People who work for for-profit companies, especially large ones, are always a bit uninteresting to interview, with media training and marketing instructions taking out all the sharp edges. CNet interviewed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and they got some very interesting quotes from the love-him-or-hate-him CEO.
CNet started by asking about Windows 7 and when it will be released to the public. They wonder whether or not Ballmer is pushing the Windows team to get it out the door in 2009. “I’m not pushing the team hard, the team is pushing itself,” Ballmer replied, “They set some goals and objectives and of course we’ll ship the product when it’s both right and ready and when we know when that is, we’ll share that.”
Ballmer acknowledges that Vista didn’t get a very warm welcome, but he believes that with Windows 7, it will be different. “With Windows 7, we’re able to build compatibly off of Vista and really sort of just tune, if you will, the user interface, the performance,” Ballmer explains, “And at the end of the day, it’ll be what the users think of the product that we’re building, and we’ll start getting beta feedback this week.”
The interviewer then moved the discussion towards netbooks, and Microsoft’s actions in that territory. Ballmer isn’t shy to flat-out state that Vista isn’t a fit for netbooks. “We’re doing very well with Windows XP, which fits. Vista does not fit, and we’re working hard to make sure Windows 7 fits very well on the Netbooks.” Ballmer states. He added: “You know, from a business perspective, low-cost machine means a little less revenue per unit to Microsoft, but I think it gives us an opportunity to see expansion of the overall PC market.”
The remainder of the interview deals with the economic crisis, and Microsoft’s performance when it comes to the search market, competition with Google, and the soap surrounding Yahoo. It’s an interesting read.
Anyone out there with a love for Ballmer?
I read it once somewhere, forgot where.
I think he’s obnoxious, but as long as Sinfosky and the ever-lovely Julie Larson-Green do Windows, who cares about Ballmer.
Can’t stand him.
Oh come on, he’s at least good for a laugh… or a wince, depending on your mood I guess.
First I’d like to say that Windows 7 runs great on netbooks. I’m a member of the Channel 9 Community and I’ve read various reports there (and elsewhere) that Windows 7 is great on a netbook. I haven’t read a lot of negative reports about Windows 7, not even in the context of limited hardware. On the contrary.
Second, I’ve met Steve Ballmer in person. I’ve seen him defend Microsoft in a Q&A with a small group (not more than 40 or 50) of Belgian Microsoft Partners. And although they were Microsoft Partners, the questions were very harsh and to the point. The Ballmer I’ve seen was very humble and likeable. That’s in sharp contrast with his public image. Later that day, I saw him give a keynote to a large group and there I saw him “perform” his “act” of being loud and extravert again.
There’s 2 sides to the man, and most people only see 1 side.
Ive met steve ballmer aswell when he was in london a few weeks back. I think he is a terrible public figure for microsoft. He makes incredibly rash and stupid comments which lets down the intelligent people at microsoft. At least with bill gates he had some carisma which a lot of people could either like or dislike.
He is completely unprofessional and i find him really boring to listen to also, i switch off a lot of his presentations.
I personally think they should move some of the newer talent to the spot light a lot more. I find Steve Sinosky a much more likeable, intelligent speak that Ballmer. I think they should retire him to a seat upstairs, he may keep his CEO title but please other someone who is likeable giving important presentations.
I can’t help but feel that if Ballmer was to annouce his retirement Microsoft’s shares would go up.
Microsoft is a good company with lots of intelligent people and cool technology.
The development of vista was disasterious, while the Vista product today is good. I did have a few BSOD and corrupted startup’s in the early days of it’s release. However this, as others have pointed out has meant that Microsoft got caught out in the netbook market, as they in the mobile phone market.
As good and clever as Dave Cutler is, i think that now he has moved on from the Windows team, a breathe of fresh talent has also been moved in.
Windows 7 will be microsoft coming back fighting and entering the netbook market correctly and not just patching with Windows XP. In the same way i expect the next major release of Windows Mobile will be a lot better due to the competition from apple but also the increased competition from Google and Palm.
Edited 2009-01-12 10:35 UTC
There are three words I never thought I would see together in a sentence: Bill Gates + Charisma.
Charisma is a neutral concept. Bill Gates in my humble opinion has the charisma of a carrot.
Ballmer on the other hand exudes charisma. Note that charisma does not imply “likeable” or “agreeable.”
All I hear about Windows 7 is…
“It runs GREAT, really GREAT…”
It makes me skeptical, REALLY skeptical…
I heard similar drivel from Vista, and frankly I will wait until the general public has used Windows 7.
Me I would wager that Windows 7 will NOT RUN great. Why? Because that would be a REAL difference. Up to now each and every Windows operating system has been more bloated than the previous. I have yet to see something else.
And if there is one thing that Microsoft is not getting. I am quite happy with XP… I do use Vista and hate every moment of it.
I have to say that on the same machine as my Vista install there are a couple of areas where it runs much better than Vista. Its not a huge difference but its still noticeable. At home I use OSX and Linux, but at wok I use Vista primarily. However I do have to point out that I have yet to install any real work software on it, which generally slow down the machine considerably.
I was pleased with the very Mac/Dock-like taskbar, imo, it works better than the traditional one because I don’t have to mentally group instances of applications if I have multiple windows/sessions open. The only real difference between the OSX approach and the Windows7 approach is that Windows encourages minimizing applications more than OSX. OSX use things like Expose and Spaces to reduce the amount of minimizing. There is also a bit more attention to detail this time around which is much appreciated.
The new taskbar is not in anyway original, and could be seen as an underhanded move by MS by the Mac faithful, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that imo its a much needed improvement.
That’s all GUI. What’s up with the important stuff, like Network throughput, reaction under heavy load or the Harddisk copying performance that was so bad under Vista?
//And if there is one thing that Microsoft is not getting. I am quite happy with XP… I do use Vista and hate every moment of it.//
So … you’re quite happy with XP, yet you use Vista and hate it?
What the hell?
Me loves Ballmer. Ballmer throws chair. Everyone laughs. Ha ha ha!
I love him in the developers, developers, developers song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hadxBZWxNrs does that count?
He talks so clumsily and disjointedly that it is near impossible to make sense of a word he says. So I’m not sure what points this article is trying to make.
What comes out of it for me is
First, a whopper: “We’ve done very well on Netbooks.” In reality Microsoft were caught napping and had to play a game of catch-up by pressing XP into service despite frequently claiming that it was about to be knocked on the head.
Second, Ballmer appears still be to obsessed with Google but seems no nearer an answer to countering them than he has ever been.
Third, Microsoft is still resolutely refusing to admit they might have blown it with Vista, even a tiny weeny little bit. Since it’s doubtful many people believe these protestations, a little humble pie wouldn’t come amiss.
I really don’t see Microsoft changing much until Ballmer has been sent off to tend his garden. He can afford a rather large one. The company still seems transfixed by Google and is obsessed with dominating every market it enters. The days of domination are long, long gone and as for the Google thang, what this really suggests is that Microsoft has yet to find a skin in which it can feel comfortable. As a company it still doesn’t seem to know who or what it is now the glory days of the 1990s are fading.
Finally, the energy costs of computing are going to become a big story in the next few years. That also means the energy costs of a certain big, sprawling operating system that always seems to require more powerful and energy-demanding hardware. Upgrade time yet again, or time to help the planet a bit? I hope Microsoft are taking this into account in the design of Windows 7.
“Microsoft is still resolutely refusing to admit they might have blown it with Vista, even a tiny weeny little bit”
I’m an Apple guy but I’ve Vista recently and its not all that bad. Yes, its still slow on older hardware (i.e. 2003) and on PCs with <2GB RAM but on a modern computer it runs just fine. The relatively frequent BSODs and crashes that happened to the RTM are now gone (in SP1) and SP1 has fixed up most of the little performance and stability issues there were. Vista may not have had the “warmest welcome” on release but its really alright now that they have fixed up its main problems.
And as for power consumption, you ought to put things into perspective. In the big picture, computers hardly use any power. My huge Xeon DP system uses about 5 cents of power per hour. Even if that doubles to 10 cents, it still won’t be of any concern to me. Things like furnaces and water heaters and air conditioners are what use the power in homes.
Edited 2009-01-12 00:21 UTC
Well, those performance and stability issues were not present in XP, so at best you could say Vista was a step backward when it was first released. It’s pretty safe to say that they released it before it was ready.
I think I’ve seen 1 or 2 BSOD’s in the 6+ years I’ve been using XP. As long as your drivers and hardware were good, it just didn’t happen enough to even comment on.
Edited 2009-01-12 01:56 UTC
I think its safe to say the same with Vista as far as BSOD’s, I only had a handful of blue screens with vista, some related to faulty ram timings, some related to creatives drivers, but went away completely when they were fixed. I know people who have had no issues, know people who have had many, and same boat with XP. Everyones experience is unique.
Windows XP RTM also sucked hard. XP didn’t become half decent until SP1, and it wasn’t until SP2 that it really came into it’s own.
Bingo. People lie to view XP through rose colored glasses now that they’ve had over a decade to get used to it. At launch it was all either complaints about old DOS crap not working, drivers, system reqs or the godawful theme.
But, now you always get SP-1 … so Vista BSODs are pretty much gone … and actually, i never got them pre-sp1. So, not everyone experienced it as a “step back”
Edited 2009-01-13 16:51 UTC
I think you need to look a little further than the confines of your own home, and your own country. I’m talking about the total energy costs of computing generally to a society. That includes businesses and institutions and the giant server farms run by the likes of Google. The amount of energy used by IT is enormous (add in indirect costs, like cooling and air conditioning) and governments are starting to turn their eye to it. In the EU, for example, there is already a determined attempt to reduce energy consumption of electronics via legislation. If you think this isn’t going to become a big issue all over the place, you are in for a surprise. Since Microsoft is the prevalent provider of operating systems they are right in the firing line.
Secondly, I was not referring to the stability of Vista. FWIW, I run Vista64 and it is perfectly stable, if rather clunky. I was thinking more of Vista’s appeal to corporates and institutions and of its hardware requirements (as was, on release), compared to XP. Even the most rabid fan of Microsoft must admit things here do not seem to have gone exactly according to plan.
Edited 2009-01-12 05:44 UTC
As opposed to having massive libraries of printed books on dead trees, many copies, with all the distribution costs (energy wise) and using transportation again and again (cars or public) to get to those resources ?
Reducing energy consumption is important, so are some proportions.
Now for power consumption, yes large server farms do use a lot of power, but they pale in comparison to other things. If we say that on average, the (very) roughly billion people in the world use 200W of power continuously per person on computers, that will total 200 gigawatts or 0.2 terawatts. Given that the total world consumption of power 16 terawatts*, that would mean that computers consume just over 1% of the world’s energy. Yes it would be nice to reduce that but hey, in the big picture, it doesn’t really matter. Airplanes, for example use well over twice that.
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
“I was thinking more of Vista’s appeal to corporates and institutions and of its hardware requirements (as was, on release), compared to XP. Even the most rabid fan of Microsoft must admit things here do not seem to have gone exactly according to plan.”
OK, that makes more sense to me. But then even the hardware requirements aren’t too bad; any desktop computer made in the last 3 years should run Vista reasonably. I’d have to agree that Vista is indeed clunky. Some of those dialogs it displays are a total mess and disaster from a UI standpoint, and that’s just one of its flaws. But then, nothing is perfect (not that I’m saying that better things aren’t out there because they are).
Personally I think any power consumption over 50W is excessive. Video cards in particular are shockers.
Why can’t we buy a powerful 2D multimedia video card that only uses 20 watts for under $100? Most people aren’t gamers but many of us want smooth blu-ray playback and fast video encoding without needing a quad core $500 CPU.
Good point on the power hog modern GPUs. Those things are ridiculous. Okay, I admit, although I’m not a gamer I do like to have high-performance stuff. That includes a high-quality GPU.
But come on; they went from weak but efficient, to more powerful and requiring a bit more power, to even more power and requiring their own fan(s), to even MORE power and requiring their own power supply cable, to the (IMO) completely unnecessary “SLI” (two power-hungry video cards with unnecessarily high power). Who knows what additional power/temperature requirements are on today’s cards.
I’d just like to *have* that extra horsepower when I want it (which is rarely). But most of the time I just want it to run nice and cool and not waste power doing basically nothing (ie., displaying the same static image or watching a video). I don’t like integrated-anything (included graphics), so that’s completely out of the picture for me. Other than GPUs, I can’t think of a single other piece of hardware that I absolutely despise for their inefficiency.
Even the processor (as innefficient as the x86 is) at least has been gaining efficiency modes.
A Radeon 4350 does HD playback and has a price tag of 30€ (Germany). Okay, it needs 25 Watts but it’s pretty close to what you want.
Back to topic:
Vista may run ok on new Hardware, but it broke compatibility with a lot of old apps AND with a lot of old Hardware. Both of which is bad for the corporate guys. They wouldn’t throw out perfectly good stuff just because an OS update requires it!
OTOH, Vista didn’t break compatibility enough to finally get rid of all those old design flaws. Most of which date back to NT, 95 or even Mess-Dos…
If you run a ac then the power consumption for your computer just doubled. because most energy in the pc transfers to heat which means that your ac has to work harder to remove that heat.
I don’t think that is completely true at all, although I can see how you might come to that conclusion.
The way we use AC in our Boston suburb home is to set the cooling temp high around 80f, the AC is only really removing the humidity and after that, the 80f dry air is quite tolerable. The AC only has to work a fraction of the level I think it would otherwise if set to 65f chill. Our summer electric bill is quite modest. The PCs may be pushing up the room temps a bit but spread over the house, no big deal. If you set the AC temp to 60+ then of course all the added heat would have to be pumped out as well and the AC would be working much harder. I bet work offices though have it much worse as they usually set the dial pretty low.
I would urge folks to get a power meter (about $20 or so) to get a handle on what their true energy costs really are. My workstation is 140W, 21″ CRT 140W, 24″ LCD 40W and so on. It is clear the replacement of CRT with LCD is the best 1st move but I’m waiting for this last CRT to die off. After that replacing the 90um P4 and GPU with a 45nm equivalents will surely drop to half again.
Of course if you own a large Plasma or LCD TV with multimedia gear or drive a large vehicle those are far worse excesses.
Now it is also well known in the industry that since PCs went from 80s ownership levels to current levels, electric utilities have seen a large spike in usage (about +20% IIRC), but that should go down with newer PC units and with crossover use of laptops, only to get replaced by large digital TV units.
yeah it depends on how you use ac’s.
where i live having electronics that generate heat dosent do so much since the house uses electric heaters.
but places that use the ac hard to keep cool is another matter. in some places cool soft drinks are more expensive since the refrigerators has to work so hard to keep them cool
“I really don’t see Microsoft changing much until Ballmer has been sent off to tend his garden. He can afford a rather large one. The company still seems transfixed by Google and is obsessed with dominating every market it enters. The days of domination are long, long gone and as for the Google thang, what this really suggests is that Microsoft has yet to find a skin in which it can feel comfortable. As a company it still doesn’t seem to know who or what it is now the glory days of the 1990s are fading.”
ok …. think about it, .. If you were running a company would you not want to dominate your market?
I swear, you socialist morons need to read some Ayn Rand.
and this from somebody who does not like microsoft.. but I am a capitalist and understand the principals behind free markets.
Edited 2009-01-12 07:58 UTC
There’s a difference between wanting to work towards that goal and assuming that you are entitled to it because of the easy cash cows you have been living off for twenty years.
I didn’t see much socialism in the parent’s comment, and I see we have another moron who thinks they can quote an author as having the perfect answer as many governments have even done worryingly. Ayn Rand’s advice on capitalism and how to run it has proved a complete disaster in the current climate, there are elements of social interest that need to be looked after but nationalisation just leads to stagnation.
I really don’t know why people look to these so-called philosophers when the world is clearly not that simple. Is socialism right? Is hands-off capitalism right? That’s what people are asking now. The simple fact is that no one is right. It depends.
Do you?
Wouldn’t you have to draw a line and define what’s your market first? MS seems to be eager to jump on everything related with IT or entertainment.
They just can’t dominate everything everywhere (if they do then expect to be sued left and right).
Not necessarily. If it was my own little company perhaps i’d be pretty happy as long as it made me enough money to have a comfortable living. The majority of companies in the world aren’t multinational behemots.
Edit.
Also note that wanting to dominate any number of markets is/can be bad business sense. It drains your resources away from your core business and can cost you more than you think.
Many companies has expanded wildly into different sectors only to have it bankrupt them.
You capitalist morons need to read some Karl Marx.
Or just not read Ayn Rand.
Or so you say. I dont recall the principles of free markets including that every company must strive to dominate the market. As I recall, it is about healty competion that in turn is good for consumers.
Edited 2009-01-12 19:11 UTC
Microsoft obviously don’t understand the principles of a free market since United States v. Microsoft (1998) when they bundled Internet Explorer unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers.
Or EU v Microsoft (2004) about bundling Windows Media Player.
Ha. You need to read something OTHER than Ayn Rand. She has warped your little brain.
If you really understood the principles behind free markets you would know that competition is what drives the market. Market domination doesn’t help anyone but Microsoft. It doesn’t facilitate better and cheaper products. It just puts money in Microsoft’s pocket and stifles innovation.
Google it appears is no better at the energy/carbon/pollution thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm
It seems we must all (users, OS providers, network providers, search providers) start thinking *very* seriously about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7821754.stm
NB from the latter:
“Casey Harrell, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace, said progress had been made but there was room for improvement.
“We’re not arguing any more about whether green is good – we’re arguing about the definition of green and the pace at which we’re getting there,” he said.
The campaign group said six companies had refused to take part in the survey – Apple, Asus, Microsoft, Nintendo, Palm and Philips.
Greenpeace said it was disappointing that Apple had refused to cooperate for the second year running, especially since its new range of Macbooks could have scored well.”
That would be pretty cool. It should mean that its pretty good on mid range desktops, that vista struggled on. But, with anything I’ll believe it when I see it from Microsoft.
Balmer reminds me of a skeksis (from ‘The Dark Crystal’ for you young ‘uns.) Totally!
could someone point out where in the article it says that win7 doesn’t fit on netbooks?
the comment ballmer made was that they are “working hard to make sure windows 7 fits VERY WELL on netbooks.”
it seems the title of this thread was a bit stretched.
that said, i’m no fan of MS and agree that ballmer appears not to have a clear direction for the company.
Did they change the title of the story before I read it? Seems to state Vista does not fit.
Ballmer: Well, we’ve done very well on Netbooks. When they first came out, I’m not sure if people knew whether they were PCs or something else, and I think everybody kind of understands now that a Netbook is a small-form-factor, low-cost personal computer. And we’re doing very well with Windows XP, which fits. Vista does not fit, and we’re working hard to make sure Windows 7 fits very well on the Netbooks.
Edited 2009-01-12 21:30 UTC
Well, at least it gives them a valid excuse to keep XP around.
Just sounds better than “a substantial amount of customers prefer XP over Vista”.
Sounds like more of a way to hide the real (and more embarrassing) problem behind a bush to me…
Windows 7 will not be a good fit for current netbooks. Netbooks will shortly be gaining dual-core processors and 2 gigabytes of RAM, making them suitable for Vista and Windows 7 (which will follow shortly afterwards).
Microsoft’s current rules doesn’t allow netbooks to have more than 1Gb of RAM if they are sold as “designed for Windows XP”. So I don’t think we’ll se netbooks with more than 1Gb RAM unless they are sold with with Windows 7 (or Linux of course).
Yeah but most netbooks can be upgraded easily to 2gb.
In case anyone is still in any doubt as to what Windows 7 actually is, Ballmer explains all:
It puts the rather silly and pointless articles we’ve had recently into some perspective.
Also this hour, bear spokesbear outlines arboreal defecation policy, and Pope discusses pointiness of official headgear.
Then again, apparently Sony have slipped out a “netbook” at CES that runs Vista, but it’s really a $900 VAIO with a small screen.
ok, I am almost too petrified to ask, but here I go: does that mean future versions of DX will not be limited to W7..? Hey wait, depriving XP from DX10 wasn’t a technical necessity, either….
We’re dealing with software here. Aside from changes to security which broke compatibility for some apps what “technically” could not go into XP?
The way I see it DX10 was a Vista feature why should it be bundled with XP? Imagine telling Apple it’s Core … needs to be backported to OS 10.0 after all XP came out at the same time as OS 10.0.
Funny, I said the exact same thing last week and caught a load of stick for even suggesting that Vista isn’t suitable for Netbooks! Isn’t that right Thom?
I have already accepted the fact that when it comes to Vista, my computers (incl. my netbook) exist in some alternative reality where they are far more powerful than in our own.
That’s the only explanation I can come up with why Vista never posed ANY performance problems for me (save for the early days).
Steve Ballmer == The Homer Simpson of CEOs.
Wait, maybe that’s too much of a insult for Homer Simpson.
that Windows 7 will run great on netbooks, but so will the next generations of Linux. By the time Windows 7 is released most Linux distros will have evolved at least one, perhaps two generations. During the entire lifetime of windows 7, Linux will evolve at least six generations. That will be very hard to compete with in the long run.
It certainly doesn’t look good for Microsoft at the moment. They still have a lot of money in the bank and will be around for a forseeable future, but their golden days are over.
Well just read this…
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/windows-7-beta.ars
According to the article Windows 7 is almost the same as Windows vista concerning hardware demands. That means if a computer will not run Vista decently, it will not run Windows 7 either…
So – according to this article Windows 7 gives little or none speed improvements over Vista I am afraid…
So… come on! It’s 16 GBs just to have “notepad” and IE8. How does Microsoft expect people building netbooks to fit win 7 in those tiny HDs (or whatever)?
I haven’t tried Vista on it, but Windows 7 Beta 1 is running fine on my Samsung NC-10. I think I will keep it until it expires.