Innovation

For the past few years, Microsoft have gone to great lengths to draw attention to the contributions they have made to computing. Despite, or perhaps because of this, every time the word "innovation" is mentioned in connection with their business, it is greeted with howls of derision and letters of refutation from the open source peanut gallery. One noteworthy feature of these exchanges is the complete absence of supporting evidence on the open source side. Besides endlessly reiterating the "MS Bob sucks" line, Microsoft's detractors have never presented any counter-arguments at all. Surely Microsoft's claims are based on more than one failed product.

In fact, Microsoft have been doing quite a lot to extend the state of the art. Microsoft Research was one of the first research laboratories established by a software company, over ten years ago. It currently employs over 600 researchers worldwide, many of them top industry figures, such as their current head, Rick Rashid, the mind behind the Mach kernel. Over the past ten years, Microsoft Research have been repeatedly recognised with the industry's highest honors, such as the ACM's Turing Award.

Those readers who are interested in learning the truth behind Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate will no doubt be curious as to what directions Microsoft Research has taken. Well, they certainly haven't been idle! There isn't an application of computing technology that Microsoft Research hasn't taken an interest in. User interfaces of all kinds, systems research, graphics, artificial intelligence...it would take the computer science departments of several of the world's finest universities combined to equal Microsoft's contributions to the field over the last ten years. Microsoft's research efforts have placed them in the same league as organisations such as Xerox PARC, Bell Labs and IBM.

It should be clear at this point that Microsoft's reputation as a center of innovation in the computing industry is well-deserved. With a world-class research facility directing efforts into both practical and theoretical areas of investigation, Microsoft is one of the top dogs in innovation. Their research efforts have yielded considerable rewards for their customers too, with concepts from Microsoft Research fueling advances in everything from games to enterprise technologies. At Microsoft, research works closely with development to put brand new technologies into the field faster than anyone else.

Quite a different portrait than that painted by their detractors, who are little more than contrary and argumentative crackpots tinkering with a 30 year old operating system design, while muttering about the lack of innovation at the only company in the last decade who has successfully brought any new ideas to the OS market. And MS Bob. I expect we'll still be hearing about that when the linux kernel finally collapses under the weight of it's own unmanageability.

	you don't say (none / 0) (#1)
	by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:33:03 AM PST

	Microsoft's detractors have never presented any counter-arguments at all. What about that story by Willaim whatever? You know the one that mysteriously disappeared. Microsoft Research was one of the first research laboratories established by a software company, over ten years ago. Really? Try telling that to all the other companies invaolved with University projects. First my ass. You go on to mention PARC and the Bell Labs. I hope you know that the PARC and the Bell Labs (birth place of Unix) are much older than MS. It was an antitrust trial against AT&T which forced their breakup. I guess you've heard of Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell and the like? it would take the computer science departments of several of the world's finest universities combined to equal Microsoft's contributions to the field over the last ten years. That's funny... Microsoft Research works in partnership with universities around the world through its University Relations Group. The group engages with university researchers, faculty, staff and students to support the use and integration of Microsoft technologies in Computer Science research. We also work with accreditation boards, publishers and industry partners to provide resources and tools in support of university efforts. It should be clear at this point that Microsoft's reputation as a center of innovation in the computing industry is well-deserved. Yeah it's easy to say you have a reputation along that lines when it's touted by Microsoft. Amazingly enough it's a view not shared by many in the industry. You have to give MS licensing credit. It allows them to rip off companies and protects them in a number of ways from lawsuits. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Educating detikon (none / 0) (#3)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:16:01 AM PST

	...and NAWL "The Brick Wall" returns fire with yet another demonstration of his own inability to read. Are you terrified of links? I assure, we aren't going to steal your IP tokens. Please, humour me: visit Microsoft Research again. Pay special attention to the huge list of researchers employed directly by Microsoft Research. I believe there's somewhere in the region of six hundred researchers working for MS directly. That's in addition to their partnerships with University research. Now for some reading comprehension: Neither Xerox nor IBM nor Bell nor any university is a software company. Once again, Microsoft's position has been demonstrated to be unassailable. So far, this round is going exactly as predicted: Zero evidence presented by the open source zealots in support of their ludicrous claims. We have one statement about an imaginary story by someone called "Willaim", two poor attempts to undermine the credibility of my article, which failed on their own lack of merits, and one closing statement supported by nothing more than baseless speculation about the views of the industry.

	do your research (none / 0) (#4)
	by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:01:58 AM PST

	Now for some reading comprehension: Neither Xerox nor IBM nor Bell nor any university is a software company. Reall now. IBM is a software company. Software is not the only business venture for IBM but niether is it for Microsoft. Microsoft also manufactures some hardware. IBM develops Linux software, OS/2, AIX, and Mac OSX on top of manufacturing PPC microprocessors for Apple. Xerox develops software such as office suites, knowledge sharing, production and printing as well as system management and administration. Bell, as you put it, cannot really be considered a software company because it isn't a company. The link which you provided in your story only links to one of the bell labs, Lucent, yet none of the others. I suggest that you take a look at SBC for example. I am not Yoshi or osm. I don't worry about IP tokens because they don't exist. Your vague understanding of networking leaves little to be desired. If you don't like the Microsoft Bob argument perhaps you would enjoy something else. I found the list used in the story I mentioned before. Though not a complete list it should be enjoyable. Auto/hiding task bar CD-ROM Autorun ClearType Customizable Tool Palettes Excel/Multiplan Hypertext Help Microsoft Smartcard Natural Keyboard QBASIC engine RTF (Rich Text) File format Talking Paper Clip VFAT Filing System Word for DOS Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	I've anticipated your argument (none / 0) (#7)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:01:23 AM PST

	So I spoke with Thomas J. Watson of IBM and Alexander Graham Bell of Bell. I asked both of them what business they were in. Mr. Watson told me he sold computer hardware, and Mr. Bell replied that he dealt in telephones and related infrastructure. When I asked my Bell about software, he looked baffled and mumbled something about pillows. Xerox, of course, make photocopiers, faxes and other electronics. None of these companies makes money from software. If these are software companies, then Mercedes-Benz is a well-known keyring manufacturing concern.

	Funtastic typos (none / 0) (#8)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:08:03 AM PST

	...when I asked my Bell... That should, of course, read Mr. Bell.

	oh...Ha...Ha...Ha (n/t) (none / 0) (#9)
	by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 04:14:31 AM PST

	Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Is T Reginald Gibbons really Bill Gates? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by firebob on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:53:19 AM PST

	So, at first I had to ask myself, "Is T Reginald Gibbons really Bill Gates hiding behind an alias?" I mean, WTF I've never seen someone so pro 'Join the "Save the Microsoft" Foundation'. Then I thought "NO, Bill Gates knows his competition, like who makes money off of visual cafe, and websphere." and "I'm sure he would remember ripping off/buying company's ideas about GUI, RAD tools, database engines, 3D engines, web browsers, streaming media, MSIL (remember Java Byte code?)" Then it came to me. This loser must work for adequacy.org. They are using the "controversial topic" with an "extreme minority wing" ploy to lure us into writing about a topic that everyone really already knows enough about. Microsoft is a big hairy monster that consumes every company it finds to have a usefule product, and uses muscle power and sheer numbers to try and destroy anyone they can't buy out. That's just a simple fact of the matter. I'm no advocate either way, I've got linux on a box, win2k on 2 others. My webserver, one of the win2k's, is running JRun and CFServer. My linux server is running the same. I'd sooner kill myself than spend the rest of my life writing Visual C++.net code (Visual C++.net is a variant of C++ based off of the .NET platform initative, it is far inferior in speed to the stardards initially from Bjarne Stroustrup[creator of c++] at Bell Labs) on a win2k box to host mobile pages for a winCE based cell phone. I am a person who requires variety. Microsoft's goal is to eliminate every that's not Microsoft's Goal. btw, if you every need examples, I got ton's of examples.... I've been around for a while, and I stay fresh.

	Sir. (none / 0) (#15)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:03:21 PM PST

	I assure I am not the esteemed Mr Gates. I am merely an extremely well-educated gentleman of these United States, who is interested in getting to the root of matters, rather than simply slinging invective at things which I have arbitrarily defined as the enemy. I am not supporting a "Save the Microsoft" movement, I am merely looking for the truth. The truth, in this case, is that Microsoft is actually a highly innovative company. If you were willing to actually explore the Microsoft Research website, you would have no choice but to concede this point. The evidence is incontrovertible. If you would rather rattle off a list of "unsuccessful" innovations by Microsoft, in a misguided attempt to prove that Microsoft has not innovated at all, I suppose I can't stop you. This is America, and although I do not agree with you, I will defend to the death your right to make poorly argued, outrageous claims in defiance of all the available evidence.

	Nothing to concede (none / 0) (#17)
	by firebob on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:32:03 PM PST

	If you would rather rattle off a list of "unsuccessful" innovations by Microsoft To the contrary, they are all successful ideas that are fulfilling their destinies on desktops and servers all over the world. They're just not Microsoft's ideas. The truth, in this case, is that Microsoft is actually a highly innovative company. If you were willing to actually explore the Microsoft Research website, you would have no choice but to concede this point. OK, I explored, I dare you to click on and report back an one of those links. I will, in turn, tell you who came up with the idea first. Microsoft is certainly one of the kings of improving things, and remaking things that are intended on not being compatible with the rest of the way things work, but they are far from innovative. Innovation, I would say (and dictionary.com agrees), implies something new. A new idea. A new concept. Are speech synthesizers new? what about virtual reality? How about cryptography? Are these Microsoft innovated technologies? I hardly think so. I apologize, but i just randomly clicked on some of the tree items, if you find something in that list that IS a Microsoft Innovation, please let us know. And please forgive these late night run on sentences.

	You really don't want to know, do you? (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:38:50 AM PST

	Tell me this, sir: when did your beloved Linux start to optimise for http service over multiple ethernet interfaces? Go on. You know the answer, and you know it well.

	Tell me who... (none / 0) (#24)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:43:34 AM PST

	...needs it, and for what?

	You now see the point. (none / 0) (#22)
	by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:05:52 AM PST

	I would be forced to concede that there have been only two innovations in computing in the last thirty years. Obviously this not the sense in which any sane person uses the term. Finally, you admit the truth. There's nothing really innovative about Microsoft, or anyone else working with computers. I hate when people pretend that there is. "innovate" is marketing mumbo-jumbo. It's like people that call their product "a paradigm shift in usability". In science, a paradigm shift requires all scientific work to be rewritten. It is a major upheaveal. It does not happen every Tuesday when you've got a new product to launch. If computing software previous to this "paradigm shift in computing" continues to function properly, it is not a paradigm shift in computing. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	holy crap (none / 0) (#34)
	by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:02:42 AM PST

	Whole new fields of endeavour may not be opening up as a result of this research, but an innovative new idea to enhance an existing technology is deserving of the term. Microsoft provides plenty of these sort of innovations. It's one of the reasons their products sell. I would say it's better marketing. Notice how there are plenty of comapnies out there with the same ideas being researched. MS just market products and many times fails to deliver on all their promises. Take .NET for example. Gee, uh Java, Websphere, Zen Networks (i believe that's it). Hell even Apple's digital hub ideology is older than .NET. Sure it's not as wide scale as what all the others are doing but at least you know it works. Microsoft may not have invented the GUI, but they do have the most advanced desktop available, for reasons which, in light of this discussion, I shouldn't have to explain. Really? There are those that would disagree with that. MacOS has a much better UI than Windows. Must be why they try to copy it. Just compare MacOSX (Aqua) to the Fisdher price GUI in WindowsXP (Luna). Some people have theories about the future of Apple and it's next moves. Moving to x86 processors from Intel or AMD. Maybe porting more apps to the PCs (ie iTunes to work with the iPod, coming soon). Others believe Apple will port MAcOS to the PC which is rather silly since MAcs are PCs because PC is nothing more than an acronym which stands for peronal computer. You can already get parts of MacOSX on you IBM-compatible machine. Just download and install DarwinOS x86. Imagine how many people would drop Windows if they could run MacOS natively on their PC. With the efforts Microsoft is making in the research arena, it would not be at all surprising if the next sea change in computing came from their labs. When was the last time you saw a news report about MS working on computers you wear? Screw PDAs. Imagine the screen built into your sunglasses and all input done through voice and and a small touchpad. Then next wave for the box on WinTel machines you'll see will be from hardware manufacturers when the finally drop the friggin floppy drive. Until then they'll just copy the cool case designs from Apple. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Wearable computers... (none / 0) (#43)
	by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:41:47 PM PST

	...are a completely ridiculous idea, and you are an idiot if you think it will ever happen. (I could tell you what will certainly be profitable and useful in the future; I won't waste space here for stuff that any normal person realizes already.) -- Peace and much love...

	Poorly argued as ever (none / 0) (#21)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:29:39 AM PST

	The dictionary: The plank one clings to when one's argument is sunk. I would present the view that your linked definition makes no statement about the size or impact that a newly introduced idea should have in order to be considered innovative. Your interpretation is entirely self-serving. If I was to accept such a ridiculously narrow definition of the word, flying in the face of accepted usage as it does, I would be forced to concede that there have been only two innovations in computing in the last thirty years. Obviously this not the sense in which any sane person uses the term.

	That's a little harsh (none / 0) (#23)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:24:31 AM PST

	Of course there are very few paradigm-shifting ideas in computing. That sort of thing is incredibly rare in any field. This does not mean that nobody is doing interesting, new or useful research in computing. Research which leads to innovation of a very real sort. Whole new fields of endeavour may not be opening up as a result of this research, but an innovative new idea to enhance an existing technology is deserving of the term. Microsoft provides plenty of these sort of innovations. It's one of the reasons their products sell. Microsoft may not have invented the GUI, but they do have the most advanced desktop available, for reasons which, in light of this discussion, I shouldn't have to explain. With the efforts Microsoft is making in the research arena, it would not be at all surprising if the next sea change in computing came from their labs.

	Wearable computers (none / 0) (#42)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:21:39 PM PST

	When was the last time you saw a news report about MS working on computers you wear? Screw PDAs. Imagine the screen built into your sunglasses and all input done through voice and and a small touchpad. ...and gesture recognition and spatial sensitivity, etc, etc, etc. No, it will be as always. Others work like mad, making their dreams true. Then they get results. Then they start getting popular. Then they get noticed by Microsoft. Then Microsoft buys them or duplicates their results in fractional time (because they know what to aim for instead of doing all the research on their own). Then Microsoft's money buy a massive PR campaign, claiming how innovative we-know-who is. Then only a few people will know the names of the original inventors. There is no justice in capitalism. Only money.

	just a second (none / 0) (#44)
	by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:46:51 PM PST

	What's the difference between wearing sunglasses and clipping your cell phone or pager to your belt? Not to mention having one of those small earpieces to talk on your phone. No one is looking to seriously make people look like they just stepped out of an old low-budget movie made in the 70/80s. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	There is a huge difference. (none / 0) (#45)
	by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 01:56:41 PM PST

	You see, g**ks do not realize that healthy people do not worship technology. -- Peace and much love...

	Niether do I (none / 0) (#50)
	by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:48:36 PM PST

	I don't worship technology. I don't have a PDA nor would I ever buy one. Now if my boss shoved one in my hand and told me I was required to use then maybe (maybe) I would. I wouldn't wear a computer (unless it was all built into my sunglasses, I probably wouldn't mind too much). It's not a necessity. Hell I don't even have a cell phone. Got rid of it. If someone needs to reach me they can call me at home. Need to reach me at the office? Send a text message to my pager. It's there for emergencies. You know like when one of the dumbfuck MCSEs puts the installation CD in upside-down or the floppy disk in backwards. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	you may not worship technology... (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 04:12:56 AM PST

	but if it wasnt for Microsoft (and Adequacy), your life would lose what little purpose and meaning it has. --- Shut up, NAWL

	uh no (none / 0) (#57)
	by detikon on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:52:01 AM PST

	Actually I just come here for laughs. I then move on to good reads at Newsforge, Newfactors, TheRegister, OSOpinion, and various other outlets. If Adequacy.org suddenly disappeared it would be no big deal. I think some of the stupid things Gates and Ballmer have been saying during the ongoing trial is much funnier. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Remind me... (none / 0) (#46)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:09:28 PM PST

	...to not take you as R&D advisor. Wearable computers, or any principially similar form of intertwining of humans and computers, are inevitable development. You don't worship technology. It's your right. Your employers (and/or peer pressure) will force you to use it anyway. If it will raise your effectivity as a capitalist society cog, you will have to use it. Look at the cellphones. Sorry to break your illusions.

	Remind me... (none / 0) (#47)
	by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:00:44 PM PST

	...to never take anything you write seriously ever again. There is a world of difference between a cellphone and a wearaable computer, and any intelligent (that is, not you) marketing guy understands this. P.S. Humans and computers are not "intertwined", unless you are a g**k who doesn't have a nearby farm animal to relieve your hormonal frustrations out on. -- Peace and much love...

	Difference? What difference? (none / 0) (#48)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:43:53 PM PST

	There is a world of difference between a cellphone and a wearaable computer, and any intelligent (that is, not you) marketing guy understands this. <snipe>Intelligent marketing guy? I thought they are a myth?</snipe> But back to the main problem. I will take a PDA as the example; cellphones are getting increasingly fitted with PDA-like functions anyway, while PDAs are getting fitted with GSM transceivers. Where is the world of difference between a wearable computer and a PDA/cellphone? So the display is "virtualized" directly in one's field of vision instead of on a display on a device in the pocket. So the keyboard is on one's wrist or as a chord keyboard (or any other implementation) instead of a classical keyboard on a device. So you get alerts visually in a discrete silent way instead of a box beeping or vibrating at you. So you wear your computer instead of having it in the pocket. Big deal. I ask you again: Where is your world of difference?

	Ye gods (none / 0) (#49)
	by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:38:35 PM PST

	I will take a PDA as the example; cellphones are getting increasingly fitted with PDA-like functions anyway, while PDAs are getting fitted with GSM transceivers. What the fuck does this mean? So you get alerts visually in a discrete silent way instead of a box beeping or vibrating at you. This is a 'good thing'? Perhaps if your name is Homer a method of alerting you to danger is needed, but a siren wail would probably be more effective. Earlier you bitch about Capitalism and money yet are wedded to consumerism and devices to keep you under control.

	PDAs and Warwick (none / 0) (#51)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 05:24:23 PM PST

	What the fuck does this mean? That the distinction between cellphones and PDAs is gradually losing its meaning. Is my Nokia Communicator a cellphone with a PDA, or a PDA with a cellphone? This is a 'good thing'? Hey! Kevin rocks! Besides, the brain-computer-muscle system could be very good for prosthetics. I am not sure about the methodology he wants to use for emotions; but he could be pretty certainly successful. Reportedly Jose Delgado achieved good results in this regard with animals few decades ago. I have a bit mixed feelings about this, though, but it could be helpful in cases of ie. prolonged depressions, with less side effects than the "happy pills". Perhaps if your name is Homer a method of alerting you to danger is needed, but a siren wail would probably be more effective. What if the danger is invisible, like ie. someone messing around my computers, or radiation? What if the alert isn't about a danger (who mentioned danger here first?) but about a situation like an incoming call or a message, or just a navigation information, or personal dossier of a person I am just talking with? Earlier you bitch about Capitalism and money yet are wedded to consumerism and devices to keep you under control. If I have to suffer that shit let's at least get some toys. (Though I'd gladly exchange the number of toys for their increased quality.) And as far as I am in full control of my devices (ie, open-source (or at least reverse-engineered) firmware, can switch them off if required for security reasons, and can monitor their activity for suspicious operations) I can enforce my security to quite good extent. Knowledge is power. You have to play with the cards you have in hand even if you don't like the game.

	Oh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
	by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:00:48 PM PST

	Is my Nokia Communicator a cellphone with a PDA, or a PDA with a cellphone? ...you mean one of these.

	Not exactly... (none / 0) (#53)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:38:15 PM PST

	...I meant one of these. Obsolete as hell, but nice. Except that the battery died and I am now feeding it from a small 12V/1.5Ah lead cell battery with a 12-to-7.2V stepdown circuit. (Originally an over-the-weekend improvisation from what I had on-hand, then it stuck.) I needed something for unlimited number of SMS messages, a text editor, a calendar, and a telnet client and VT52 terminal. I got it. Now I'd only need a SSH client for this beauty and I'd be completely happy (though GPRS would make me even happier - SSH over GPRS with full 80x25 terminal, even in tiny font, would be a real gift). There is an ssh client for 9210, but that model is way too expensive for what it is. I heard rumours about such client for 9110 as well, and if it's true I'd be willing to upgrade to that.

	Uhm... (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:06:43 PM PST

	So, are you looking for the truth, or trying to dictate what truth is? Make up your mind please, or post things that aren't so contradictory.

	Truth (none / 0) (#20)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:53:33 AM PST

	I have provided ample proof for the statement that Microsoft is responsible for a great deal of innovation. I'll even repeat the source of that proof: Microsoft Research and their easily accessible and informative website. For further proof, I advise you to look at the authors section of every second internet RFC and note the number of Microsoft researchers who have been involved in that process. I have yet to see any similarly convincing proof from the opposing side. All we have so far is the contention that Microsoft have made some things that were made previously by others, with no evidence that Microsoft ever claimed responsibility for these inventions. Empty invective, in other words.

	really now? (none / 0) (#32)
	by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:43:24 AM PST

	I have provided ample proof for the statement that Microsoft is responsible for a great deal of innovation. Where? I'll even repeat the source of that proof: Microsoft Research and their easily accessible and informative website. I failed to find anything innovative on that list. For further proof, I advise you to look at the authors section of every second internet RFC and note the number of Microsoft researchers who have been involved in that process. And look where they came from. Most of the work was notable works were pre-MS. You think the MAch kernel was being developed from within MS? Pathetic. I have yet to see any similarly convincing proof from the opposing side. All we have so far is the contention that Microsoft have made some things that were made previously by others, with no evidence that Microsoft ever claimed responsibility for these inventions. Empty invective, in other words. As soon as I can find someone who converted their commercials to mpg or such I'll provide them. I love that line "another innovations from Microsoft". Don't they use that in their .NET commercials. You want proof yet you don't want to list any supposed MS innovations. Funny isn't it? There are multiple people ready to refute you claims. Talk about empty. You want to talk about innovation but don't want to list any. Go ahead and try. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	What is proof, really? (none / 0) (#35)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:08:21 AM PST

	Proof is an enormous list of active research areas, publications and awards (including the Turing Award given to Jim Grey in 1998). Lack of proof is pretending that proof doesn't exist because it effectively renders unreasonable any argument against Microsoft's status as an innovator. Unreasonable arguments persist to be used, however. Could you please present some real support for your arguments, seeing as I have been so good as to provide extremely convincing proof for mine? While you're doing that, could you show me where I claimed that MS created the Mach kernel? Quoting the sentence exactly, if you would be so kind. It will help us laugh at you when I demonstrate that the sentence in question is not only completely true, but that it is also further evidence of your incompetence with written communication.

	wrong (none / 0) (#41)
	by detikon on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:44:35 PM PST

	Could you please present some real support for your arguments, seeing as I have been so good as to provide extremely convincing proof for mine? You haven't provided squat. All that you have offered was a link to research.microsoft.com and told people to look at what they are working on. Not once have you listed a single innovation nor have you proven that MS innovates. Everything on that list is based on the works of others. Not once have you even bothered to show as to what areas Microsoft has been considered innovative. Are the quotes from others in the industry in your article? No. Have you even attempted to list an innovation? No. I have gone on to show the Microsoft doesn't innovate. "Look at this innovative Windows desktop thingy" Oh you mean that feature that been in MacOS for at least 5 years or more? You mean that feature that works right on the Mac but doesn't in Windows? MS offered the first innovative GUI, blah blah blah. Innovative was the Amiga which had a complete OS with a GUI under 1MB. Something that Bill Gates said couldn't ever be done. I guess he didn't know about that old Amiga that people were using long before he even made that statement. You can stop with the look at research.microsoft.com crap. Look for what? Look where? Where is this innovative thing I'm supposedly missing? No proof. You sound like osm and Yoshi. I don't have to prove my point. Do your own research and find out I'm right. Sorry people here do there own research and always seem to find you're full of shit. I really like this article. It includes stuff about Microsoft's claims of how it brought about the computing boom. Would you like a better one? How about the new relational filesystem that will be used in future versions of Windows? They claim it's never been done before on a commercial OS. Obviously Microsoft forgot about BeOS. Windows on a database - sliced and diced by BeOS vets. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.