OT Bill Gates tells senators "we need more foreign programmers to remain competitive"

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:51:38 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:21:07 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:


Charlie Wilkes wrote:



That
has worked for years, but I don't think it will work much longer,
because there are too many different platforms, and MS can't control
them all with closed, proprietary code.

You're too wrapped up in 'MS take over the world' conspiracy theories.
There have always been other platforms, and platforms MS was not involved
with because it isn't their business.


I'm mostly interested in where things will go from here. Yes, there
have always been other computer platforms, but for consumers, the main
choice has been Windows or Mac.

And Linux and, if you go back a bit into the past, IBM's OS2, BeOS and if
you go back further GEM, Desqview and others.

The reason that's what consumers see is the main consumer item has been
desktop PCs.

Now lots of gadgets are full-fledged
computers. Each requires an OS. Is Windows going to dominate them
all? I think developers will find it easier to start with an
open-source kernel.

It depends on what the 'gadget' is and what it needs. MS's desktop strength
isn't 'an O.S.', it's the GUI and attendant bells and whistles. MS should,

No. The GUI is portable. You can get a Linux shell that looks and
feels like Windows, just as you can install a Windows shell that makes
it look and feel like a Mac.

What gives Windows its grip on the market is the support it gets from
developers and hardware mfrs. Quite a few printers won't work under
anything except Windows. Lots of commercial software doesn't have a
port to Mac, let alone Linux. People run Windows because it's the
easiest way, if not the the only way, to run their favorite software
and use the most widely available peripherals.

or might, have some strength where the consumer wants their 'gadget' to
'look like their desktop' but that doesn't necessarily 'fit' in small
devices. They might also have an advantage by providing a 'light' whatever
with (semi) compatible APIs to leverage existing Windows programming. WinCE
is something like that as calling the full screen display 'windows' begs
the issue.


At the same time, the desktop has matured. In the 1990s, every
upgrade brought important new capabilities. But why should the
average person upgrade to Vista?

I don't know but I disagree with your premise as my memory recalls that
each version past Win95 has been panned as nothing really 'new'. It's only
in hindsight, after people are used to it, that they suddenly see
"important new capabilities."

The OS market is becoming fragmented. We'll see what that does to
Microsoft's market position and profits.

I repeat my point, the market has always been 'fragmented'. It only looks
monolithic to the 'consumer' who sees little but their desktop.

There have always been OS choices outside the mainstream, like
Desqview for users who ran server apps on their DOS PC. There weren't
many people who needed that kind of setup, but there were some.

What I mean is that computer platforms are no longer PCs or Macs...
they also include cell phones, PDAs, music players, etc. You could
look back 10 years and find a more primitive but essentially similar
range of gadgets, I know. But not stuff that millions of people use
every day. That's a new development. Will it cause MS to lose it's
unique position at the top of the heap? I think it will, eventually.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes writes:

You can get a Linux shell that looks and
feels like Windows ...

No, you cannot. Every GUI is different.

... just as you can install a Windows shell that makes
it look and feel like a Mac.

No, you cannot. See above.

Linux is not Windows. Windows is not Mac OS.

What gives Windows its grip on the market is the support it gets from
developers and hardware mfrs. Quite a few printers won't work under
anything except Windows. Lots of commercial software doesn't have a
port to Mac, let alone Linux. People run Windows because it's the
easiest way, if not the the only way, to run their favorite software
and use the most widely available peripherals.

Yes.

What I mean is that computer platforms are no longer PCs or Macs...
they also include cell phones, PDAs, music players, etc. You could
look back 10 years and find a more primitive but essentially similar
range of gadgets, I know. But not stuff that millions of people use
every day. That's a new development. Will it cause MS to lose it's
unique position at the top of the heap? I think it will, eventually.

Windows would probably survive even if MS itself disappeared in a puff
of smoke.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:51:38 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:


Charlie Wilkes wrote:


On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:21:07 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:



Charlie Wilkes wrote:



That
has worked for years, but I don't think it will work much longer,
because there are too many different platforms, and MS can't control
them all with closed, proprietary code.

You're too wrapped up in 'MS take over the world' conspiracy theories.
There have always been other platforms, and platforms MS was not involved
with because it isn't their business.


I'm mostly interested in where things will go from here. Yes, there
have always been other computer platforms, but for consumers, the main
choice has been Windows or Mac.

And Linux and, if you go back a bit into the past, IBM's OS2, BeOS and if
you go back further GEM, Desqview and others.

The reason that's what consumers see is the main consumer item has been
desktop PCs.


Now lots of gadgets are full-fledged
computers. Each requires an OS. Is Windows going to dominate them
all? I think developers will find it easier to start with an
open-source kernel.

It depends on what the 'gadget' is and what it needs. MS's desktop strength
isn't 'an O.S.', it's the GUI and attendant bells and whistles. MS should,


No. The GUI is portable.

Well, it is if you pick up the computer and carry it somewhere

You can get a Linux shell that looks and
feels like Windows, just as you can install a Windows shell that makes
it look and feel like a Mac.

No, you can make some of the visuals take on a superficial similarity, to
some degree, but not "looks and feels like."


What gives Windows its grip on the market is the support it gets from
developers and hardware mfrs. Quite a few printers won't work under
anything except Windows. Lots of commercial software doesn't have a
port to Mac, let alone Linux. People run Windows because it's the
easiest way, if not the the only way, to run their favorite software
and use the most widely available peripherals.

That's true now that the cycle is in full bloom but that wasn't the case
till MS first managed to offer a better solution than the alternatives.

or might, have some strength where the consumer wants their 'gadget' to
'look like their desktop' but that doesn't necessarily 'fit' in small
devices. They might also have an advantage by providing a 'light' whatever
with (semi) compatible APIs to leverage existing Windows programming. WinCE
is something like that as calling the full screen display 'windows' begs
the issue.



At the same time, the desktop has matured. In the 1990s, every
upgrade brought important new capabilities. But why should the
average person upgrade to Vista?

I don't know but I disagree with your premise as my memory recalls that
each version past Win95 has been panned as nothing really 'new'. It's only
in hindsight, after people are used to it, that they suddenly see
"important new capabilities."


The OS market is becoming fragmented. We'll see what that does to
Microsoft's market position and profits.

I repeat my point, the market has always been 'fragmented'. It only looks
monolithic to the 'consumer' who sees little but their desktop.


There have always been OS choices outside the mainstream, like
Desqview for users who ran server apps on their DOS PC. There weren't
many people who needed that kind of setup, but there were some.

You always speak as if 'desktop' were the only use computers had and that
'PCs' are the only type of computer. Just isn't so.

What I mean is that computer platforms are no longer PCs or Macs...

There never were 'only' PCs or Macs.

they also include cell phones, PDAs, music players, etc. You could
look back 10 years and find a more primitive but essentially similar
range of gadgets, I know.

You've hit on only a tiny fraction of computer applications but they're
literally everywhere, and have been, from your automobile engine, data
analyzers, medical instrumentation, manufacturing, to the microwave, to
alarm clocks and just about everything in-between.

But not stuff that millions of people use
every day.

You don't use cars, microwave ovens, VCR/DVD players, and alarm clocks? How
about electricity, you use that don't you?, and the millions of
microprocessor instrumentation devices that go into system control and
monitoring? How about the computer systems that run the manufacturing
processes which make scads of things you use every day? The computerized
phone switch network? The computerized banking network? The bazillion
clerks wandering around stores zapping inventory tags with laser handheld
devices? The checkout line cash register and bar code scanners? The
automated 'self checkout'? The credit card scanner? /queue Twilight Zone
Theme They're everywhere!

That's a new development. Will it cause MS to lose it's
unique position at the top of the heap?

Which 'heap'? Instrumentation? Phone switches? Medical devices?
Manufacturing Robotics? Cash registers?

Or do you mean a new 'heap' that they can't be 'at the top of' since it's new?

I think it will, eventually.

Unlikely to be any time soon on the desktop.


Charlie

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:13:09 GMT, John Doe
wrote:

Bill Gates was in Washington this week, as usual lobbying for an
increase in H-1B visas. The richest man in the world earned his keep
when he looked our president in the eye and (without laughing) said
"Microsoft needs cheap, easy to control foreign programmers to
remain competitive". Both Bill Gates and our president probably get
a good laugh out of that one.


I worked for a company that was doing all the usual
accounting tricks. They moved out of new york to the south.
Then they moved to Mexican production. They fired all their
good engineers and hired a bunch of foreign tech help.

They're still a bad company, and the foreign guys were some
of the biggest slackers. You get what you pay for.

If a company can't compete and excel, sell the stock and buy
something that's viable. There's no magic cure for
incompetence, not in mexico, not in china, not with all the
H-1B visas you can import.