Comments on: Microsoft to reorg; Allchin to retire

Company creates three divisions with presidents in charge and focuses on hosted services.

Programmers call it a null op...

The reorganization shifts titles and
agglomerates smaller divisions into larger ones.
Ostensibly, this is to make the company more
"agile", but it's more likely that the move is
simply recognition of shareholder unease and as
a move to seem proactive.

The major management and central control of the
company is unchanged. Larger business units are
typically much less responsive when upper
management retains a high level of control (such
as Microsoft) because the upper tiers have more
concerns and they more often conflict, so
"agility" is not a likely a result.

The move doesn't address what analysts and
employees cite as being seriouly wrong, that
being too much management and too little
emphasis on product development. This is
compounded with Microsoft's attempting to move
into new markets (like ERM) with the same
approach as past products (bulk consumer and
business), and it's not going well.

If you check employee blogs, the reorg is simply
SNAFU and isn't perceived as presenting any
meaningful change to the company (which they
unanimously indicate is needed).

Where it used to be solely MS-bashers saying
that Microsoft has "jumped the shark," we're
hearing that a lot more of that from analysts
and, more importantly, Microsoft's own employees
(present and past). MS is not the darling
investment it once was and I suspect senior
management is aware that people are looking at
Office 12 and Vista to see how it goes. Anything
short of a genuine spectactular response to
those products will devestate the company.

[Lord Kalthorn]

More about Shareholders?

Has everybody become a Bureaucratic Pig-Dog? I don't agree that the reorganisation is a good point, but why all this pondering about how Shareholders feel about what Microsoft is doing? Shareholders are stupid, stupid people who have made money off Microsoft well over what they originally paid for it, I doubt anybody has lost money at least, even if they haven't made much. They don't care about Microsoft beyond how much more money they can suck from the company.

Why does anybody care what they think?

Programmers call it a null op...

The reorganization shifts titles and
agglomerates smaller divisions into larger ones.
Ostensibly, this is to make the company more
"agile", but it's more likely that the move is
simply recognition of shareholder unease and as
a move to seem proactive.

The major management and central control of the
company is unchanged. Larger business units are
typically much less responsive when upper
management retains a high level of control (such
as Microsoft) because the upper tiers have more
concerns and they more often conflict, so
"agility" is not a likely a result.

The move doesn't address what analysts and
employees cite as being seriouly wrong, that
being too much management and too little
emphasis on product development. This is
compounded with Microsoft's attempting to move
into new markets (like ERM) with the same
approach as past products (bulk consumer and
business), and it's not going well.

If you check employee blogs, the reorg is simply
SNAFU and isn't perceived as presenting any
meaningful change to the company (which they
unanimously indicate is needed).

Where it used to be solely MS-bashers saying
that Microsoft has "jumped the shark," we're
hearing that a lot more of that from analysts
and, more importantly, Microsoft's own employees
(present and past). MS is not the darling
investment it once was and I suspect senior
management is aware that people are looking at
Office 12 and Vista to see how it goes. Anything
short of a genuine spectactular response to
those products will devestate the company.

[Lord Kalthorn]

More about Shareholders?

Has everybody become a Bureaucratic Pig-Dog? I don't agree that the reorganisation is a good point, but why all this pondering about how Shareholders feel about what Microsoft is doing? Shareholders are stupid, stupid people who have made money off Microsoft well over what they originally paid for it, I doubt anybody has lost money at least, even if they haven't made much. They don't care about Microsoft beyond how much more money they can suck from the company.

Why does anybody care what they think?

[landlines]

As long as Gates remains as "Chief Architect", products are doomed

Bill Gates may have talents, but system architecture was never one of them. Any successful architectural feature MS ever had was bought from someone else: IBM provided this expertise in the old days.

The system flaws which pervade MS products are the direct consequence of a failed, incompetent, architectural plan which pervades every product line. Until a drastic change is made in this area, MS products will continue their slide from serious products toward flashy, increasingly unreliable "toys."

[Lord Kalthorn]

The scale is impressive

The scale on which Microsoft products are used is probably the reason you actually believe this. I'm pretty sure you haven't actually seen any Microsoft Code, so it must be. So a ten thousand people let's say have a systems crash on Windows. A hundred thousand have a Critical problem that restarts their computer, a million have a simple problem that is easily fixed. Not only are half of those all the user's fault for not patching properly, because in thirteen years of using Windows I have crashed once, because I keep my Computer updated and feeling good. Not only that, but more than a Billion more people don't have a problem. I don't think you'll find an Operating System where less than one in every thousand people have a minor problem every now and then. And you most certainly won't find one where only one in every ten thousand people has a system crash! Counting only Operating Systems that have ten thousand or more people using it :P

Now by all means, if you could find an alternative operating system that could operate in excess of I don't know... there are say 2 Billion Computers? 1.6 Billion Computers, with hundreds of millions of some of the smartest progammers attacking those computers every day, and some of the most stupid spyware makers trying new ways to get in. 1.6 Billion Computers, none in the same configuration, all different in some way, all working? On one piece of code?

I don't think you'd be able to do it.

[landlines]

As long as Gates remains as "Chief Architect", products are doomed

Bill Gates may have talents, but system architecture was never one of them. Any successful architectural feature MS ever had was bought from someone else: IBM provided this expertise in the old days.

The system flaws which pervade MS products are the direct consequence of a failed, incompetent, architectural plan which pervades every product line. Until a drastic change is made in this area, MS products will continue their slide from serious products toward flashy, increasingly unreliable "toys."

[Lord Kalthorn]

The scale is impressive

The scale on which Microsoft products are used is probably the reason you actually believe this. I'm pretty sure you haven't actually seen any Microsoft Code, so it must be. So a ten thousand people let's say have a systems crash on Windows. A hundred thousand have a Critical problem that restarts their computer, a million have a simple problem that is easily fixed. Not only are half of those all the user's fault for not patching properly, because in thirteen years of using Windows I have crashed once, because I keep my Computer updated and feeling good. Not only that, but more than a Billion more people don't have a problem. I don't think you'll find an Operating System where less than one in every thousand people have a minor problem every now and then. And you most certainly won't find one where only one in every ten thousand people has a system crash! Counting only Operating Systems that have ten thousand or more people using it :P

Now by all means, if you could find an alternative operating system that could operate in excess of I don't know... there are say 2 Billion Computers? 1.6 Billion Computers, with hundreds of millions of some of the smartest progammers attacking those computers every day, and some of the most stupid spyware makers trying new ways to get in. 1.6 Billion Computers, none in the same configuration, all different in some way, all working? On one piece of code?

I don't think you'd be able to do it.