Computable.nl
  • Thema’s
    • Carrière
    • Innovatie & Transformatie
    • Cloud & Infrastructuur
    • Data & AI
    • Governance & Privacy
    • Security & Awareness
    • Software & Development
    • Werkplek & Beheer
  • Sectoren
    • Channel
    • Financiële dienstverlening
    • Logistiek
    • Onderwijs
    • Overheid
    • Zorg
  • Awards
    • Overzicht
    • Nieuws
    • Winnaars
    • Partner worden
  • Vacatures
    • Vacatures bekijken
    • Vacatures plaatsen
  • Bedrijven
    • Profielen
    • Producten & Diensten
  • Kennisbank
  • Magazine
  • Nieuwsbrief

Microsoft, saint or sinner?

12 september 2002 - 22:005 minuten leestijdOpinieCloud & Infrastructuur
Martin Healey
Martin Healey

I have recently had some interesting correspondence with a regular reader, criticizing me for being over critical of Microsoft. This is not the first time I have been taken to task, and I am sure it won’t be the last!

And of course there is an element of truth in the accusation, I am very anti Microsoft. I am afraid that in my personal experience the quality of their software is well below the standard that it should be, given the amazing state of the equivalent hardware industry. It is all summed up for me when most non-professional users of PCs that I come into contact with can’t believe how difficult the software is to use and in particular how awful Word is.
But is this all Microsoft’s fault? The answer is no, it is the fault of the IT industry in accepting second rate, simply because the "packaging" made it easier. As a result, with no objective criticism coming from professionals who should know better, the users simply followed like lemmings; anything being better than old typewriters, dumb terminals, etc. The effect was simply to enable Microsoft to create a monopoly. And that is a key point, it is not Microsoft per se that is at fault, it is the dreadful problems that a monopoly, any monopoly or cartel, create that is the problem. I have no doubt that in on open market Microsoft, with their vast wealth, would be able to produce better products and still be a leading supplier. As it is their major revenue stream comes from forcing users to buy new releases whether they need them or not. Could any company really justify the expense of the upgrades to desktop PCs over the last few years? I doubt it.
However while I will stand by my open antagonism to Word et al in the office environment, the same is less true in the server and development tool market. Here there is competition. The corporate world has strongly told Microsoft that it is not going to be trapped into a monopolistic system for core business applications. In the area of Application Servers it is Java based tools that are being preferred to Microsoft’s .NET products. The obvious reason for this is not that it is a Sun Microsystems inspired concept (Sun would love a monopoly just as much as Microsoft or anyone else), but because it has been adopted by a wide range of suppliers, including the steadily growing band of cost effective Open Source based systems. Java is not perfect, but it offers choice and forces suppliers to be competitive.
But now this creates a paradox. Microsoft have no chance of dominating the server and tools market as they have done the desktop, but they will nevertheless be a major player alongside IBM, Sun, Oracle, BEA, etc. In order to compete they cannot employ the nasty "upgrades" tricks that they use in Office, but must compete in value, functionality, support, etc.
The key to relative success for Microsoft lies in holding on to the mindset of the current application developers. This is not as easy as it seems at first sight because of a number of reasons. First .NET is significantly different to the older Visual tools, giving developers an opportunity to switch to the Java camp if they feel trapped. Secondly most of the new generation of programmers are brought up in college on Linux and Java; their needs and biases will have an influence. But above all the biggest draw back to going along with Microsoft for application development is the total commitment that is implied to Windows operating systems. This in turn means an equal commitment to Intel processors. And the developers won’t be worried about the Intel bias too much, because all the OSS is dominantly Intel based.
Microsoft has done some good things, notably influencing the industry in the concept of an integrated development environment, but also in the support for some standards. No supplier will ever fully commit to standards because that takes away the competitive edge. But now all software suppliers, and that includes Microsoft as much as IBM, Sun, et al, pay more than lip-service to standards. The .NET platform is firmly rooted on XML and associated standards, and just as Sun have been the inspiration behind Java, then Microsoft are making some attempts to have their own systems accepted as standards.
The biggest influence for the good then is e-commerce. Since there is no chance of Microsoft (or any one else) dominating, then just as the applications are about inter-company working, then the software systems must also inter-work. Everyone has a vested interest in making the standards work at last!

 
Martin Healey, pioneer development Intel-based computers en c/s-architecture. Director of a number of IT specialist companies and an Emeritus Professor of the University of Wales.

Meer over

Opensource

Deel

    Inschrijven nieuwsbrief Computable

    Door te klikken op inschrijven geef je toestemming aan Jaarbeurs B.V. om je naam en e-mailadres te verwerken voor het verzenden van een of meer mailings namens Computable. Je kunt je toestemming te allen tijde intrekken via de af­meld­func­tie in de nieuwsbrief.
    Wil je weten hoe Jaarbeurs B.V. omgaat met jouw per­soons­ge­ge­vens? Klik dan hier voor ons privacy statement.

    Whitepapers

    Computable.nl

    Kies de juiste virtualisatie-aanpak

    Vergelijk drie krachtige open source-oplossingen: Proxmox, Kubernetes en OpenStack

    Computable.nl

    Beveiliging begint bij de Server

    Is serverhardware de blinde vlek in het securitybeleid? Waarom lifecycle-denken cruciaal is voor IT-security

    Computable.nl

    Bouw de AI-organisatie niet op los zand

    Wat is de afweging tussen zelf bouwen of het benutten van cloud?

    Geef een reactie Reactie annuleren

    Je moet ingelogd zijn op om een reactie te plaatsen.

    Populaire berichten

    Meer artikelen

    Uitgelicht

    Partnerartikel
    AdvertorialSecurity & Awareness

    Cybersec Netherlands 2025 – Programma...

    Keynotes over cloud, AI en geopolitiek: het programma van Cybersec Netherlands raakt de kern van digitale weerbaarheid

    Meer persberichten

    Meer lezen

    OpinieSecurity & Awareness

    Cloudsecurity als fundament voor groei

    ActueelCloud & Infrastructuur

    Eurofiber en Bright Access versterken glasvezelnetwerk op bedrijventerreinen

    Krimp groei
    ActueelSecurity & Awareness

    Kort: Fintech snel minder populair, Centric neemt Groupcard niet over (en meer)

    Joost Smit
    AchtergrondCloud & Infrastructuur

    Op deze vier paarden zet Google Cloud in

    AchtergrondCarrière

    Willem van der Poel – Een avonturier in de techniek

    ActueelCloud & Infrastructuur

    NLnet en CWI testen eerste openbare Scion-verbinding in Nederland

    ...

    Footer

    Direct naar

    • Carrièretests
    • Kennisbank
    • Planning
    • Computable Awards
    • Magazine
    • Abonneren Magazine
    • Cybersec e-Magazine
    • Topics
    • – Phishing
    • – Ransomware

    Producten

    • Adverteren en meer…
    • Jouw Producten en Bedrijfsprofiel
    • Whitepapers & Leads
    • Vacatures & Employer Branding
    • Persberichten

    Contact

    • Colofon
    • Computable en de AVG
    • Service & contact
    • Inschrijven nieuwsbrief
    • Inlog

    Social

    • Facebook
    • X
    • LinkedIn
    • YouTube
    • Instagram
    © 2025 Jaarbeurs
    • Disclaimer
    • Gebruikersvoorwaarden
    • Privacy statement
    Computable.nl is een product van Jaarbeurs