Bill Gates back at Microsoft

[deadrats]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bill-gates-back-at-microsoft-technology-advisor,25951.html

there were rumors for a while that gates was going to return to microsoft as ceo again to replace balmer, a rumor that gates denied repeatedly saying he wanted to devote his time to his various philanthropic activities. gates however had been chairman of the board of directors and was scheduled to stay in that position until 2018, despite the fact that many wanted him to step down and let someone else in that role.

well, gates stepped down alright and assumed the newly created role of "tech adviser" to the new ceo. the new position expands on his role within microsoft thus:

Microsoft has only said that Gates will "devote more time to the company, supporting Nadella in shaping technology and product direction."

[zoobie]

Did he ever get his toilet?

[jman98]

Oh joy. For as we all know, Bill Gates is a freakin' visionary at a bare minimum at the Steve Jobs level if not one billion times more so this will certainly mean that Microsoft is going to turn things completely around. Or not.

With less sarcasm, I will say that during his heyday Microsoft was known (and still is known) for operating in reactionary mode rather than innovating. Yes, they tried a couple of half-assed innovations like tablets over 10 years ago (everybody hated them - they were like really crappy small PCs that couldn't do anything useful) but I honestly can't think of a single thing in the PC world where Microsoft actually got there first and the industry followed, so this is just another sign of a company that still does not get it and is trying to go back to the past rather than dealing with the present reality that they are in.

[bendixG15]

Microsoft will not do anything "visionary" until their cash cows start drying up.
Until then, it's business as usual.

(enough said, I could ramble all day)

[usually_quiet]

It would appear that many of Microsoft's customers don't want visionary new software or hardware. They want backward compatibility forever and they want an unchanging user interface. Case in point, a lot of people here are bitching and moaning because after 12+ years XP support is ending and they can't use some of their 12+ year old hardware or software with Windows 7, or the small changes to the user interface are too difficult to adapt to.

[hello_hello]

I'm not bitching and moaning about upgrading XP, but I've been using PCs for many years now. Back in the early days, playing around, updating, installing/uninstalling software etc was kind of fun for me, even though it isn't everybody's cup of tea. These days I loath it. I hate it passionately. If it works, I leave it alone unless there's a substantial benefit to not leaving it alone, and when it comes to upgrading XP I'm still not seeing one. No doubt I will sometime in the near future.... just not yet.
Choose a word with a meaning which is the opposite of "visionary" and you could be pretty confident it'd describe Vista well. I installed it, used it for a couple of days, reformatted and re-installed XP. Hours and hours of my life I'll never get back. If anything, Win7 was the OS Vista should have been. Vista had me questioning whether any of Microsoft's employees actually used PCs themselves or whether they all owned Macs.

I'm happy to use visionary new hardware and software. I was using pocket PCs and smartphones before the iphone was conceived. The main problem was they ran Windows. And you had to navigate with a stylus and a tiny little scrollbar. The last Windows phone I owned came to a premature end after meeting a wall at an excessive velocity, but at least that was the last time it froze on me.

As far as I know the change in interface was to give PCs and portable devices a common one. That was something I'd not considered the possibility of caring about. I imagine pretty much all PC users desired that in the same way they desired a browser which was integrated into the OS. Which leaves the change in interface being predominantly for the benefit of Microsoft and Microsoft's "vision" that someday someone might again buy a phone running Windows. And maybe it helps software developers if they can write software which runs on all flavours of Windows instead of having to write a version for each flavour.... I don't really know.... but the change in interface could probably be best described as a "convenience"... just not for people using PCs.

[usually_quiet]

I'm not bitching and moaning about upgrading XP, but I've been using PCs for many years now. Back in the early days, playing around, updating, installing/uninstalling software etc was kind of fun for me, even though it isn't everybody's cup of tea. These days I loath it. I hate it passionately. If it works, I leave it alone unless there's a substantial benefit to not leaving it alone, and when it comes to upgrading XP I'm still not seeing one. No doubt I will sometime in the near future.... just not yet.
Choose a word with a meaning which is the opposite of "visionary" and you could be pretty confident it'd describe Vista well. I installed it, used it for a couple of days, reformatted and re-installed XP. Hours and hours of my life I'll never get back. If anything, Win7 was the OS Vista should have been. Vista had me questioning whether any of Microsoft's employees actually used PCs themselves or whether they all owned Macs.

I'm happy to use visionary new hardware and software. I was using pocket PCs and smartphones before the iphone was conceived. The main problem was they ran Windows. And you had to navigate with a stylus and a tiny little scrollbar. The last Windows phone I owned came to a premature end after meeting a wall at an excessive velocity, but at least that was the last time it froze on me.

As far as I know the change in interface was to give PCs and portable devices a common one. That was something I'd not considered the possibility of caring about. I imagine pretty much all PC users desired that in the same way they desired a browser which was integrated into the OS. Which leaves the change in interface being predominantly for the benefit of Microsoft and Microsoft's "vision" that someday someone might again buy a phone running Windows. And maybe it helps software developers if they can write software which runs on all flavours of Windows instead of having to write a version for each flavour.... I don't really know.... but the change in interface could probably be best described as a "convenience"... just not for people using PCs.

All I can say is if you are so thoroughly displeased with Microsoft's lack of vision, why haven't you ditched them entirely? You would obviously be so much happier using one or more of the alternatives for everything instead: Google's Chrome OS, Android, BSD, Linux, iOS or OS X.

I was speaking of Windows 7's user interface, not the apparently failed experiment known as Windows 8.x.

[hello_hello]

Now I'm confused. Who got to decide Win7 was "visionary" while Win8 is a failed experiment?

I can't say any of the changes to the Win7 interface bothered me that much. Sure, they moved some stuff around for no apparent reason, and as I hardly use it myself, when I do I often find myself needing to stop and think where to find something, but it's nothing I can't cope with and definitely not the reason I haven't upgraded to Win7 yet. I could see the Win8 interface putting a lot of people off upgrading, but I've not heard the same said about Win7.
Win7 could have looked identical to XP but that'd not be a reason to upgrade it as such.... probably quite the opposite for many people..... maybe that's why Microsoft have a vision for each new version of Windows which involves moving stuff around a bit.

I own an Android phone. I don't dislike XP. Quite the opposite. Displeasure with Microsoft's lack of vision isn't a factor as such. The main thing keeping me using Windows is some "can't live without" software which is Windows only. I've considered trying running them on Wine, or even using XP as a Virtual OS, and when the time comes, before upgrading Windows I'll probably do just that. Once again though, that'd be a whole lot of work where the best case scenario would be to end up back where I started, productivity-wise. Co-incidentally, pretty much the same best case scenario I'd expect when upgrading XP. The main roadblock when it comes to upgrading Windows has for a long time been the simple fact XP works so well.

[usually_quiet]

Now I'm confused. Who got to decide Win7 was "visionary" while Win8 is a failed experiment?

I never said Windows 7 was visionary. Read my first post in this thread again. I said many of Microsoft's customers can't tolerate change of any sort and complain about the relatively small changes that were made to its user interface relative to that of Windows XP.

I can't say any of the changes to the Win7 interface bothered me that much. Sure, they moved some stuff around for no apparent reason, and as I hardly use it myself, when I do I often find myself needing to stop and think where to find something, but it's nothing I can't cope with and definitely not the reason I haven't upgraded to Win7 yet. I could see the Win8 interface putting a lot of people off upgrading, but I've not heard the same said about Win7.
Win7 could have looked identical to XP but that'd not be a reason to upgrade it as such.... probably quite the opposite for many people..... maybe that's why Microsoft have a vision for each new version of Windows which involves moving stuff around a bit.

I own an Android phone. I don't dislike XP. Quite the opposite. Displeasure with Microsoft's lack of vision isn't a factor as such. The main thing keeping me using Windows is some "can't live without" software which is Windows only. I've considered trying running them on Wine, or even using XP as a Virtual OS, and when the time comes, before upgrading Windows I'll probably do just that. Once again though, that'd be a whole lot of work where the best case scenario would be to end up back where I started, productivity-wise. Co-incidentally, pretty much the same best case scenario I'd expect when upgrading XP. The main roadblock when it comes to upgrading Windows has for a long time been the simple fact XP works so well.

So, the effort you needed to put into learning to use Android was perfectly acceptable, but somehow changing over to Windows 7 seems like too much work, even though you have had little trouble using it the few times you have needed to? LOL

As a long-time user of Windows 7, I'm certain that it works quite well too, although it is true that some hardware and software that worked with XP is incompatible with it. Those types of incompatibilities aren't a new phenomenon. I recall some software that I used with Windows 95 was incompatible when I upgraded to Windows XP.

[hello_hello]

Now I'm confused. Who got to decide Win7 was "visionary" while Win8 is a failed experiment?

I never said Windows 7 was visionary. Read my first post in this thread again. I said many of Microsoft's customers can't tolerate change of any sort and complain about the relatively small changes that were made to its user interface relative to that of Windows XP.

It would appear that many of Microsoft's customers don't want visionary new software or hardware. They want backward compatibility forever and they want an unchanging user interface. Case in point, a lot of people here are bitching and moaning because after 12+ years XP support is ending and they can't use some of their 12+ year old hardware or software with Windows 7, or the small changes to the user interface are too difficult to adapt to.

Or did you make two first posts in this thread and I'm reading the wrong first post?
Which new visionary Microsoft software was your case in point referring to, if not Win7?

So, the effort you needed to put into learning to use Android was perfectly acceptable, but somehow changing over to Windows 7 seems like too much work, even though you have had little trouble using it the few times you have needed to?

I guess I've somehow failed to convey the need for benefit when upgrading. It wasn't too much effort to learn to use Android. Doing so also provided a benefit. It was better than the Windows alternative at the time. And don't get me started on the horrible piece of Microsoft garbage called ActiveSync.
Learning to use Windows 7 would require almost no effort. I already know my way around it. Paying for it, installing it, tweaking it, re-installing all my software, sorting out any problems which arise, then upgrading the software I use for imaging because the version of ghost I use doesn't restore Win7 images properly (they won't boot without repairing) and the resulting benefit after all that would be somewhere between none and almost none. At least for me at the moment. That may change, and when it does I'll consider upgrading.
It's not about being able to install Win7 on old hardware. It's not about compatibility with older software. I could use a VM or run XP as a virtual OS if it came to that. It's about benefiting from the cost and time involved in upgrading.

[jman98]

Learning to use Windows 7 would require almost no effort. I already know my way around it. Paying for it, installing it, tweaking it, re-installing all my software, sorting out any problems which arise, then upgrading the software I use for imaging because the version of ghost I use doesn't restore Win7 images properly (they won't boot without repairing) and the resulting benefit after all that would be somewhere between none and almost none.

As someone who went through installing it from scratch on a new PC, I only had 3 programs I cared about that didn't work in Win 7. One worked fine in the XP VM that came for free with my version of Win 7 (I bought the most expensive version but I don't remember the name of it). One I just abandoned and found a new way to do the same thing. The other was a driver for my scanner and since my scanner was old, I just junked it and bought a new one.

As best I can determine NOTHING is capable of making a Win 7 image that will boot without repairing. Anyone making a backup of their Win 7 installs is advised to make a restore disc as you'll need it when restoring the image. I'm guessing that Microsoft did that either deliberately for some insane reason that nobody else on earth agrees with or it was some kind of omission due to incompetence.

[handyguy]

What a wonderful role model for people with Aspergers.

[TreeTops]

"Aspergers" .....can't grow those here. Too cold!

[Kerry56]

This was funny: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/02/gates-spends-entire-first...ampaign=buffer

Irony bites Gates on the butt.

[usually_quiet]

Now I'm confused. Who got to decide Win7 was "visionary" while Win8 is a failed experiment?

I never said Windows 7 was visionary. Read my first post in this thread again. I said many of Microsoft's customers can't tolerate change of any sort and complain about the relatively small changes that were made to its user interface relative to that of Windows XP.

It would appear that many of Microsoft's customers don't want visionary new software or hardware. They want backward compatibility forever and they want an unchanging user interface. Case in point, a lot of people here are bitching and moaning because after 12+ years XP support is ending and they can't use some of their 12+ year old hardware or software with Windows 7, or the small changes to the user interface are too difficult to adapt to.

Or did you make two first posts in this thread and I'm reading the wrong first post?
Which new visionary Microsoft software was your case in point referring to, if not Win7?

I think you are having me on at this point, but I'll reply anyway. I'm referring to a hypothetical visionary OS, not an existing one. (If you remember, some people here were saying Microsoft hasn't ever produced a visionary product.) A truly visionary new Microsoft OS would have to include a user interface that was substantially changed in one way or another, which a fair number Windows users would hate because it was too different from what they were used to.

So, the effort you needed to put into learning to use Android was perfectly acceptable, but somehow changing over to Windows 7 seems like too much work, even though you have had little trouble using it the few times you have needed to?

I guess I've somehow failed to convey the need for benefit when upgrading. It wasn't too much effort to learn to use Android. Doing so also provided a benefit. It was better than the Windows alternative at the time. And don't get me started on the horrible piece of Microsoft garbage called ActiveSync.
Learning to use Windows 7 would require almost no effort. I already know my way around it. Paying for it, installing it, tweaking it, re-installing all my software, sorting out any problems which arise, then upgrading the software I use for imaging because the version of ghost I use doesn't restore Win7 images properly (they won't boot without repairing) and the resulting benefit after all that would be somewhere between none and almost none. At least for me at the moment. That may change, and when it does I'll consider upgrading.
It's not about being able to install Win7 on old hardware. It's not about compatibility with older software. I could use a VM or run XP as a virtual OS if it came to that. It's about benefiting from the cost and time involved in upgrading.

Maybe there no benefit for the old hardware you have now, but you won't have it forever and if you wait too long to buy a Windows 7 license, you will miss the opportunity to get one at a reasonable price. Microsoft planned to end all Windows 7 sales on October 30th of last year, but was forced to delay the end of OEM license sales because Windows 8.x is such an epic fail. Although a new end of sales date has not been announced, it can't be too far off.

[NJRoadfan]

I think you are having me on at this point, but I'll reply anyway. I'm referring to a hypothetical visionary OS, not an existing one. (If you remember, some people here were saying Microsoft hasn't ever produced a visionary product.) A truly visionary new Microsoft OS would have to include a user interface that was substantially changed in one way or another, which a fair number Windows users would hate because it was too different from what they were used to.

You mean like Cairo?... or the three pillars of Longhorn?

Microsoft has tried visionary and failed in the past. Apple also tried for many years (remember Copland?) and landed up having to buy NeXT to achieve its goals.

[hello_hello]

I think you are having me on at this point, but I'll reply anyway. I'm referring to a hypothetical visionary OS, not an existing one. (If you remember, some people here were saying Microsoft hasn't ever produced a visionary product.)

Are you still believing your own arguments? Some people here saying Microsoft have never produced a visionary product somehow shows they don't want one?
Visionary software, case in point, Windows 7. I was just reading what you posted, unaware which bits were hypothetical.
Wanting backward compatibility forever and an unchanging user interface. Hypothetical?
A lot of people here are bitching and moaning because after 12+ years XP support is ending..... Now you've got me thinking about it, it does seem likely you were referring to "a lot of hypothetical people".

A truly visionary new Microsoft OS would have to include a user interface that was substantially changed in one way or another, which a fair number Windows users would hate because it was too different from what they were used to.

Is Windows 8 visionary again??

Maybe there no benefit for the old hardware you have now, but you won't have it forever and if you wait too long to buy a Windows 7 license, you will miss the opportunity to get one at a reasonable price. Microsoft planned to end all Windows 7 sales on October 30th of last year, but was forced to delay the end of OEM license sales because Windows 8.x is such an epic fail. Although a new end of sales date has not been announced, it can't be too far off.

An epic failure of vision, maybe? No that sounds like Microsoft didn't produce visionary software. A vision of epic failure?

Can't I just wait for Windows 10 or 11 so I can bitch and moan Windows 9 won't run on my hardware? Unless I upgrade it, I think it'll be 12+ years old by then.

[_Al_]

I make images and going back and forth, storing image or replacing image without any problem, win 7, using Hiren's Boot CD with Ghost on it. It never failed. So what do you all mean saying it does not work. Dual boot, or any other problems I cannot see?

[usually_quiet]

I think you are having me on at this point, but I'll reply anyway. I'm referring to a hypothetical visionary OS, not an existing one. (If you remember, some people here were saying Microsoft hasn't ever produced a visionary product.)

Are you still believing your own arguments? Some people here saying Microsoft have never produced a visionary product somehow shows they don't want one?
Visionary software, case in point, Windows 7. I was just reading what you posted, unaware which bits were hypothetical.
Wanting backward compatibility forever and an unchanging user interface. Hypothetical?
A lot of people here are bitching and moaning because after 12+ years XP support is ending..... Now you've got me thinking about it, it does seem likely you were referring to "a lot of hypothetical people".

A truly visionary new Microsoft OS would have to include a user interface that was substantially changed in one way or another, which a fair number Windows users would hate because it was too different from what they were used to.

Is Windows 8 visionary again??

Maybe there no benefit for the old hardware you have now, but you won't have it forever and if you wait too long to buy a Windows 7 license, you will miss the opportunity to get one at a reasonable price. Microsoft planned to end all Windows 7 sales on October 30th of last year, but was forced to delay the end of OEM license sales because Windows 8.x is such an epic fail. Although a new end of sales date has not been announced, it can't be too far off.

An epic failure of vision, maybe? No that sounds like Microsoft didn't produce visionary software. A vision of epic failure?

Can't I just wait for Windows 10 or 11 so I can bitch and moan Windows 9 won't run on my hardware? Unless I upgrade it, I think it'll be 12+ years old by then.

My point was that Microsoft has succeeded only when not attempting to be visionary. One of the reasons being that a large number of their customers hate change, which does in fact mean they want more of the same, not new and not visionary ...and there certainly are people here complaining about the end of Windows XP support and the difficulty of migrating to a new OS

Since it is obvious you are now deliberately choosing to misread what I write as well as continuing to put words in my mouth to muddy the argument, I won't bother to reply again. ...or are you just that dense?

[Gravitator]

It sponsors the development of vaccines to reduce population