We can all agree it is deplorable that Windows has some many issues. So lets get beyond that. I happen to think it reasonable to assume MSE's existence is in response to security issues. If MSFT were to be charging for MSE, that would be bad. I see the more interesting questions to be #1 How did this situation develop? and #2 Given the answer to #1, were the best decisions made?My views - #1 The security situation happened largely because MSFT made a strategic decision way back in the 1980s to keep their products functional with upgrades. i.e. A change for DOS 3 to DOS 4 would not render MultiPlan or MS-BASIC in need of an upgrade. This decision made if very difficult to plug existing holes and created an opportunity to add additional holes particularly as features and capabilities were added. #2 Gates may be a lot of things, but financially short sited is not one of them. He hung in there with keeping legacy software and hardware working, so business had a reason to stick with MSFT and not look elsewhere. Very few business users or developers have moved to Linux and that in my view is largely because the cost in terms of decreased productivity is too great. Fixing Windows is not unlike fixing some of the monster applications business built in COBOL. Rather the create smaller, clean COBOL, IT people decided long, long ago to add some more lines of code (aka spaghetti). And COBOL fate was to be replaced, not fixed. Frankly that is the future I see for Windows also. Wish I knew with what. That will be a great investment of the next 40 years.GordonAtlanta
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra