I was bored with Microsoft. Hey, if anything Windows has evolved to a point where minor adjustments made in the way it performs aren't exactly front page news. Not to mention that their infamous time before a government committee over whether or not Windows was an anti-competitive product, is more or less another one for the history books.
Yet a number of new articles on Microsoft's tactics are somewhat reviving my numbness about the company. Somewhat. Because while Microsoft continues to infiltrate it's predominance over the information society under the guise of actually improving it's software, it simply isn't anything, in the way of tactics, that we haven't already known, or could have guessed about the company.
Take a look at a few new articles on Microsofts usage of Windows in the marketplace. In XP Starter under the gun Ina Fried attempts to lay out a convincing case for why this deliniated version of Windows won't do much to increase Microsoft's revenues, although it will bring them closer to their goal of having one billion users worldwide. The only real news here is that MIcrosoft is finally working with someone other than Dell, as far as technological platforms to build Windows upon, but that is only because Dell and Intel may not be the predominiate players in third world countries.
In Russia, the government wants their own computers in the home, and is putting Starter Edition on hold until they can precure that. The other thing that stood out to me is that users can only open up 3 programs at a time, which is about all that I am comfortable with doing running Windows on a slow PC anyway. It's all fascinating if you're interested in how Microsoft's products can shape and mold the global financial markets, through implementing their software solutions in other countries, but that's pretty much where it ends.
In another story by Ina an interesting case for Microsoft's continuing invasion of users privacy is laid out in Microsoft to add 'black box' to Windows, where improvements on Dr. Watson have lead to a scenario in which users can send an "image" of their PC to Microsoft, in which to allow them to not only know how the registry was effected, but exactly which programs were running, and what content was enabled in those programs at the time of the crash. In other words, if you're looking at something you probably shouldn't, or reading something that is anti-government, or whatever; do you have to worry about Microsoft collecting that type of information on you for later use. This is more of an immediate concern in the workplace, as the very thought of your being a pervert or a terrorist of sorts is enough to get you canned, perhaps, depending on how your boss and the IT department view your habits as being a threat to the organization. Also, it isn't cool to chat or meet people on the job, using messaging technology.
Then again, with every employers strict no-tolerance policies looming over everyone's head I'm wondering just who continues to engage in any shenanigans with their computers at work anyway, seeing how people have been fired for sending dirty jokes or strange photographs to other computers at work? The argument is made that Microsoft still will not achieve the goal of fixing errors as soon as possible (that first time that it occurs), but then again, if someone is taking their computer to the max, wouldn't such error reporting help Microsoft develop a version of Windows that can be taken a bit farther as well?
Finally, Ina shows how Bill is digressing by suggesting that Longhorn improvements, while a dramatic improvement to XP's technologies, aren't ready to be completely rolled out yet. But is this really anything new as delays upon previous promises were the norm when 98 and Windows 2000 were being developed? Who can forget the catastrophies that came with enabling the Active Desktop, in which they had to go back and release a Second Edition to fix all of the bugs. There iion.
So Microsoft is up to the same old tricks, in the same old situation. Pushing new technologies out the door while privacy advocates suggest that the software is an infringement on individuals rights, attempting to control the damage they've done with hype about the development of new technologies by pushing back the deadline and expanding their markets into newer countries and expanding their marketplace, even if doing so remains somewhat controversial. Sadly, reporters are left to try to put a new angle, a fresh spin, on the news to keep it interesting to readers. The problem is that, when it comes to controversy, I think we've seen the best and worst of Microsoft back in 98. Whether or not related events can pique our interest again, is the question.Blogger News Network