OT: Ballmer Goes Nuts Videos

Ten best Ballmer-goes-nuts videos:

http://valleywag.com/365093/ten-best...es+nuts-videos

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:08:30 -0500, Journey <> wrote:

>Ten best Ballmer-goes-nuts videos:
>
>http://valleywag.com/365093/ten-best...es+nuts-videos


Journey, I didn't see it yet but frankly I don't like the guy. Maybe
it's just me but he seems arrogant. Bill Gates doesn't give me the
same impression tho I was watching some tv show (partially before I
got interrupted) and that said that Gates has a short temper with
people who work around him. That surprised me and I hope I can finish
that show .

Journey wrote:
> Ten best Ballmer-goes-nuts videos:
>
> http://valleywag.com/365093/ten-best...es+nuts-videos

Steve could a little Right Guard.

Ballmer IS arrogant. I've seen him make speeches and participate in Q&A with
very glib A... Ben Myers

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:16:26 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:08:30 -0500, Journey <> wrote:
>
>>Ten best Ballmer-goes-nuts videos:
>>
>>http://valleywag.com/365093/ten-best...es+nuts-videos
>
>
>Journey, I didn't see it yet but frankly I don't like the guy. Maybe
>it's just me but he seems arrogant. Bill Gates doesn't give me the
>same impression tho I was watching some tv show (partially before I
>got interrupted) and that said that Gates has a short temper with
>people who work around him. That surprised me and I hope I can finish
>that show .

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:11:46 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>Ballmer IS arrogant. I've seen him make speeches and participate in Q&A with
>very glib A... Ben Myers

Good, then he's a poor representative for Microsoft. Maybe if he wore
a black t-shirt and let his beard grow for a day it would help. That
might be a cool spoof that would gain positive notice.

I do think that whoever is at the helm of MS needs to be replaced. If
it's Ballmer, there's nothing wrong with him choosing someone else to
be the figurehead, and they need someone with common sense to oversee
product development.

Almost anyone on this group who has seen Office 2007 and the new IE
interface could have shot down those products right away.

I wouldn't be so hard on MS if they released good products. If they
did, I'd probably write about what Apple needs to do to compete. Apple
is far ahead however.

I'd like to have a way to run Mac OSX virtually on Windows. I revisit
the hackintosh distributions about once every 3 months and eventually
they will get it right. I'd like my XPS 410 to run the Mac OS.

Ballmer jumping around the stage making a fool out of himself isn't a
good image of the company, and it's very poor judgment.

If the intended audience was to MS employees, I'd be thinking "oh God,
give us Bill Gates back". Again, any of use here could do better I
think.

Having said that, maybe Ballmer is an effective (in other ways) CEO.

Ballmer has been doing his act since 1985 or 1986, whenever the Windows 1.0
roadshow for software developers came to town. He has ALWAYS had great
influence over Microsoft. Sometimes I think that Bill Gates is simply the front
man with his image of cool nerd-geek.

Ever since the Bill and Steve started, there has never been any reasonable
management of the software development process. It has always been a software
development anarchy with insufficient attention to paid to decent product
design, and nearly all the attention paid to driving the software development
effort in directions that maximize Microsoft's leverage over the world. I've
gotten glimpses of Microsoft's internal workings way back when in trips to
Redmond, and it always seemed very much other-worldly.

I would agree that any company wants to maximize market share. That's the
raison d'etre of a profit-making business. But in so doing, they have cost us
billions or even trillions of dollars in lost productivity, dealing with the
results of all the security holes, the slow performance, the downloading and
rebooting of patch after patch after patch, etc... Ben Myers

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:35:31 -0500, Journey <> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:11:46 -0400, Ben Myers
><> wrote:
>
>>Ballmer IS arrogant. I've seen him make speeches and participate in Q&A with
>>very glib A... Ben Myers
>
>Good, then he's a poor representative for Microsoft. Maybe if he wore
>a black t-shirt and let his beard grow for a day it would help. That
>might be a cool spoof that would gain positive notice.
>
>I do think that whoever is at the helm of MS needs to be replaced. If
>it's Ballmer, there's nothing wrong with him choosing someone else to
>be the figurehead, and they need someone with common sense to oversee
>product development.
>
>Almost anyone on this group who has seen Office 2007 and the new IE
>interface could have shot down those products right away.
>
>I wouldn't be so hard on MS if they released good products. If they
>did, I'd probably write about what Apple needs to do to compete. Apple
>is far ahead however.
>
>I'd like to have a way to run Mac OSX virtually on Windows. I revisit
>the hackintosh distributions about once every 3 months and eventually
>they will get it right. I'd like my XPS 410 to run the Mac OS.
>
>Ballmer jumping around the stage making a fool out of himself isn't a
>good image of the company, and it's very poor judgment.
>
>If the intended audience was to MS employees, I'd be thinking "oh God,
>give us Bill Gates back". Again, any of use here could do better I
>think.
>
>Having said that, maybe Ballmer is an effective (in other ways) CEO.

Ben Myers wrote:
> Ballmer has been doing his act since 1985 or 1986, whenever the Windows 1.0
> roadshow for software developers came to town. He has ALWAYS had great
> influence over Microsoft. Sometimes I think that Bill Gates is simply the front
> man with his image of cool nerd-geek.
>
> Ever since the Bill and Steve started, there has never been any reasonable
> management of the software development process. It has always been a software
> development anarchy with insufficient attention to paid to decent product
> design, and nearly all the attention paid to driving the software development
> effort in directions that maximize Microsoft's leverage over the world. I've
> gotten glimpses of Microsoft's internal workings way back when in trips to
> Redmond, and it always seemed very much other-worldly.
>
> I would agree that any company wants to maximize market share.

Econ 101 textbooks say companies want to maximize profits.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:57:38 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>I would agree that any company wants to maximize market share. That's the
>raison d'etre of a profit-making business. But in so doing, they have cost us
>billions or even trillions of dollars in lost productivity, dealing with the
>results of all the security holes, the slow performance, the downloading and
>rebooting of patch after patch after patch, etc... Ben Myers

Yes, and a monopoly kills innovative products. Rather than list a lot
of them, I'll focus on Ecco Pro. That is a product that is still
ahead of much that is offered today.

Not surprisingly, when Outlook came out and MS was giving it away for
free, Netmanage killed Ecco Pro. I think they were wise to do that
right away, because they never would have been able to complete.

In that case, MS cost the developers their jobs -- not because there
product wasn't as good, but because their product wasn't for free and
not bundled with Windows.

No dispute there. What Econ 101 does not teach is the balance between short
term and long term. One could argue against Microsoft's monopolistic practices
on the basis that they maximize short term profits at the expense of long term
corporate viability. Time will tell when all this plays out. Not IF. When.

IBM followed many of the same monopolistic practices back in the mainframe days,
but the personal computer paradigm shift killed their monopoly. It is a credit
to somewhat enlightened management that IBM was able to refocus its entire
business to remain viable and, in fact, still a major force in the computer
industry.

Which paradigm shift will catch Microsoft? Do they have the right corporate
culture to deal with it? Every indication I have is that Microsoft was, is and
will continue to have a top-down management management style, e.g. Ballmer,
where you follow orders, say "Yes, sir!" and burn yourself out striving to meet
impossible goals in conflict with one another (e.g. product ship dates vs.
product features)... Ben Myers

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:15:10 -0400, Tony Harding <> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> Ballmer has been doing his act since 1985 or 1986, whenever the Windows 1.0
>> roadshow for software developers came to town. He has ALWAYS had great
>> influence over Microsoft. Sometimes I think that Bill Gates is simply the front
>> man with his image of cool nerd-geek.
>>
>> Ever since the Bill and Steve started, there has never been any reasonable
>> management of the software development process. It has always been a software
>> development anarchy with insufficient attention to paid to decent product
>> design, and nearly all the attention paid to driving the software development
>> effort in directions that maximize Microsoft's leverage over the world. I've
>> gotten glimpses of Microsoft's internal workings way back when in trips to
>> Redmond, and it always seemed very much other-worldly.
>>
>> I would agree that any company wants to maximize market share.
>
>Econ 101 textbooks say companies want to maximize profits.

Ben Myers wrote:
> No dispute there. What Econ 101 does not teach is the balance between short
> term and long term.

There are lots of things Econ 101 doesn't teach.

> One could argue against Microsoft's monopolistic practices
> on the basis that they maximize short term profits at the expense of long term
> corporate viability. Time will tell when all this plays out. Not IF. When.
>
> IBM followed many of the same monopolistic practices back in the mainframe days,
> but the personal computer paradigm shift killed their monopoly. It is a credit
> to somewhat enlightened management that IBM was able to refocus its entire
> business to remain viable and, in fact, still a major force in the computer
> industry.
>
> Which paradigm shift will catch Microsoft? Do they have the right corporate
> culture to deal with it?

No way to tell (at least not for me), but I think we'll welcome that day
when it finally arrives.