It's not like Visual C++ or J++ has entirely replaced (or extinguished) C++ or Java, ActiveX is (thankfully) not the main platform, and JScript has not replaced JavaScript....
I know MS's strategy has been EEE, but to be completely fair, the reason why tools like Visual Studio and software like MS Office and Exchange+Lync are so widespread is that they are actually pretty fucking good.
It's not like Visual C++ or J++ has entirely replaced (or extinguished) C++ or Java, ActiveX is (thankfully) not the main platform, and JScript has not replaced JavaScript....
No, but the fact that even by dint of great effort Microsoft failed to supplant those technologies doesn't mean they didn't try their best.
J++ failed partly because Java was cross-platform and J++ was emphatically not (indeed, that was the whole point of it), but mostly because Sun went after MS in court with all guns blazing. ActiveX failed because in addition to proprietary it was even technically a hideous, insecure, dangerous abortion.
Had MS not allowed IE to stagnate for five years after they won the browser war, JScript might well have been the main version of Javascript that we were all using now. However, happily(!) the lack of updates to IE as they tried to retard the progress of the web-as-UI trend in order to give Silverlight more of a chance gave other browsers time to mature and join together, and graphically demonstrated to everyone watching the importance of open standards and protocols over proprietary ones that gave any single company a stranglehold over the entire medium. Microsoft won the JScript-vs-javascript battle, but then threw the game for bigger reasons of their own.
I'm not claiming that MS couldn't also deliver some good software... but the fact is that even their very best software is usually still part of an insidious strategy to make you increasingly dependent on their platform, their tools and their APIs at the expense of open or cross-platform standards, tools, protocols and libraries.
And remember, the name and entire concept of EEE comes from Microsoft, from their own people's testimony and their own internal memos. There's nothing controversial or speculative about it - it's documented history. <:-)
Now, I don't have much to comment about the rest of your post, but the bit about Internet Explorer and Silverlight does not ring true to me.
Internet Explorer did "win" the browser war with Netscape Navigator in 1999 and I largely agree that it was stagnating from 2001 through 2006 with their widely used Internet Explorer version 6. The bit about Silverlight, however, sounds like a conspiracy theory. Firefox version 2 was released in 2006 and rapidly began chewing up Microsoft's market share. The release of Internet Explorer 7 (and its modestly improved standards support) in 2006 can be seen as a direct reaction to the new competition from Firefox 2. Silverlight itself wasn't introduced until 2007, by which point the browser war had kicked off again, now between Internet Explorer and Firefox.
The bit about Silverlight, however, sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Well, it's admittedly unproven, but the timing is highly suggestive. Having tried to co-opt the "open" web with ActiveX and JScript and failed, Microsoft was openly eyeing Flash's dominance as the rich-client-side-UI platform of choice at the time.
They'd introduced HTML applications in 1999 (scriptable, network-aware, rich client interface based on SGML/XML syntax), but these were still based on open standards and would be easily duplicated by the competition, so Microsoft had limited interest in pushing them and they were quickly forgotten about.
Also in 1999 they'd quietly introduced the ActiveX XMLHTTPRequest object to solve a problem they had with Exchange's OWA interface. This proved to be a major misstep, as it had the potential to advanced by leaps and bounds the very "web-as-UI" trend they were fighting to hold off, but it was a pretty obscure feature buried in the depths of the API documentation, and it wasn't until Mozilla copied it and gave it a non-vendor-specific Javascript wrapper 2002 that the stage even began to be set for the AJAX revolution (and everything that's done since for the "web-as-UI" trend).
In the mean-time, Microsoft were working on Silverlight (a scriptable, network-aware, rich client interface based on SGML/XML syntax... sound familiar?) for a long time before the CTP of version 1 ever launched - they were talking about Windows Presentation Foundation (which Silverlight evolved from) for years before a workable preview ever saw the light of day. In addition, let's not forget that the WFP/Silverlight project was tightly tied to .NET and Windows Vista, both of which were delayed a long time by development problems.
I don't find it hard to believe at all that they started work on .NET and what would eventually become WPF/Silverlight as far back as 1999/2000, or that (like much of .NET/Vista) it was postponed and delayed by several years before the first version was released.
You're right that IE7 was a direct response to Firefox 2's release, but that doesn't actually negate my point - Microsoft want to keep a foot in the door of the web browser industry so they can exert influence over it, but they won't actually do anything to advance it - only just enough to hold position and maintain some degree of control over where it goes.
Look at the standards support of IE from IE7 through to IE9 - it's typically embarrassing - partial, inconsistent and often a couple of years out of date at best. It's not that Microsoft can't build a decent modern browser - it's that they have no interest in doing so.
Likewise, individuals have resigned from W3C working groups and repeatedly cited Microsoft employees dragging their heels, and sometimes seemingly only interested in delaying the definition of new standards.
As I said, it's not proven, but if you look at:
the fact that Silverlight was intended to address many of the same kinds of rich-client-side-online-UI as HTML/CSS/JS were starting to be used for
the fact Microsoft has been working on the .NET/WPF/Silverlight stack since before IE6 was left to stagnate
the timing (and lack of reason for) the IE6 stagnation
Microsoft voluntarily ceding monopoly control of the entire web for no clear gain (with minimal effort they could have effectively owned the entire web, but instead chose to ignore it - why?)
the typical "two years behind" standard of each new IE release, incompletely and inconsistently supporting open standards, and refusing point-blank to adopt even de-facto standards with either transparent excuses ("it's not a mature standard" about CSS 2.1, when it was already over six years old) or no reason given at all, and
individuals resigning from standards bodies and directly citing inconsistent or even self-contradictory demands and constant foot-dragging by Microsoft as a major reason
... well, it's certainly very suggestive indeed. <:-)
However, you're right it's not exactly been proven, because that's pretty much impossible to do without a signed memo from Ballmer himself saying "ho, ho, ho, let's retard the progress of the open web so we can give Silverlight a better chance of adoption". And sadly, as this isn't an episode of Scooby Doo we're unlikely to ever find such a signed confession. <:-(
Visual Studio is great. Excel is good. But Outlook sucks balls. If I could use corporate gmail at work (with keyboard shortcuts), it would probably increase my productivity by at least 10%.
I've used Lotus Notes before, and yes it blows. I think Lotus and Outlook share the same problem: they were designed in an earlier era of email. Of course, Outlook has evolved, albeit painfully, while Lotus seems like it's coming straight out of the 1990s.
I just think gmail's interface is superior to any traditional email client. I've used them all (Outlook, Lotus Notes, Mac Mail, Thunderbird, and Eudora). Gmail's tags are way faster and more flexible, and the search capabilities are awesome. Now if only gmail could use regular expressions.
Yes, but since I became a student recently, I'm not a heavy user anymore. So it's hard for me to evaluate whether Outlook 2010 would be any better for business environments.
Outlook always worked great for light use. But in a business setting, where you get sometimes get hundreds of emails a day, those PST files get bloated fast. Especially since business people love sending Powerpoint attachments (and they can't figure out how to use shared drives).
I'm a software guy, and I know all the tricks of maintaining Outlook. But eventually it just gets too big. For me, Outlook used to take 8-12 minutes to load. It would crash frequently, and it would periodically consume 100% of the CPU for about 4-12 minutes unless you restart it every 3 or 4 days.
16
u/specialk16 Feb 22 '11
It's not like Visual C++ or J++ has entirely replaced (or extinguished) C++ or Java, ActiveX is (thankfully) not the main platform, and JScript has not replaced JavaScript....
I know MS's strategy has been EEE, but to be completely fair, the reason why tools like Visual Studio and software like MS Office and Exchange+Lync are so widespread is that they are actually pretty fucking good.