@blakeyrat said:
Then upgrade. IE11 does not do that. (And I'm pretty sure no version of IE ever said "I'm slow BTW" when starting up, that has to be a lie.)
My IE11 has 12 add-ons, only one of which IE asked for permission to activate (Citavi Picker). Java, Skype, Lync and others did not ask. The add-on performance advisor is also still a thing in IE11 btw:
@blakeyrat said:
Ok but see the problem with that reasoning is that all of those markets are dominated/were brought by different non-Microsoft third-parties.
So your complaint about Microsoft is that Microsoft can't compete against: AOL, Amazon/Paypal/Google Wallet, Mozilla and Chrome, Dropbox and Valve simultaneously? Well fucking duh. Who could? "Hey guyz, Microsoft is bad because they're not super-mega-ultraman capable of doing everything ever!" What a great argument.
No, that isn't the problem with the argument - that is the argument. The argument is that all those markets were dominated/were brough by different non-Microsoft third-parties. That is the point of the argument.
And guess what - if Microsoft had been first to market and/or had consequently used their advantages, they would have domineered or made those markets.
- If Microsoft had cemented MSN Messaging Services by investing into it's usability while integrating it into the core services of their OS, they would have crushed the alternatives
- Amazon/Paypal/Google Wallet didn't even exist until years after Microsoft had already botched their own attempts at creating online payments services, and the prevalence of VISA/EC/Eurocash in the Internet could have been stopped as well if Microsoft had commited to it at that point
- Microsoft disbanded their browser team at the same time a completely unfunded Mozilla (at that time not even stable) got traction, all while serious security concerns should have made it clear that IE 6 was completely unsustainble. Microsoft flinched in the Browser market, and that is the only reason Google ever got a foot in. This was not about not having the funding to compete or was incabable of competing. They decided not to, and it cost them.
- Valve, despite the Half-Life cash, was nothing around the time Steam hit the market. The number of games using Games for Windows Live as their backend dwarfed Steam exclusive titles for years, until everybody got fed up with how much of an underfunded piece of crap GfWL was (Also Steam started to get actually good at some point). Steam continued to add features, while the Microsoft infrastructure actually eroded.
- Online-Based Scripting (aka killing Javascript before it became popular/ stop investing into ActiveX)
@blakeyrat said:
Wha-huh? When did Microsoft kill JavaScript? They only stopped investing in ActiveX about 5 years after it was obvious it was a technological dead-end. Remember, even Microsoft products couldn't run ActiveX because of its reliance on Windows-specific technologies, and when Microsoft has a "cross browser" scripting technology their best browser at the time literally can't run because it lacks OS support, well, that's a pretty obvious, "hey guys, let's rethink this..." kind of situation. The only reason ActiveX was even still around in Windows XP was because so many third parties were more enthusiastic about adopting it than MS themselves.
I think I should have written more clearly here: Full agreement. Microsoft invested into ActiveX too long, enabling the "success story" that is Web 2.0/3.0. That was what I meant to get across.
@blakeyrat said:
@fire2k said:- Online-Based Office/Google Docs (see the first link)
Uh... wha? Are you seriously suggesting Google Docs is competition for Office? You are a crazyman.
Uhh... how did you get to that conclusion? I'm saying Online-Based Office Solutions like Google Docs are a market, and Microsoft wasn't the first to enter it, and are now struggling to have an impact on it.
@blakeyrat said:
And what do ANY of these bulletpoints have to do with Microsoft missing out on "the Internet"? Let me present an alternative suggestion: you repeated the "Microsoft missed the Internet" piece of Slashdot bullshit, got called on it being bullshit, and then pulled that list out of your ass to somehow retroactively attempt to make some sense of the saying.
Jesus, you are obsessed with the slashdot crowd. What did they do, drive over your tricycle when you were ten? I wrote "Microsoft missed the Internet" intead of "parts of the Internet", and then clarified in an apologetic way. What more do you want?
@blakeyrat said:
You've literally never heard of Windows CE PDAs, or Windows XP tablets? You somehow didn't know that they even released an OS specifically named Windows XP Tablet PC Edition designed to run on tablets and only tablets? You are either a liar or an idiot.
I actually mentioned CE in my post. It was a successful venture that ended up in no way helping when Apple hit the market with an actual solution. The truth is - and I'm sure you will chalk it up to Intel's failure to get energy-saving X86-Infrastructure out there, while I have actually programmed for later-day CE-Devices, which compared to iPhones sucked - Apple did it better. They did it so much better that I would actually argue that in their quality class they were first to market. The iPad/iPhone was the innovator of the field, and that is why Steve Jobs got played by Aston Kutcher instead of somebody actually resembling him. Windows XP Tablet Edition was, btw. a piece of shit. A coworker at the time had one of those devices, and they were broken on a conceptual level.
@blakeyrat said:
I concede that Apple had Sherlock before XP had fast full-content indexing. (Edit: I'm not even 100% sure that's true.) But there's a detail you're missing here: Sherlock SUCKED ASS. MUCH more than XP's search sucked ass. Nobody used Sherlock, and anybody saying otherwise is a fucking liar.
Apple's search didn't become actually good until they released Spotlight in 2005. And the only reason they were able to make that in a non-fucked-up way is that they just bought a third-party solution.
But guess what: by 2005, Windows XP had good search indexers. They weren't shipped with the OS by default, but they worked as well as Spotlight and a damn sight better than Sherlock ever did. And Windows Vista (2007), included that as core functionality in the OS. Not Windows 7, which as your lie-filled lie-paragraph suggests-- Windows 7 search is identical to Windows Vista search.
So this idiotic little complaint sums to: if you wee an XP user who didn't download a search indexer, even though the OS maker had a great one, there was a period of about 18 months where Apple's search was better than Windows search. Ooo. What a devastating point. I'm shaking.
You don't have to concede anything. We aren't in a property war. This is a discussion forum, not debate club.
As for Spotlight: I only had spotty access to Apple systems at the time, so I don't have any anecdotal or first-person evidence to go along with it, but benchmarks taken by German computer science magazine C't at the time were clearly in favor of Apple.
I was wrong about Vista not containing a good search engine (it seemingly did), but Vista generally sucked ass performance-wise on all hardware I ever saw it on, so I hope it'll be excused.
@blakeyrat said:
@fire2k said:So? They are still losing money in this venture.
So? I didn't say it was profitable, I said they were competing better against Google's core product than anybody else. All that means is nobody can compete against Google's monopoly without money infusion.
Full agreement.
@fire2k said:
and certain parts of Bing, like their API-Services are miles ahead of Google
@blakeyrat said:
Almost everything Bing does is miles ahead of Google. And Google's been doing nothing but ripping-off Bing's ideas for 5 years. Bing isn't losing money because it's a bad product, it's losing money because Google is a monopoly.
If Bing would give me superior search results I would be using it. It's that simple. I agree that it's a good product though.
Anyway, Bing is also constant in ripping off Google, that's a two-way street. Bing Maps, Bing Street-Maps (whatever that was called) and so on are testament to that.