I installed VS2010 Ultimate about 2 days ago and it worked fine.

Win7 x64

3/24/2011 7:41:20 PM

Something is just fucked on my machine, Win 7 Pro x64.

It's trying to install Error Reporting, VC 9.0 Runtime, 10. Runtime, and several other things. It gets to the end of Error Reporting, says "Current Component is installing" and just goes off into la la land. I pull up the task manager and memory isn't creeping and the task isn't taking CPU cycles.

3/24/2011 8:07:35 PM

did you check Event Viewer?

[Edited on March 24, 2011 at 8:23 PM. Reason : try installing .net4 standalone, then install VS shell afterwards]

3/24/2011 8:22:28 PM

This can happen if you've got an older beta .netv4 framework installed, or if you have mixed portions of the client and authoring v4 frameworks installed with different version #'s.

Back out of the VS install, check your programs list and remove any .net v4 bits you may have.

3/25/2011 12:10:09 AM

Much uninstalling and re-installing of stuff didn't fix it. I'm not sure if this is the reason or not, but apparently when I put Win7 on this box the first time I didn't pay attention to the partitions. Apparently, my C: partition where the OS was installed wasn't the "Primary" partition. I can't imagine this being the issue but I needed to do a reformat anyway so I fixed the partitions while I was at it and I was able to install VSShell and everything I needed just fine.

4/2/2011 11:50:35 AM

It's such a piece of shit.

4/2/2011 11:56:56 AM

Microsoft is certainly not in decline. Their corporate platform of Active Directory, Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync is unbeatable. While they face competition on each individual product, no one can provide their level of integration/interoperability.

4/2/2011 10:14:15 PM

No one can provide a bigger ball of shit!




Sharepoint is a usability abomination.

4/3/2011 9:55:16 PM

couldnt agree more. but the more i use sharepoint, the more it's the only option out there.

I don't think its so much that sharepoint is shitty, as that it can do SO MUCH and integrates with everything under the sun, that it's REALLY easy to make it a giant turd ball. Once you start putting like 15 other services on top of it and letting a dozen people run rampant on a sharepoint site, it gets messy quick.

4/3/2011 10:35:20 PM

I haven't used Sharepoint in a while. Is it still impossible to style and not have looking like a massive shitshow?

4/3/2011 10:45:02 PM

Why don't we look at actual numbers (from MSFT 2010 10k)
Figures are in millions of dollars, () indicates a negative number

I think that the results are quite interesting. MSFT core divisions (Windows/office/server) show modest growth and very wide profit margins (except server)

Of particular interest arethe terrible results for Online Services and Entertainment and Devices...nothing like flat rev in Online Services and a ballooning loss.

Quote :

"I was showing that they are making strides in a market dominated by a juggernaut."

Making strides, as in losing more and more money? Why don't they have positive rev if they have that much search share (ComScore, etc are all full of shit regardless)?

I think that MSFT has proven that it has no ability to enter new markets and make worthwhile profits...

Windows & Windows Live Division

Revenue
2010 18,491 2009 14,974 2008 17,211
Operating income
2010 12,977 2009 9,982 2008 12,422

Server and Tools

Revenue
2010 14,866 2009 14,191 2008 13,195
Operating income
2010 5,491 2009 4,803 2008 4,149

Online Services Division – Bing, MSN

Revenue
2010 2,199 2009 2,121 2008 2,198
Operating loss
2010 (2,355) 2009 (1,652) 2008 (578)

Microsoft Business Division – Office (~90% of this rev)

Revenue
2010 18,642 2009 18,910 2008 18,899
Operating income
2010 11,776 2009 11,664 2008 11,859

Entertainment and Devices Division – Xbox, Zune, MS Embedded and Windows Mobile

Revenue
2010 8,058 2009 8,035 2008 8,495
Operating income
2010 679 2010 108 2009 445

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 11:07 PM. Reason : grammar]

4/3/2011 10:55:08 PM

^OSD looks like its posting massive losses because Microsoft separates OSD from it's advertising business (which Google combines). If you look at the AdCenter revenue, it looks like they are basically making 100% margins. When you put the two together, it's a pretty break even proposition.

Microsoft isn't losing their ass monetarily in search and online services. Last I knew it was actually (barely) profitable.

And E&D just broke into the black last year, which is pretty damn good considering the costs of starting and building a new platform. And if you trend the revenue against the market, it's doing damn well.

On the Windows/Office front, there's no way to have anything other than modest growth when nearly every computer in the world already has your software on it.

4/3/2011 11:09:10 PM

Under OSD, the 10K states

Quote :

"We earn revenue primarily from online advertising, including search, display, and advertiser and publisher tools. "

Why are they in OSD or EDD? Who wants to throw money into holes with little, if any, return. I would add up the total losses in EDD and project what decade they might break even, but I am a little lazy atm.

4/3/2011 11:15:38 PM

Quote :

"Who wants to throw money into holes with little, if any, return."

A company with a ton of money that wants to invest in their future and is willing to pay to dig themselves out of the hole they've found themselves in?

4/3/2011 11:31:20 PM

Yeah- and my point is, they have been in EDD for the better part of a decade, and all they have to show for i t is a tiny profit and flat rev?

4/3/2011 11:41:51 PM

They made a tiny profit in a year where they didn't release pretty much anything to drive new sales until November. No new Zune hardware, WinMo was dead because WP7 was being released in October/November and everyone knew it, and while the 360 got refreshed midway through the year, it wasn't until November when the Kinect hit and sold like gangbusters.

So, honestly, I don't think the 2010 number means much at all. In fact, it's almost more impressive because they did pretty much nothing and came out ahead.

4/3/2011 11:53:13 PM

xbox, wp7, zune (media marketplace) are all longterm platform bets. It doesn't matter if they produce astronomical profits, or frankly even break even. They are building platforms, monetizing those platforms will happen (as is already being proven), but you have to reach critical mass to do so.

Marketshare for Xbox as a platform has risen steadily from its first release, and so far, Microsoft has continued to grow the platform both in revenue, hardware units sold, and subscribers at a healthy, long term rate.

4/4/2011 12:10:31 AM

I didn't realize this thread could be titled, "excuses why msft hasn't made a profit in any sector it had entered in the last decade."

They have been selling 360s for six years...when and where is this supposed to become a viable business? Dont whine about 2010 releases, I posted three years of returns.

You guys need to realize msft has the market valuation it does because if the obscene profit margins on windows and office... The market will not reward the margins on "heathly" EDD returns

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM. Reason : Fuck Swype]

4/4/2011 9:57:31 AM

Quote :

"I didn't realize this thread could be titled, "excuses why msft hasn't made a profit in any sector it had entered in the last decade.""

Again, most of us would view 679 million dollars in operating income in a year that had no major releases as a positive.

No one is saying they're MS's most profitable industries or even particularly successful ones, but looking at numbers outside of context is silly. I seriously doubt anyone at MS didn't expect those two divisions to be money sinks until they could get on their feet which is starting to happen with Entertainment and Devices and might eventually happen with Online Services. Either way, it's an investment they have to make since there's a lot of emphasis in moving away from the traditional PC and where they make most of their money.

4/4/2011 10:32:50 AM

Seriously? The title of this thread is "Is Microsoft in decline?" Most people would think that a company with a large cash cow and decades of failure in growth sectors as a declining company.

I can find literally hundreds of companies that turn out $700 m in income off $8 b in revenue. They are mostly known as shitty companies. Companies that make alot of money in declining or flat growth industries are not trading at the multiples that MSFT does. Companies are valued in large part because of their GROWTH potential, not stagnation. Apple is a hot company because it entered fields in the last decade and has absolutely dominated them, while actually making money!

Lets recap: MSFT entered two emerging fields three decades ago and quickly dominated the market share. They have been fantastic at making ridiculous money off of those cash cows.

In the last decade, MSFT has entered highly saturated fields (MP3s, game consoles, etc) and thrown tons of money at them. They have not made any real money in these fields, nor have they dominated the competition.

In fact, when has Microsoft entered a mature or saturated market and created large market share and more importantly, high margins?

I ask again, what is MSFT's strategy? I think they need to focus on core products, and entering EMERGING fields, not saturated fields. They have wasted tons of focus and money on stupid products like Zune.

I think that, without a doubt, MSFT is in decline. I also find it interesting that the posters in this thread mimic MSFT CEO's chest pounding and grunting, while ignoring data.

4/4/2011 10:57:29 AM

Here, I'll post it again, since you didn't read it the first time.

Quote :

"No one is saying they're MS's most profitable industries or even particularly successful ones, but looking at numbers outside of context is silly. I seriously doubt anyone at MS didn't expect those two divisions to be money sinks until they could get on their feet which is starting to happen with Entertainment and Devices and might eventually happen with Online Services. Either way, it's an investment they have to make since there's a lot of emphasis in moving away from the traditional PC and where they make most of their money."

4/4/2011 11:19:09 AM

Your post admits msft has declining core markets and their growth sectors are money sinks that have failed to make significant returns...and you are arguing the company is not in decline?

when I think of emerging profitable markets, I dont think mp3 players and game consoles, sorry

4/4/2011 11:44:57 AM

Quote :

"when I think of emerging profitable markets, I dont think mp3 players and game consoles, sorry"

That's probably why you're posting on TWW, while Microsoft has the fastest selling consumer device in history tied to their game console.

4/4/2011 11:50:47 AM

not taking a side on the argument at hand, but would you say "fastest selling consumer device in history" is more less important than "most profitable consumer device in history"?

4/4/2011 11:56:25 AM

You seem to confuse "hot products" and sales with profit...

What is the zune market share/profit when compared to its industry leader?

What about the xbox? Nintendo has wiped the floor in profitability, and sony just passed xbox 360 in total global sales...

msft is the market laggard in its "future" segments, they released a mobile os in 2010 without cut and paste...

4/4/2011 11:57:07 AM

Quote :

"not taking a side on the argument at hand, but would you say "fastest selling consumer device in history" is more less important than "most profitable consumer device in history"?"

I would say fastest selling is less important, yes, but acting like they're not going to make a substantial profit from it is a bit silly.

Quote :

"You seem to confuse "hot products" and sales with profit..."

And you're far too hung up on profit and being an industry leader. They don't dominate it, but if you told Microsoft when they launched the original XBox all those years ago that they'd currently be neck and neck with Sony in video game consoles sold, I think they'd be pleased as a peach.

Quote :

"msft is the market laggard in its "future" segments, they released a mobile os in 2010 without cut and paste..."

Which is predicted to be #2 in 4 years: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22762811

4/4/2011 12:22:59 PM

you think msft is pleased to be tied with number 2 in a industry?

And seriously about wp7? They have been making smartphone os' for more than a decade and have single digit market share at the moment, you really think paying a company to use it is going to result in worthwhile market competition?

You are essentially arguing msft is successful at becoming the third or fourth best in various industries as a good thing? Is that strategy the one that is going to keep msft in market cap top ten globally?

4/4/2011 12:32:00 PM

Quote :

"you think msft is pleased to be tied with number 2 in a industry?"

Considering they're competing against very established companies that have been in the industry for roughly 30 years and 20 years, and considering just how thoroughly they were clobbered by Sony in the previous generation, yes, I think they're pretty happy.

4/4/2011 1:52:44 PM

flatline, have you ever heard of vertical markets? Do you understand that concept?

Even the analysts are agreeing that the Xbox 360 has "won" the console war against Sony link in the US market. The revenue of the 360 itself (which is what you're pointing to as your basis for the failure of the business) is only a small piece of the pie.

And I like that you are only talking whole numbers with E&D, but talking growth with core markets. Lovely that you left out that from 2009-2010, E&D profits went up 240%. If that isn't insane growth in profitability, I don't know what is.

The 360 outsells the PS3 in the US in every way. Higher unit sales, higher peripheral sales, higher subscriber base + growth, higher attach rates.

With the phone, yes Microsoft fumbled and lot their market. Now they have to recover. And they seem to be doing the right things to turn that around. Revenue and profit is a trailing indicator of decline, not a leading indicator as you are suggesting.

You can look at every fortune 500 collapse in the modern era, and I will bet you soup to nuts that those companies had VERY high profit margins right up until they imploded. Focusing solely on margin and growth is what destroys companies.

4/4/2011 4:59:48 PM

You're referring to Microsoft as "they". Aren't you with them? Or are you doing that whole "thats a different group within the company and I'm going to say they so as to absolve myself from their underperformance" thing?

4/4/2011 5:08:09 PM

Yeah Noen, quit absolving yourself from Microsoft's underperformance. We all know it's your fault

4/4/2011 5:21:21 PM

they is appropriate, its not like he is directing company policy

4/4/2011 5:52:31 PM

Noen, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on financial accounting principles. The EDD statements includes ALL rev from Xbox including game royalties, etc. There is no "vertical" revenue hiding somewhere else in the financial reports. The division includes allllllllllllllllllllllll xbox revenue. They are just starting to dig out of a red hole.

lets go back in financial history

Online Services Business
Revenue
2007 2,441 2006 2,296
Operating income (loss)
2007 (617) 2006 5

Quote :

"^OSD looks like its posting massive losses because Microsoft separates OSD from it's advertising business (which Google combines). If you look at the AdCenter revenue, it looks like they are basically making 100% margins. When you put the two together, it's a pretty break even proposition."

You are full of shit. Here, in the 2008 10k, the OSD states that this INCLUDES ADCENTER, just like the 2010 report...

Quote :

" We earn revenue primarily from online advertising, including search, display, and email and messaging services. Revenue is also generated through subscriptions and transactions generated from online paid services, from advertiser and publisher tools, digital marketing and advertising agency services, and from MSN narrowband Internet access subscribers. We continue to launch new online offerings and expect to do so in the future. During fiscal year 2008, we launched new releases of Windows Live Search, the Windows Live suite of applications and services, and updated our MSN Video Service. In addition, we launched a new release of adCenter and expanded our advertising platform portfolio."

Entertainment and Devices Division
Revenue
2007 6,069 2006 4,732 2005 $3,515
Operating income (loss)
2007 (1,969) 2006 (1,339) 2005 $ (539)

Going back 2004 to 2008 there is a total loss in EDD of $5.1 billion dollars...

Quote :

"Entertainment and Devices Division (“EDD”) offerings include the Xbox 360 platform (which includes the Microsoft Xbox video game console system, Xbox 360 video games, Xbox Live, and Xbox 360 accessories), the Zune digital music and entertainment platform, PC software games, online games and services."

Who gives a fuck about US rates on PS3 vs Xbox360? Last I checked, they sold both globally.

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2011 6:51:21 PM

HAHAHA, even your link talks shit about the 360

Quote :

"On our official forecasts the Xbox 360 sells more cumulative units in the U.S. than the PlayStation 3. However, we also do a forecast for "active installed base." This is a forecast for how many units are actually being used by consumer. Thing with the Xbox 360 is many units acquired in the first few years are no longer functioning. Thus many new units are replacement units. Personally we are on our third Xbox 360 but really it is only one active unit. So when we look at active units we see the PS3 passing the Xbox 360 in the U.S. in 2014."

The fact that PS3 has oversold Xbox globally, coupled with data suggesting that total sales numbers on the 360 are larger than the user base, means that the PS3 has a MUCH larger user base than XBox globally, a gap which will continue to widen.

Please explain why MSFT entered the console market? because they sure aren't going to be cashing in any time soon? Why focus on a entrenched market where they can throw billions into last place? Why not focus on cloud/services/etc where there are no entrenched players? (or were)

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2011 7:41:19 PM

Quote :

"they is appropriate, its not like he is directing company policy"

I disagree. He can state that his opinions aren't Microsoft Official, but it would be totally proper to say "we".

[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : a]

4/4/2011 7:52:38 PM

Quote :

"The fact that PS3 has oversold Xbox globally, coupled with data suggesting that total sales numbers on the 360 are larger than the user base, means that the PS3 has a MUCH larger user base than XBox globally, a gap which will continue to widen. Please explain why MSFT entered the console market? because they sure aren't going to be cashing in any time soon? Why focus on a entrenched market where they can throw billions into last place? Why not focus on cloud/services/etc where there are no entrenched players? (or were) "

Microsoft entered the console market because it is a primary access point for software and service delivery to the consumer. If you don't control the endpoints of creation and delivery, you have zero leverage in the marketplace. This is the same reason why Microsoft is investing in Search and in the Phone market.

Microsoft couldn't have built xbox live on the PS3 or Wii. They couldn't have built Zune, Exchange, Office or Xbox Live on the iPhone or Blackberry or Android or Symbian.

In order to deliver the experiences, products and integration that customers want, Microsoft had to create the vertical markets to deliver solutions.

It's very apparent you don't understand this concept. Do you REALLY think if Microsoft left the device space entirely (no phone, no console), that Sony, Google, or Apple would actually use Microsoft platform technologies? Hell no. They would (and are) building their own. This is the reality of market consolidation and vertical industries. If you don't have players in level of the vertical, you are at a significant market disadvantage compared to those who do.

And to your completely whiffed point:

Quote :

"Noen, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on financial accounting principles. The EDD statements includes ALL rev from Xbox including game royalties, etc. There is no "vertical" revenue hiding somewhere else in the financial reports. The division includes allllllllllllllllllllllll xbox revenue. They are just starting to dig out of a red hole."

When a development studio writes an xbox game, they buy computers with Windows on them. They also buy Visual Studio. They likely will also bundle in Office. Now you have a business running on Microsoft products. Now they buy the CRM solution, and then they buy the IT solutions. Now you have a business running and operating on Microsoft Products.

Microsoft is a platform and services company. The distribution endpoints (PC, Laptops, Phones and Consoles) enables the entire platform to grow across verticals.

4/4/2011 9:22:10 PM

hahahaha, nothing in the world quite like believing your own bullshit.

Feel free to answer any question about Microsoft's success in new markets in the last decade...because there haven't been any.

4/4/2011 10:21:31 PM

It's cool man. You can feel free to believe as you like.

And success in new markets? How about virtualization, high performance computing, operations management, content distribution services, Silverlight, CRM, ERP have all been new markets in the last 10 years or less. And in every case, Microsoft has shown significant revenue and market share growth.

I mean it's cool. I realize most of the world only thinks about consumer applications.

4/4/2011 11:19:37 PM

lol Silverlight isn't a new market

it's extending the .NET Framework to tread ground long-trodden by Flash, Shockwave, and Java
and increasingly supplanted by the emerging HTML5 standard

4/4/2011 11:24:08 PM

Quote :

"And in every case, Microsoft has shown significant revenue and market share growth."

where dipshit?

Quote :

"Growth of revenue from the Microsoft Office system offerings, which generate over 90% of MBD revenue"

meaning that CRM, etc generate less than 10% of that division...

Quote :

"Microsoft Dynamics revenue was flat."

Quote :

"7% decrease in Microsoft Dynamics customer billings"

Quote :

"Approximately 50% of Server and Tools revenue comes from annuity volume licensing agreements, approximately 30% is purchased through transactional volume licensing programs, retail packaged product and licenses sold to OEMs, and the remainder comes from Enterprise Services."

meaning that less than 20% of its Server and Tools comes from your services...hardly stellar
and how bout the growth...

Quote :

" Product revenue increased $652 million or 6%, driven primarily by growth in Windows Server, SQL Server and Enterprise CAL Suites revenue, reflecting increased revenue from annuity volume licensing agreements and continued adoption of Windows platform applications, offset in part by a decline in developer tools revenue. Enterprise Services revenue was relatively flat, with growth in Premier product support services nearly offset by decreased consulting services."

where is this growth buddy??

http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=MSFT&docid=7382799


[Edited on April 4, 2011 at 11:52 PM. Reason : by the way, straight from their audited financial statements, not marketing bullshit]

4/4/2011 11:34:18 PM

Quote :

"by the way, straight from their audited financial statements, not marketing bullshit"

Year Ended June 30,

          2010                  2009                  2008                  2007                  2006     
     
Revenue 
     $    62,484         $    58,437         $    60,420         $    51,122           $    44,282        
Operating income 
     $  24,098         $  20,363         $  22,271    (c)       $  18,438         $  16,380      
Net income 
     $  18,760         $  14,569         $  17,681    (c)       $  14,065         $  12,599    

4/5/2011 12:31:03 AM

^^ You said over the last DECADE, not in the last year, dipshit. Compare marketshare in 2001 to 2011. Compare Revenue in 2001 to 2011. Do the same for the past 5 years. Do the same for the past 3 years.

Calling out a flat YoY growth when the world is just clawing its way out of a systemic financial crisis is boneheaded.

Compare Microsoft's numbers to their biggest competitors and it's a flatlined industry for the past 2-3 years. Oracle had 15% revenue growth FY10 , but they posted major losses last year which nets them back to square. IBM, arguably the other software giant posted single digit revenue growth in the past two years.

If you want to base the rise and fall of a company on quarterly or yearly revenue targets, be my guest. But I would argue those metrics are rarely an indicator of future potential.

4/5/2011 1:28:15 AM

Your cited products/services are less than 10% of MS revenues overall. My major point is that they do not have "significant revenue" if they make less than $1.8 b in Microsoft Dynamics and less than $3.0 in Server Services.

Your company is a three trick pony, selling Windows/Office/Server. There is nothing wrong with that, but the company has yet to make anything else that makes sense financially.

They just opened a group of "Microsoft Stores" mimicking Apple. How's that working out for you guys?

Quote :

"If net income is the ultimate judge to you, it looks like MS is doing business as usual. In fact, it looks like 2010 was one of their best years in quite a while."

Because I said they were doing poorly overall?

Quote :

"They have been fantastic at making ridiculous money off of those cash cows."

Quote :

"Most people would think that a company with a large cash cow and decades of failure in growth sectors as a declining company."

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 10:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 10:06:08 AM

You might be able to argue they were declining if they hadn't posted one of their best years in quite a while.

4/5/2011 10:13:04 AM

^+1

4/5/2011 11:44:00 AM

I love that 2 and 3b in revenue respectively are miserable failures in your eyes.

When you compare revenue to total market size, they are not miserable failures, they are smaller markets. Not every market is a 10b opportunity, durrrrrr.

4/5/2011 12:13:34 PM

Lets spin out your examples and edd and osd from the rest of msft, we will just make the draft assumption it had 5% overhead, because these rev and income figures dont include hr, legal, general, etc

3.0 bil from server services
1.8 bil from microsoft dynamics
8.1 bil from edd
2.1 from osd


15 bil in revenue

Income?(with crazy 66% income assumption for the top two)

1.9 bil from server services
1.2 bil from dynamics
670 mill from edd
(2.3) bil from osd
(750) overhead expense

1.5 bil in income
750 mil after my generous 5 overhead...

wow, there is an awesome company

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : Forgot My overhead]

[Edited on April 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2011 2:25:02 PM

Quote :

"You might be able to argue they were declining if they hadn't posted one of their best years in quite a while."

4/5/2011 3:05:40 PM

^ thanks for trying so hard to be the village idiot

the op, and my argument, is that microsoft faces challenging times in windows and office..and that their other businesses are losers. I have never said they had a bad year or will be out of business in the foreseeable future.

So I broke out msfts other businesses and the ones noen thinks are winners in their 2010 income statement, and what do you know, that company would suck...noen here is going to whine about his "synergies"but if you can't put it into a dollar figure its marketing bullshit

Keep saying "but they made money making office and windows!" No shit

4/5/2011 3:14:00 PM

Good thing that company doesn't exist then.

4/5/2011 3:39:14 PM