Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
If .NET is based on COM+ then Microsoft is producing a dead at birth product.

COM was one of those technologies that needed to be sent back for a re-write. Instead they were competing against CORBA on Unix, so they fixed it in the marketing instead of the programming department.

Microsoft so blitz'ed the tech world with marketing, that to dare say that COM was not all 'fine-silk and quality stitching' was to raise questions about your own competence.

One of the funniest examples of this is in a book called "Effective COM: 50 Ways to Improve Your COM and MTS-based Applications (The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series)"

Where one of the tips is "Don't believe everything MS tells you"!

COM+ is full of B-grade stuff, when a Microsoft engineer came to sell it to us, (called Corban?) he said this:
"When I first saw how they had done asynchronous calls in COM+ I thought, 'they're crazy they don't know how to do asynchronous calls' but then I thought about it and realized that it was a very efficient way of doing it".

Interesting, they (MS) know it's bad, they know the engineers on a project will point out its bad, so they do a deflection like this.

I think the idea behind this marketing deflection is this:
You go to your boss and say "this is cr*p they haven't thought it through".
He tells you to go back and think about it harder, just like Corban did and you'll see why it's good!

Having read the press stuff on .NET it sounds like the same, real brain dead stuff hiding one or too nasty surprises.

------------------

As a long term bet, remember that Microsoft are stuck on x86 hardware and that processor is near the end of its life. Intel wanted to replace it with Merced, but Intel's monopoly is under threat so that's unlikely to happen.

Microsoft's first attempt 'Windows for Alpha' was a flop, nobody followed them to Alpha so that escape route died.

For .NET they're attempting to get everyone to compile to a type of 'p' code (slower semi-compiled pseudo code). Which Microsoft can then move over to other platforms.
Trouble is why would anyone do it? They didn't cross compile for Alpha, so why cross compile to 'p' code. They'll end up slower than running native x86 anyway and why would you want to make your code slower than your competitors?

Same with their other escape routes, MS X-Box is just another stab at the MSX computer (the failed Microsoft/Japanese games computer of the 80's). Overpriced, selling into a well established market against Sony to users who rate the Sony mark above the Microsoft mark.

Their Palm PC escape has failed, and the AutoPC car computer one was a disaster.

At the top end, they've pissed off so many Network Admins who chose Netscape, Win2K is having a real slow takeup in corporations (well Duh!) and since most of the Exchange 2000 etc. require W2K that means their server side software has a brick wall waiting to hit.

That the negative future for Microsoft, the positive side is they have a lot of cash and their investments seem to be doing well.

Was the comments I read on the Apple board correct, did Microsoft report falling sales and their investment income was the reason for the excellent result?


Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.