mobile home refinancing…

current market stock price…

quotation for sprint stock price…

examples of blue chip stocks…

2. The whole Games for Windows initiative is based on using the Windows Experience Index in Vista as a core foundation in which game designers can develop for a consistent framework, making current and future (xbox) console games and peripherals also compatible with Windows games, and promoting changes in underlying hardware to simplify and improve the processing needed to deliver games on the desktop (DirectX10).

3. Historically, Microsoft has thrived as a company when they also have a common threat to compete against. They would see it in their better interest to improve Windows (and other MS products and services) in the face of changes brought about by linux development, and continue to seek opportunities in areas of business that Linux has not adequately penetrated yet.

4. See response #3, and check what they are proposing to do with upcoming versions of Exchange Server, SQL Server and Sharepoint. Linux is seen more on outward facing servers, but MS has done a lot of work to instill a sense of value for many companies in having them for management of internal infrastructure and back office solutions.

5. Dell offering Linux is as much a reflection of their own business issues competing with HP and other PC makers as any disagreement with MS. They are also still selling the bulk of their systems with Windows pre-installed, and do not appear to be changing from that course. Dell sold as many, if not more, systems by continuing to also offer Windows XP during the transition to Microsoft’s newest OS; but they are also happy to sell you a system with Vista if that helps them meet profitability.

6. Antitrust regulations (being what they are) are sufficient to hold Microsoft back from the blatant appearance of “forcing” any hardware makers to improve and update drivers. They had enough trouble getting to the level of driver support they had in Vista, with an almost two year head start for all the hardware makers to work with. And Vista is considered quite successful in that area compared to the driver support that XP had when it launched. Some hardware makers that “must” support Vista had also drawn the line on what legacy hardware they wanted to support when Vista was released (HP), and how much effort they wanted to put into having fully working drivers out on debut day (ATI, Nvidia). Some outright refused to support changes in the OS that provided a more even playing field for their competition (Creative).

7. The problem with outsourcing code development (even though MS does do that to some degree) is you still need a team of managers and lead developers in house to validate the code when it comes back to be incorporated with existing projects, and maintain lines of communication between companies.
The problem with ad hoc teams is you also get ad hoc schedules for actual code development, and MS has already proven they need to work on thier own time management issues before trying to manage projects that, for many OSS coders, are a sideline from their regular jobs/careers.

8. This understanding can only be viable when and if MS (at its current size and scope) stops being significantly more profitable than all the current Linux companies combined. I think you left out understanding of how some of the existing “versions” of Windows are not just designed to sell the OS, but also maintain the foundation that other products and support opportunities are built on.
The six-month Linux refresh cycle does not help when the bulk of the computer industry works on keeping their product releases consistent on a yearly schedule, and the larger corporations are resistant to any significant changes that are not designed to be in place for several years at a time. MS’s biggest problem on the corporate side is not users migrating to Linux, it is users who still see Windows 2000 as “good enough” for most of their work needs. The “Five year refresh” for Windows is also a fallacy, because it ignores several smaller OS releases that MS put out over that same period, and overlooks that a large part of the delay in releasing Vista was due to changes to make the core OS more modular and easier to maintain going forward, changes that should (barring complete incompetence) put them back on track to produce faster releases themselves… Perhaps not at the same rate as some major Linux distros, but at a rate that will allow them to continue to compete.

9. There are several developer communities started by MS already, but I would agree the need to do more in that regard, starting with better communication with their own legal and marketing departments to stop reacting to some popular projects outside the company as a potential threat, and offer to work with
those projects to avoid potential problems.

10. Again, we have to refer to an understanding of the company and the corporate partnerships it still needs to maintain. Microsoft has to improve their internal project management processes before they can successfully adapt those practices outside of the company. A transition to a new business model does not require blanket abandonment of the older models, particularly when the most successful companies in
the information age are still the ones that learn from old business thinking.

“Microsoft needs to transform itself or it will perish.” That statement I can agree with.

What most people don’t seem to realize is that Microsoft as a company has almost constantly been in the process of transforming itself since its founding. There is and has always been more than one Window of opportunity, and MS has carefully positioned themselves to try for more than one opening into new markets, and they have historically been in a position to try more than once for the same opportunity.
The window of opportunity is larger than you think, because it is the same window that most of the for-profit computer hardware and software industry wants to work in.

MS uses only a little of their total resources on efforts against piracy and windows activations, but those efforts pay off by showing the corporate world that they are also interested in protecting something that their business partners also see as valuable, and something that a large portion of the Linux community does not seem to take as seriously from the corporate point of view.
To think that MS spends “all their time” chasing Pirates!, means you have successfully been distracted from the real business MS is conducting to keep themselves in the game.

Thank you for your article, as you can see it gave me much to think about… I hope my response is helpful.