> > ...they've become primarily a services > company. So had CDC but I think they've either changed names, merged or > folded since then. Yes, yes and not yet. Syntegra is now under BT. Web hosting and email processing for very large orgs. Jack Ungerleider wrote: > rwh wrote: > >> Mike Miller wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sidney Cammeresi wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> You are ignoring a lot of evidence. The blogs are filled with info >>>> coming out of Microsoft about how much of a lumbering behemoth that >>>> company has become. Engineers buried under layers upon layers upon >>>> layers of management. Source code changes can take 3-6 months just to >>>> get from one end of the company to the other. These aren't things one >>>> fixes just by throwing money at the problem, and that grants that there >>>> is even someone at the company with vision enough to make the needed >>>> changes, but I will not grant that fact. >>>> >>>> >>> I hope you are right! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Never mind the historical evidence to the contrary. E.g. IBM which was >>>> another `unstoppable monopoly.' Unfortunately (for the >>>> anti-capitalists), IBM fell from dominance not because of trustbusting, >>>> but because mainframes were rendered obsolete by desktop computing, and >>>> they did not adapt to this fact. It's not all about who controls the >>>> means of production if one has the insight to turn an industry on its >>>> head. >>>> >>>> >>> IBM hasn't been stopped as far as I can see. In fact, they still sell >>> mainframes. They were first to develop a widely-adopted desktop computer >>> design. They are currently big Linux advocates. I don't think IBM was >>> ever as dominant in computing as Microsoft has been in desktop OS software >>> -- they had HP, DEC, Wang, Cray, etc. to compete with. It takes a long >>> time for a "lumbering behemoth" to fall! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Just to be pedantic, IBMs competitors were Univac, Sperry-Rand, >> Burroughs, GE, CDC, Honeywell and a couple others that escape my memory. >> HP, DEC, DG, etc. were in the mini-computer market where they got to >> compete with the IBM System 3x stuff and eventually Sun, SGI, etc. >> You'll probably notice that none of the mainframe guys are around, >> except UniSys and I couldn't say whether they still make a mainframe or >> not - they were big with utilities in the 60's so its possible. >> >> IBM was successfully sued by CDC for anti-trust in the late 60's, but by >> the late 80's they were fading fast. They lost $16B US in 1992, laid off >> 45,000 people in '92 and another 35,000 in '93. Sort of like GM or Ford >> today. >> >> Lew Gerstner came in 1993 and moved them from being primarily a >> hardware/software shop to a focus on services. Linux fits into that >> model fairly well because it doesn't lock people into a proprietary >> model - the way IBM use to do business. >> >> MS needs an IBM moment and someone with a completely new vision to >> replace Balmer. I can't think of anything new from MS since NT 3.51 - >> OK, there is the XBox, but they've been milking the NT code base for a >> long time. >> >> --rick >> >> >> >> > The man on the inside right now is Ray Ozzie. Whether he can shift > Microsoft's direction is still to be seen. He's full impact will > probably only be felt when Gates "retires" to being only the Chairman > and Ozzie reports directly to Ballmer. According to this > (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6084396.html) article from CNet, Craig > Mundie is in the mix as well. But Ozzie has the resume that includes > Lotus Notes and Groove on it and appears to be the "idea" man for the > future. > > One IBM competitor everybody forgot was Amdahl. Remember it was Gene > Amdahl that coined the term FUD in reference to IBM. With respect to > UniSys they've done what IBM's done, they've become primarily a services > company. So had CDC but I think they've either changed names, merged or > folded since then. > > >