The author seems to revolve his article around MS software running manufacturing, ambulances, etc. This is only true in the most literal sense possible. The software that runs these industries just happens to be written upon an MS platform due to a number of unfortunate market incidences that forced other OS players out of the game for less than technical reasons. This trend is now rapidly reversing and new software being written for these industries today is now moving towards Linux instead.
Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors - they just managed to capture the market and extract a tax for a number of years. That is why the public does not like them. When they have to fight with Windows to log into their laptop and wait 20 minutes while it does so (Windows Vista?), they blame Microsoft. Microsoft's technical inabilities and millions of man hours wasted patching and rebooting their OS comes at the cost of most of the world's population being less than impressed by Microsoft and those who work there.
This whole post is written merely as a rebuttal to the widely publicized article about how Microsoft is telling lies about Bing. The rebuttal itself comes down to "he's lying, not us!" and "we don't track the results from the Bing It On challenge". Both positions are pathetic as the Yale article has no reason to lie, and the only reason a company would not track results is because the results are obviously unfavorable and so they cooked up their own favorable ones.
You want to know why nobody respects Microsoft? Because Microsoft employees post articles like this which are so far from reality it leaves you wondering how they drive to work.
First, nobody at Microsoft posted an article. I answered a question on Quora, before the Yale incident even occurred. Quora reached out and asked if they could publish on Forbes, which I said was fine. I updated to add the Yale example, which has already been discussed on HN, so I don't rehash, but please note nobody has ever suggested Yale lied. I've suggested they did not great science, which is very much not the same thing.
The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?
I think you're forgetting that when the software systems powering manufacturing, ambulances, etc. was first being deployed MS was the best solution out there. The problem was that corporations didn't upgrade their tools and MS was forced to support aging, obsolete, and insecure technology. They didn't innovate for several years, and we're now seeing the market correct itself as businesses turn towards Linux powered solutions which seem to reside in the cloud.
As far as MS lying about Bing, if you read the author's other post defending the Bing it on Challenge, he rebukes Ayres point-by-point.
>>The software that runs these industries just happens to be written upon an MS platform due to a number of unfortunate market incidences that forced other OS players out of the game for less than technical reasons.
It should also be noted that Microsoft was condemned for criminal monopolist strategies in a court of law for those "market incidences".
> Wait, Microsoft makes chairs? No, not directly. But the part of that chair? Manufactured in facilities running on, you guess it, Microsoft software. Transported in trucks built by Microsoft software, on roads built by Microsoft software, sold by companies running Microsoft software.
The whole premise of this paragraph is wrong. Yes, most big businesses run Microsoft Windows, but most people hate and struggle with it. They run it not because it's the best, because it's not. They run it because monopolistic business practises forced out the competition. If he's trying to argue that Microsoft are misunderstood, that they do deserve respect after all, then maybe respect the hard-nosed business practises which have forced Microsoft products into every nook and cranny despite consistently having a shittier product than the competition.
So in other words, they make chairs, despite being forced to use awful, expensive software? I, too, thought this.
Actually, this puts a whole new perspective on the "Microsoft tax". Everything we do in life has been "taxed" by Microsoft. The argument is specious: you could be sitting on a chair that was sold for less money. You might be working in a more spacious building if better software was in use. You'd probably be paid more money if the costs for IT weren't so high.
Note I don't actually believe any of those things, but they could be valid counter arguments, depending on your own perspective.
The reasoning used in the article is pretty badly flawed. If Microsoft employees are disheartened by the general public's view of their company, that's probably something their management should fix.
That’s right. The worst part of working
at Microsoft has nothing to do with our
internal culture (that’s not quite true;
more on that in a bit). It isn’t stack
ranking or ship cycles or trying to get
things done. It is working at a company
that people don’t believe in, despite
the immense importance it plays in
their daily life.
Uh, no. It's the politics, and the stack ranking, and the interminably long ship cycles, and the typical unwillingness to even consider a market unless someone else has proven that it's a billion dollar business. And especially the politics and the stack ranking. They're absolutely toxic.
n.b. I haven't worked there in six years (and in fact the ten year anniversary of my FTE interview was this week!), but my feelings on the matter have been confirmed in every conversation I've ever had with an ex-MSFT FTE. Call it survivorship bias if you want, but this has been consistent in every conversation I've had, regardless if the person left a year ago or five.
edit: and the in-fighting. and the backbiting... but I guess those are just politics by another name.
1970s-style PR. This mirrors the oil company messaging: "pay no attention to the oil spills and CIA-sponsored coups de etat, we're the swell people that make the petrochemicals in that ziploc baggie in your little girl's lunchbox." "We power the trucks that bring organic vegetables to your dinner table."
But the part of that chair? Manufactured in facilities running on, you guess it, Microsoft software. Transported in trucks built by Microsoft software, on roads built by Microsoft software, sold by companies running Microsoft software.
Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
All of those things existed before Microsoft! Certainly the ubiquity of MS software has resulted in efficiencies over the years, but does anyone really doubt that another platform (Classic Mac, GNU, *BSD, VAX, etc) would not have filled the void in a World Without Microsoft?
This is believable. It certainly mirrors my experience of the worst thing about being friends with people who work at Microsoft: the constant sense of insecurity and desire to be be trusted. I've been told countless times in the past 2 or 3 years that I should put all my money in MSFT because they're Coming Back in a Big Way(tm).
The story is always "this shit we have in the pipeline is going to blow everyone away! why are you snickering!?" or "the consumers just don't understand us / never gave us a chance. we could have never anticipated this."
I do feel sorry for them, it can't feel good. I mean, obviously they are making cash hand over fist, but I really get the sense that they aren't getting any gratification.
What's worse than working for Microsoft is ... being a shill for Microsoft.
In a weird way, minus the "but really we're great" part, it must be hell to spend your life touting Microsoft when they are so hated. Because in these networked days, a PR person can't go home and tell their friends "they suck, I just work there" because things get around much more quickly.
This was an honest answer on Quora to a question that I think is interesting. It is how I actually feel. Quora reached out to ask me if they could publish it on Forbes, and I said it was fine, because it was already public and out there.
You seem to be suggesting that the only way someone could want to work at Microsoft and feel this way is if they are a shill. Isn't that exactly what I just wrote about, as basic lack of respect for the people who choose to build at Microsoft?
Pure rubbish. MSFT should have been split up for blatant violations of the Sherman Anti Trust Act but got a last minute pass by Bush. The company is nothing more than a drain on the technology industry in this country.
The worst thing about working for Microsoft? You have to run Windows.
The part about Microsoft being ubiquitous begs the question: is it actually good that Microsoft software is everywhere? The part that really gets me is schools.
I can't see pushing Surface/Windows 8/Office/insert MS product here on students (especially young ones) being beneficial to anyone other than Microsoft. As a student who was expected to format essays according to Word and to use (Excel, Powerpoint, even FRONTPAGE) extensively in K-12 education, I really can't see a way to put this strategy in a positive light. "ad-free" bing for schools? Really? What's more poisonous--getting students dependent on a stack of proprietary software, or a search engine with ads?
Well, as the guy behind Bing for Schools, let me suggest an alternate world. Let's pretend Microsoft simply blinked out of existence. Can you name any software package as well integrated, as powerful, and as empowering for students as Office? You said that putting Office in the hands of students can't possibly be beneficial to anyone but Microsoft. But that's EXACTLY what I'm writing about. Let's pretend it was free and you took off the Microsoft brand; Office absolutely creates huge efficiencies in the ability of students to create, to learn, and to share. But because it has MSFT on it, you seem to be suggesting that it must necessarily be bad for kids.
Not only that, they kind of have to.. you can't legally track users under the age or (12 or 13 I forget which), so that means if they're aware the users are under age, they have to not track them.
I like a lot of the technology and software that has come out of MS.. VS is a pretty damned great IDE, and there's a lot to like. ASP.Net MVC is one of the nicer frameworks I've used, the Razor view engine in particular... That said, I stopped going to their developer presentations a couple of years ago, because every one seemed like an advertisement for Azure.
I like that Azure is there, as an option.. I also like that there's Joyent, Amazon, Linode and a dozen others. Options are great... But I'm tired of seeing it shoved down everyone that develops on an MS platform.
I've spent roughly half my development time for over two years developing towards node.js ... I find a much lower level of friction, that it lends itself better to modularization and can support multiple concurrent versions of libraries without having them all in the same bin directory. Not to mention imho better testing ability, and just a smoother cycle with less prescription in the core.
Ironically enough, I still think that Outlook + Exchange is the best tool combination out of MS compared to their competitors, and even that is much more open today than ever before. I don't think most people NEED MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Especially with web tools for powerpoint and excel that are as good as their desktop counterparts. And Libre Office Writer in many ways besting Word... I don't see much value there.
If MS would really separate some of their business units, it could work so much better...
If Windows developed as a Core OS framework, with UI developers for desktop, xbox, and mobile separated, we wouldn't have to deal with Metro on the desktop, where it's imho a poor fit, but could have it in mobile where it makes more sense.
If the Office team were untangled and better able to target iOS and Android, a better job with OSX, and less tethered, they could be a powerhouse. Separate Outlook and push them back with the Exchange team.. or hell as a separate product. They could do what BlackBerry should have done and create a best of breed cross-platform mail app.
They've been so tethered to trying to integrate their marginal sales into windows + office that they've been strangled against competition that many of their departments should have been able to take advantage of.
In doing the above, their Visual Studio team could embrace other platforms better. Web Matrix is one of the best tools out there for NodeJS development, and most of the features haven't gotten into VS.
MS developed azure as a great platform to deploy too, but keeping a lot of their concepts tied to windows + vs, has restricted growth they could have had. Azure would have been better off without the heavy MS & Windows tie ins... they could have embraced other OSes earlier on, and perhaps been seen more favorably with them. Their PaaS levels could have even supported distributed/shared LXC deployments, and much better tooling.
Historically, MS has made most of their money with Windows and Office from business customers, and will continue to do so.
However, if they don't let their individual business units actually integrate, inter-operate and compete with third parties on a whole new level, I don't think that they'll find the niches that Oracle and IBM have found in the long run.
They'll be here for a long while regardless, but they won't have the same exposure to every person with a computer as the trend continues.
What a larf. Why did Forbes print this? No, man, Alcoa picked me up. And US Steel. And Con-Ed. And Exxon. And Starbucks! Oh, wait, the driver had Dunkin' Donuts. Whatever.
>> It is working at a company that people don’t believe in, despite the immense importance it plays in their daily life.
Very true, Microsoft's business level software does not have as much visibility IMHO. People underestimate the role their software plays.
>> Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
What role, Windows, SQL Server, Azure? Microsoft may have helped there but so has the janitor who keeps the hospital clean, the barista who makes coffee for the doctors. Doesn't mean I'm going to thank Microsoft for saving my life when I get hit by a bus. This is a valid argument, but a very weak one because Microsoft is one cog in so many that keeps a hospital running.
Rest of the arguments in the article are quite valid, but when some tells me my ambulance is running Microsoft software I have a horrible flashback with a BSOD.
You are absolutely right that the janitor has a role, as does the barista, and I afford both of those people immense amounts of respect in my daily life. I don't look at the things they do and say "simply because you are a barista, I am going to dislike this."
And yet there are many people, especially in tech, who are willing to take pot shots at something just because it was produced by Microsoft. My answer was an attempt to look at that critically.
The worst part about the stack ranking implementation at MSFT is that there will always be a bottom 10-20% who'll get fired in a couple of review cycles. If you're in a stellar team, you're pretty screwed (which is sad because now we'll eventually have rock stars looking for shitty teams or leaving). Stack ranking should rather be used to identify the top 10%
Can you really credit Microsoft with software running on production lines, and in hospitals, ambulances, etc..? Isn't that more of a result of market share?
Exactly what I was thinking. It might just be me tired and not thinking clearly, but where do we draw the line? Tire manufactures for the ambulance? Tools manufactures that built the hospital?
Other than this, everything else made sense. Microsoft does play an important part.
After years of bugs/viruses/bloat and what not, Microsoft finally got the OS right with Windows 7. I personally know many people (including myself) who were/are quite impressed with it. Then it goes ahead and inflicts Windows 8 on the users.
Just when you got something right, after over a decade, and had a chance to build goodwill/positive response from your users, you go ahead and royally screw it up. I won't even go in their predatory/arm-twisting business practices.
The worst thing about Microsoft is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes or, more importantly, care.
The question was "What is the most innovative company?" Innovation is different than market penetration. And this article seems to aim to fend off a self conscious thought. Nobody thinks that people who work for MS are jerks. That is the author's own thoughts about himself. People just don't respect MS because of the lack of efficiency. Nobody argues about penetration, I am wrting this comment on a computer that runs MS. That does not take away my right to criticze the product.
I think Matt's discussion was spot on - it only bothers you if you pay attention to it. Microsoft offers an opportunity to positively impact a lot of people, both developers and end users. It takes pretty good care (benefits and pay) of its employees, too. If that's enough to motivate you, you only need to worry about stack ranking if you're worried about ending up low on the stack. If you're doing good work, that's extremely unlikely.
No matter how good or bad Microsoft is, the workers there dont have a magic privilege that should force anyone to respect and feel grateful to their company and them...
I'm not asking for a magic privilege. I'm asking people to step back and evaluate what Microsoft is actually doing. Take Bing, for example; you strip the brand off and people actually prefer our results. Take an honest look at the products we produce and still don't choose to use them? Totally fine. But it is important that people do take that step back - we can't let tech be ruled by branding only.
[+] [-] RyanZAG|12 years ago|reply
Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors - they just managed to capture the market and extract a tax for a number of years. That is why the public does not like them. When they have to fight with Windows to log into their laptop and wait 20 minutes while it does so (Windows Vista?), they blame Microsoft. Microsoft's technical inabilities and millions of man hours wasted patching and rebooting their OS comes at the cost of most of the world's population being less than impressed by Microsoft and those who work there.
This whole post is written merely as a rebuttal to the widely publicized article about how Microsoft is telling lies about Bing. The rebuttal itself comes down to "he's lying, not us!" and "we don't track the results from the Bing It On challenge". Both positions are pathetic as the Yale article has no reason to lie, and the only reason a company would not track results is because the results are obviously unfavorable and so they cooked up their own favorable ones.
You want to know why nobody respects Microsoft? Because Microsoft employees post articles like this which are so far from reality it leaves you wondering how they drive to work.
[+] [-] mattwallaert|12 years ago|reply
The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?
[+] [-] gum_ina_package|12 years ago|reply
As far as MS lying about Bing, if you read the author's other post defending the Bing it on Challenge, he rebukes Ayres point-by-point.
[+] [-] berntb|12 years ago|reply
It should also be noted that Microsoft was condemned for criminal monopolist strategies in a court of law for those "market incidences".
[+] [-] frenger|12 years ago|reply
The whole premise of this paragraph is wrong. Yes, most big businesses run Microsoft Windows, but most people hate and struggle with it. They run it not because it's the best, because it's not. They run it because monopolistic business practises forced out the competition. If he's trying to argue that Microsoft are misunderstood, that they do deserve respect after all, then maybe respect the hard-nosed business practises which have forced Microsoft products into every nook and cranny despite consistently having a shittier product than the competition.
[+] [-] chris_wot|12 years ago|reply
Actually, this puts a whole new perspective on the "Microsoft tax". Everything we do in life has been "taxed" by Microsoft. The argument is specious: you could be sitting on a chair that was sold for less money. You might be working in a more spacious building if better software was in use. You'd probably be paid more money if the costs for IT weren't so high.
Note I don't actually believe any of those things, but they could be valid counter arguments, depending on your own perspective.
The reasoning used in the article is pretty badly flawed. If Microsoft employees are disheartened by the general public's view of their company, that's probably something their management should fix.
[+] [-] tjdetwiler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|12 years ago|reply
n.b. I haven't worked there in six years (and in fact the ten year anniversary of my FTE interview was this week!), but my feelings on the matter have been confirmed in every conversation I've ever had with an ex-MSFT FTE. Call it survivorship bias if you want, but this has been consistent in every conversation I've had, regardless if the person left a year ago or five.
edit: and the in-fighting. and the backbiting... but I guess those are just politics by another name.
[+] [-] jongalloway2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alrs|12 years ago|reply
Microsoft: For the Children.
[+] [-] jlgreco|12 years ago|reply
Remember, it can't just be for kids, it has to be saving kids.
[+] [-] ronilan|12 years ago|reply
We don't make the MBA/OSX/Chrome you use to write this comment - we make the chair you sit on possible.
[+] [-] EdiX|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Anechoic|12 years ago|reply
Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
All of those things existed before Microsoft! Certainly the ubiquity of MS software has resulted in efficiencies over the years, but does anyone really doubt that another platform (Classic Mac, GNU, *BSD, VAX, etc) would not have filled the void in a World Without Microsoft?
[+] [-] covox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgreco|12 years ago|reply
The story is always "this shit we have in the pipeline is going to blow everyone away! why are you snickering!?" or "the consumers just don't understand us / never gave us a chance. we could have never anticipated this."
I do feel sorry for them, it can't feel good. I mean, obviously they are making cash hand over fist, but I really get the sense that they aren't getting any gratification.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|12 years ago|reply
In a weird way, minus the "but really we're great" part, it must be hell to spend your life touting Microsoft when they are so hated. Because in these networked days, a PR person can't go home and tell their friends "they suck, I just work there" because things get around much more quickly.
[+] [-] mattwallaert|12 years ago|reply
You seem to be suggesting that the only way someone could want to work at Microsoft and feel this way is if they are a shill. Isn't that exactly what I just wrote about, as basic lack of respect for the people who choose to build at Microsoft?
[+] [-] dmourati|12 years ago|reply
The worst thing about working for Microsoft? You have to run Windows.
[+] [-] curiousDog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loser777|12 years ago|reply
I can't see pushing Surface/Windows 8/Office/insert MS product here on students (especially young ones) being beneficial to anyone other than Microsoft. As a student who was expected to format essays according to Word and to use (Excel, Powerpoint, even FRONTPAGE) extensively in K-12 education, I really can't see a way to put this strategy in a positive light. "ad-free" bing for schools? Really? What's more poisonous--getting students dependent on a stack of proprietary software, or a search engine with ads?
[+] [-] mattwallaert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracker1|12 years ago|reply
I like a lot of the technology and software that has come out of MS.. VS is a pretty damned great IDE, and there's a lot to like. ASP.Net MVC is one of the nicer frameworks I've used, the Razor view engine in particular... That said, I stopped going to their developer presentations a couple of years ago, because every one seemed like an advertisement for Azure.
I like that Azure is there, as an option.. I also like that there's Joyent, Amazon, Linode and a dozen others. Options are great... But I'm tired of seeing it shoved down everyone that develops on an MS platform.
I've spent roughly half my development time for over two years developing towards node.js ... I find a much lower level of friction, that it lends itself better to modularization and can support multiple concurrent versions of libraries without having them all in the same bin directory. Not to mention imho better testing ability, and just a smoother cycle with less prescription in the core.
Ironically enough, I still think that Outlook + Exchange is the best tool combination out of MS compared to their competitors, and even that is much more open today than ever before. I don't think most people NEED MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Especially with web tools for powerpoint and excel that are as good as their desktop counterparts. And Libre Office Writer in many ways besting Word... I don't see much value there.
If MS would really separate some of their business units, it could work so much better...
If Windows developed as a Core OS framework, with UI developers for desktop, xbox, and mobile separated, we wouldn't have to deal with Metro on the desktop, where it's imho a poor fit, but could have it in mobile where it makes more sense.
If the Office team were untangled and better able to target iOS and Android, a better job with OSX, and less tethered, they could be a powerhouse. Separate Outlook and push them back with the Exchange team.. or hell as a separate product. They could do what BlackBerry should have done and create a best of breed cross-platform mail app.
They've been so tethered to trying to integrate their marginal sales into windows + office that they've been strangled against competition that many of their departments should have been able to take advantage of.
In doing the above, their Visual Studio team could embrace other platforms better. Web Matrix is one of the best tools out there for NodeJS development, and most of the features haven't gotten into VS.
MS developed azure as a great platform to deploy too, but keeping a lot of their concepts tied to windows + vs, has restricted growth they could have had. Azure would have been better off without the heavy MS & Windows tie ins... they could have embraced other OSes earlier on, and perhaps been seen more favorably with them. Their PaaS levels could have even supported distributed/shared LXC deployments, and much better tooling.
Historically, MS has made most of their money with Windows and Office from business customers, and will continue to do so.
However, if they don't let their individual business units actually integrate, inter-operate and compete with third parties on a whole new level, I don't think that they'll find the niches that Oracle and IBM have found in the long run.
They'll be here for a long while regardless, but they won't have the same exposure to every person with a computer as the trend continues.
[+] [-] mynameishere|12 years ago|reply
What a larf. Why did Forbes print this? No, man, Alcoa picked me up. And US Steel. And Con-Ed. And Exxon. And Starbucks! Oh, wait, the driver had Dunkin' Donuts. Whatever.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cfinke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devilsenigma|12 years ago|reply
Very true, Microsoft's business level software does not have as much visibility IMHO. People underestimate the role their software plays.
>> Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
What role, Windows, SQL Server, Azure? Microsoft may have helped there but so has the janitor who keeps the hospital clean, the barista who makes coffee for the doctors. Doesn't mean I'm going to thank Microsoft for saving my life when I get hit by a bus. This is a valid argument, but a very weak one because Microsoft is one cog in so many that keeps a hospital running.
Rest of the arguments in the article are quite valid, but when some tells me my ambulance is running Microsoft software I have a horrible flashback with a BSOD.
[+] [-] mattwallaert|12 years ago|reply
And yet there are many people, especially in tech, who are willing to take pot shots at something just because it was produced by Microsoft. My answer was an attempt to look at that critically.
[+] [-] curiousDog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxmcd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radioact1ve|12 years ago|reply
Other than this, everything else made sense. Microsoft does play an important part.
[+] [-] toddwick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noisy_boy|12 years ago|reply
Just when you got something right, after over a decade, and had a chance to build goodwill/positive response from your users, you go ahead and royally screw it up. I won't even go in their predatory/arm-twisting business practices.
The worst thing about Microsoft is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes or, more importantly, care.
[+] [-] Mustafabei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcot2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jongalloway2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cestep|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orware|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stratosvoukel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattwallaert|12 years ago|reply