shopbots, and such), otherwise, XP is still a design for goal of Microsoft (wants compatibility for x generations back, example, Windows 2000, is still listed on Tax software), and that is MS's on fault.
Vista does have better battery life of my laptop (according to peoples posted results from the forum about my laptop), and people like it ESPECIALLY, with Vlite. (adds choices MS doesn't) Windows 7 shows promise, and may be fine for the ONE game that I play (never messed with it and Wine). Vista works for me, for the ONE thing, that I need it for. Everything else, I have been doing on my namesake.
Now, Apple advertises as "think different" yet all their hardware is so regulated, you get all the same. More irony. Years ago, and now this would include Apple, I read an article about how MS, could dramatically improve their product, if they made their gui, (user friendly) on top of Linux (improving security, and anti-virus capabilities) on I, Cringly. There was even some talk in a group I was on, about the MS patent deal, as people were speculating that MS wanted protected development, that they would eventually use for their own Linux distro.

For supporting different oses, that already happens. You tend to have Linux as servers in the background (less maintenance), Apples in the ad departments, and pc's everywhere else. People get trained in whatever new software they tend to use at work, that they don't use at home (how many companies teach word processing, since most people have a basic understanding, after purchasing a pc with some of it already on and targeted towards the customer paying for their own training?). It wouldn't be that much different to train them in free software and use something like a terminal server (client/server, cloud computing), to support a lot of needs. As for other programs, the more users, the bigger programming base and more user friendly it can become, and the greater range of software will show up. If people used actual standards, NOT proprietary data formats, a lot more people would be using Linux/BSD/Other oses.

And stop the Windows Tax.

[leehljp]

Ain't computers fun! Well, it used to be - and I loved tinkering with the systems, hardware and a entry level hacking in games to re-set high scores.

Now-a-days for me, it is just a tool to get the job done, and visit you fellows here!

[sparkeyjames]

When Vista first came out I advised my employer to stay well clear of it. That advice has proven to be correct. I told him to hang on to XP till apps that need upgrading will no longer run on it. I'm all for avoiding the Microsoft forced operating system churn. I still run XP on my personal desktop system a 32bit 2.0ghz athlon system and on my 7 year old Dell laptop. On a desktop machine the operating system should be there only when needed the other 99% of the time it should get out of the way.

[crokett]

Limiting choice to one OS System is about like saying "you can chose any color you want as long as it is "Black".

I'm not saying you have to limit to one OS, nor am I advocating any one OS over another. All I am saying is, why would someone say they don't like Windows because they want choice, and then pick the OS made by the company that is the most restrictive?

[leehljp]

I'm not saying you have to limit to one OS, nor am I advocating any one OS over another. All I am saying is, why would someone say they don't like Windows because they want choice, and then pick the OS made by the company that is the most restrictive?

That is a part of what the word "choice" is. Being able to Choose the one that is more restrictive because it might offer more benefits to the "user" for his or her needs - is still "Choice" - especially when a restricted version works so well, so intuitively and transparently.

"Choice" is far more than software and hardware alone. "User Experience" is part of Choice, but I can see why the general IT community does not want to include that in "Choice". Because the "users" were not part of the "Choice" in most IT communities, it can be strongly argued that they (IT) had been much more restrictive and controlling than Apple, if you know what I mean.

"Choice" is not confined to one OS ecosystem. I have choice and exercised "choice - based on what I value most in my work environment, which is get the job done the best, least time, less hassle, intuitively, without hardware breakdowns, OS slowdowns. You may choose a "plethora of HW and SW"; I choose productivity, transparency in computers, not wanting to have to call Tech people for answers - So that was my "Choice"
. . . Therefore - As is often written, I side on (my) "Choice".

Other people make choices based on initial purchase cost, others on ROI. Some value variety in HW, some value variety in software, some value the challenge of learning while others value no hassle or techno-mumbo jumbo; Some value "intuitiveness" while others value step by step list instrutions. Some value a single (but expensive) 'image editing program system' over a plethora of so so editors. Some value 'dependability of hardware' - in a limited choice at greater one time expense - over wide ranges of choices that require crossed fingers and tongues held just right! Choices abound on both sides of the equations.


Formerly, the Abundance of choice was on the side of Window's PCs, but as it concerns SoftWare now - the abundance of programs that are available and run natively and legally on Macs far outnumber programs that run natively and legally on PCs such as HP, Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, Toshiba etc.

Remember - An IT's point of view - because of their very nature - love to tinker in areas where the average user can't. Therefore to them Choice is in the larger amounts, while to the user, it is often in 'lesser number of SW & HW choices' - that work well, intuitively and transparently.

All of this I write from having owned Compac, HP and IBM (IBM purchased just months before they sold the laptops to Lenovo).

[Kristofor]

Limiting choice to one OS System is about like saying "you can chose any color you want as long as it is "Black".

Would you rather be running Ford when Black was the only choice, or with the rainbow they have today?

The Vista OS would be "free" for the ~10K users at my work. We already pay for the license support with MS every year. That said, we just did another eval of moving to Vista and at this point I suspect there is less than a 20% chance we will ever deploy Vista. There's just not enough upside benefit and lots of real or potential problems. There's a lot to be said for skipping a version of an app/os/etc. when possible...

On the original post, all of those users (Ha! upper management views all employees as replaceable cogs in any large company I've ever worked for...) who could cause a backlash have been watching the Mac vs. PC and Vista stinks commercials for years now. There is NO user push to move to Vista.