Computer Science Canada

Why hate microsoft?

Author:  cool dude [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:07 am ]
Post subject:  Why hate microsoft?

Just wondering why does everybody hate microsoft so much?

Author:  rdrake [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Gave me a lot of problems. Decided to stop booting for the second time. Off to Linux I went.

Some people hate its closed nature, and others are just frustrated with it. Everybody has their reasons, those are just mine in a nutshell.

Author:  cool dude [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:25 am ]
Post subject: 

wat kinda problems does it give u?

Author:  md [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

cartoon_shark wrote:
Gave me a lot of problems. Decided to stop booting for the second time. Off to Linux I went.

Microsoft did nothing of the sort, though windows might have. Usually people dislike Mircosoft for ideological reasons, or because they are fed up with their medeocre products.

Author:  Cervantes [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

I dislike Microsoft because the guy next to me dislikes Microsoft. Wink

In all seriousness, though, I do like Excel. I find it to be much better than OpenOffice.org's Spreadsheet, though perhaps that's just because almost all the time I've spent on OOo's Spreadsheet was using an older version( 1.1 ).

Author:  rdrake [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

Cornflake wrote:
cartoon_shark wrote:
Gave me a lot of problems. Decided to stop booting for the second time. Off to Linux I went.

Microsoft did nothing of the sort, though windows might have. Usually people dislike Mircosoft for ideological reasons, or because they are fed up with their medeocre products.
Microsoft produces the product that gives me nothing but trouble. This is why I sald Microsoft.

Author:  Boo-chan [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

"Its a poor tradesman who blames his tools." Twisted Evil

I like windows since it usually works for me and the rest of the time I enjoy beating it into submission when it doesn't.

Author:  cool dude [ Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

all i'm getting is the software is bad, tiring, and screws up. i use microsoft and i don't have that trouble so i don't really know why to hate microsoft. besides office is pretty useful for work! Smile

Author:  Geminias [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 

you wanna know why i hate microsoft?

I bought a Windows XP Home Edition back in the day. Bought it. Key word: "BOUGHT".

I tried to install it on two different computers that I "BOUGHT" also. Of course due to microsoft's wpa check I was only allowed to put my windows XP on one computer.

Then, when I got a new computer, better than both the other two, I tried to put it on my new computer. "Unable to activate windows" 30 days later I'm locked out of my OWN computer.

In other words, microsoft expects people to buy one of its products for each computer you own, if you get a new one, add the cost of the computer plus 250$ for microsoft windows when you could be buying a better graphics card or setting up a RAID configuration.

The richest corporation in the world is also the most savage.

(Note: Microsoft doesn't take advantage of me anymore, I have ways of dealing with Microsoft's lameness now. Email me if Microsoft gives you any trouble)

Author:  Geminias [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:27 am ]
Post subject: 

also Microsoft has a reputation for steaing intellectual property, and screwing decent people out of their own inventions by beating them to the patent office.

Author:  md [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Geminias wrote:
you wanna know why i hate microsoft?

I bought a Windows XP Home Edition back in the day. Bought it. Key word: "BOUGHT".

I tried to install it on two different computers that I "BOUGHT" also. Of course due to microsoft's wpa check I was only allowed to put my windows XP on one computer.

Then, when I got a new computer, better than both the other two, I tried to put it on my new computer. "Unable to activate windows" 30 days later I'm locked out of my OWN computer.

In other words, microsoft expects people to buy one of its products for each computer you own, if you get a new one, add the cost of the computer plus 250$ for microsoft windows when you could be buying a better graphics card or setting up a RAID configuration.

The richest corporation in the world is also the most savage.

(Note: Microsoft doesn't take advantage of me anymore, I have ways of dealing with Microsoft's lameness now. Email me if Microsoft gives you any trouble)

Again, the blame lies not with microsoft, but with you. If you had taken the time to read the licencing agreement that you agreed to you'd see that your limited to installing windows on one machine. You agreed to it when you installed windows, so suck it up.

While I would agree that mircosoft's products are expensive they are fairly reasonable for the cost when you consider just how much work goes into these things. Of course when you take advantage of one of the innumerable ways of getting discounts on microsoft products then they are actually just as appealing as some OSS. Free windows vs. free linux, makes the choice about which does what you need better.

And when I said that you should have said Microsoft I was refering to your gribe about booting. Microsoft doesn't boot your computer. Oh... and windows doesn't just stop working, you must have done something to cause it to break; look up PBCAK Wink

Author:  Boo-chan [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Uhm getting angry at Microsoft because they want you to pay them money for using their software is rather illogical, you might as well get angry at grocery stores for forcing you to pay for food(obviously you should be able to get caffeine for free Wink) If you don't want to pay for it either a) use free software b) don't use the software or c) steal it(not that I would advise that)

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:10 am ]
Post subject: 

My real gripe with Microsoft is that they're just kind of slow. Windows should be a lot better than it is right now. XP was fine, but that was ... 5 years ago.

Office is pretty nice I have to admit. And I think Microsoft recently upped the license thing to five computers, although I'm not sure.

Author:  rizzix [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:33 am ]
Post subject: 

M$ is cool. They should stop biting other companies though. Which is why I dislike them. Yet things seem to be changing. I mean, I can't wait for their windows Blackcomb. It supposedly has a new Look and Feel based on 10 year of R&D. Can't wait!

But on the dark side. Microsoft's greatest stratergy was acquisition. They basically bought of smaller competing firms and grew bigger and bigger. (taking off competition is a very bad thing, for the economy and for us consumers anyway) Which reminds of the recent attempt of buying of Opera. Luckily it failed. Opera declined Wink

The other dark side of microsft is thir strategy of releasing a half baked product to the market and then releasing "patches" to bake it up all the way.

Apparently for windows Vista, it seems they have spent a great deal of time trying to perfect it. This hopefully is a good sign. Wink

Author:  Geminias [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 

well you say the blame is on me for buying their product and complaining. I think that is a fairly major restriction that should be in big letters right on the front of the disc: "One computer per disc". Kind of like how smoke packs have to have pictures of peoples lungs after smoking for some time...

Also, microsoft technically has a monopoly on computer OS's. Because anyone who just wants their computer to talk on msn and write documents and stuff isn't going to want to deal with an OS as user unfriendly as Linux. Plus there is so much linux can't support: if your new to linux. So like I say: if there's no alternative than you can bi~tch all you want about having to buy something that is totally crap. That's just my oppinion, so who thinks I'm justified to say what microsoft does with their license agreement is unfair.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Regarding their dealings with other companies in the software business, I think it's best summed up by:

"If you get in bed with Microsoft, be prepared to get screwed."

Ask IBM about OS/2 at some point. Or any of a number of other companies that partnered with Microsoft in developing something, only to see Microsoft fail to contribute anything back, driving the other company out of business, then at some point later, find their work in a shipping Microsoft product.

Oh, and Martin, don't think you're the only one to notice. Microsoft is horribly out of touch with reality. The top management at Microsoft pays people a considerable amount to insulate them from what's actually going on.

And now they think a warmed over Windows XP (well, 2003 Server) with a new theme, even more inconsistent and cluttered UI and parental controls is going to wow the world?

Author:  md [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Geminias wrote:
well you say the blame is on me for buying their product and complaining. I think that is a fairly major restriction that should be in big letters right on the front of the disc: "One computer per disc". Kind of like how smoke packs have to have pictures of peoples lungs after smoking for some time...

Also, microsoft technically has a monopoly on computer OS's. Because anyone who just wants their computer to talk on msn and write documents and stuff isn't going to want to deal with an OS as user unfriendly as Linux. Plus there is so much linux can't support: if your new to linux. So like I say: if there's no alternative than you can bi~tch all you want about having to buy something that is totally crap. That's just my oppinion, so who thinks I'm justified to say what microsoft does with their license agreement is unfair.

Again, the problem lies not with them but with you. They have no reason to advertise their licencing agreement on the box, and you should have read it before you installed anything. It 's a legally binding contract that you agreed to. You're comparison to cigarettes is poor at best, smoking will kill you at some point. I've never heard of someone dieing of windows.

And yes, Mircosoft does indeed have a significant proportion of the operating system market. It is however not a monopoly at all (look up the definition, might help you). So while you might not have gone and done any research about linux and discovered hat it is actually quite suitable for talking on MSN and browsing the web, please don't make the assumption that others are as lazy and dumb as you. The choice is there, if people choose microsoft and then complain then I have no sympathy for them. No one is forcing you to buy windows, no one is forcing you to even have a computer. You chose to. Deal with it.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Cornflake wrote:
It 's a legally binding contract that you agreed to.


It's worth noticing that the legality of EULAs is questionable. Whether or not they'd hold up in court is uncertain.

Cornflake wrote:
And yes, Mircosoft does indeed have a significant proportion of the operating system market. It is however not a monopoly at all (look up the definition, might help you). So while you might not have gone and done any research about linux and discovered hat it is actually quite suitable for talking on MSN and browsing the web, please don't make the assumption that others are as lazy and dumb as you. The choice is there, if people choose microsoft and then complain then I have no sympathy for them. No one is forcing you to buy windows, no one is forcing you to even have a computer. You chose to. Deal with it.


While I agree with the lack of sympathy for people who choose Microsoft products, I do feel compelled to point out that Windows does indeed comprise a monopoly.

Now, technically there is nothing even remotely illegal about a monopoly. However, it becomes an ethical and legal issue when that monopoly is used to force one's way into other markets. Consider what Microsoft has done to try to leverage Windows to gain a share of the music and movie industries. Or how they used Internet Explorer and Windows to take over the web browser "market", such as it is.

Author:  rizzix [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:21 am ]
Post subject: 

Actually, I believe, a monopoly is illegal in the US? I could be wrong.

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:23 am ]
Post subject: 

No. There's nothing illegal with being a monopoly.

Author:  Geminias [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 

well regarding how i'm lazy and dumb, thats fine, but 5 years ago linux was not as friendly as it is today, and that is of course when i bought windows. Also, even today it takes a whole lot of getting used to especially for a person who doesn't want anything to do with computers, just wants to utilize the tools a computer can provide. There are many people out there like that: actually a majority.

So please don't compare Linux's ergonomics with Windows, there is no comparison. Windows owns it hands down, and just so you know, I do happen to know what a monopoly is and Microsoft technically has one over OS's.

Also your rudeness and namecalling has not dissuaded me from my original stance... No product out there has a limitation on how many computers you can install it on, therefore I think it's Microsoft being cunning to inadvertantly get people to agree to such limitations.

Anyway, your entitled to your oppinion to, I hope it helps you score a job with those Microsoftians.

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:00 am ]
Post subject: 

OSX limits the number of computers that you can install it on. Linux doesn't, but that's because it's free.

Microsoft really has to limit it. I mean, you wanting to buy it and install it on your computers is completely legitimate I think. But how does Microsoft stop you from then lending that copy to your friends and their friends and so on, until 40 people have Windows installed all off of your $100 purchase?

Author:  Geminias [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Microsoft could afford it. I can't afford to buy a copy of windows once a year sorry... (yes i am looking into linux with fascination)

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Software is expensive to develop. If you look at it as 'the packaging and cd costs $3, so why am I paying $100?' then yeah, it's expensive. But with software, the first copy of that CD might cost $50,000,000 to make

I think Microsoft's business model is fine with the new five computer restriction.

That said, check out Linux. Free and way more fun than Windows any day.

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:25 am ]
Post subject: 

well if your buying a computer instead of making it out of parts windows already comes with it, as well as office trial which can easily be acceseed into a full version with a simple crack. not that i'm encouraging it. so if your talking about price your not paying that much more to have a computer with windows than a computer with linux. plus isn't windows easier to use for people that aren't familiar with computers? wat i don't like about microsoft though is that wat am i goin to do with my windows when microsoft will stop supporting it in around 2009?

another question is i heard a lot of people r saying if u go work for microsoft your selling your soul. i don't get how that works. firstly microsoft pays very well. secondly they have awsome benefits. thirdly a job is a job i don't see wats so wrong about working for microsoft. when u guys are saying that microsoft beats companies to the patent office thats good in my opinion because that means microsoft is faster and better and the other companies have to start working faster to try and beat microsoft.

Author:  Naveg [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
Software is expensive to develop. If you look at it as 'the packaging and cd costs $3, so why am I paying $100?' then yeah, it's expensive. But with software, the first copy of that CD might cost $50,000,000 to make


Yes, but consider this. Many people pirate software they wouldn't buy normally if it wasn't available for free. So the company making it isn't losing any money.

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Oh, for sure. But I don't think that argument applies to Windows.

Personally I think that I buy way more music than I would if I couldn't download albums. But that's just me.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
OSX limits the number of computers that you can install it on. Linux doesn't, but that's because it's free.

Microsoft really has to limit it. I mean, you wanting to buy it and install it on your computers is completely legitimate I think. But how does Microsoft stop you from then lending that copy to your friends and their friends and so on, until 40 people have Windows installed all off of your $100 purchase?


Correction, they have to make half-assed attempts to stop people so the corporate IT types who shell out millions for Windows licenses don't get uppity.

Their unstated policy is basically to let people pirate Windows far and wide, because if everyone had to pay for Windows, there'd be a lot more interest in free-as-in-beer alternatives.

They make most of their money by holding the threat of legal action over the heads of corporate bean counters who don't want to get sued, and don't mind giving someone else's money to Microsoft to avoid that.

Author:  md [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Microsoft does not have a monopoly with windows because there are other operating systems that people *could* use. Linux and perhaps soon Mac OSX are both viable alternatives to windows, though perhaps not always seen that way. Microsoft may have a virtual monopoly by virtue of it's 90%+ market share, but monopoly means 100% market share which windows does not have.

EULAs may be of questionable legality, but until they are challenged in court they are still legally binding.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

cool dude wrote:
another question is i heard a lot of people r saying if u go work for microsoft your selling your soul. i don't get how that works. firstly microsoft pays very well. secondly they have awsome benefits. thirdly a job is a job i don't see wats so wrong about working for microsoft.


If you're passionate about programming or technology in general, then working for Microsoft can be very oppressive. In many cases they come up with really cool stuff, then patent it and sit on it.

How would you feel if you were working for Microsoft research and wrote a program that could revolutionize how people use their computers... really poured your heart and soul into it... and then it ended up getting shelved?

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
Software is expensive to develop. If you look at it as 'the packaging and cd costs $3, so why am I paying $100?' then yeah, it's expensive. But with software, the first copy of that CD might cost $50,000,000 to make


The problem is marginal profit. Every copy of Windows that's sold pays off that original invesment. At some point, then, it is completely paid off and every copy is pure profit.

Windows XP has been on the market for ~5 years. I'd wager it's paid off and then some.

Author:  Martin [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
Their unstated policy is basically to let people pirate Windows far and wide, because if everyone had to pay for Windows, there'd be a lot more interest in free-as-in-beer alternatives.


I think a company that thrives off of this is Macromedia. Their software is TOO easy to pirate. Download the trial. Google Flash 8 serial. Done.

I think this is because there's huge amateur interest in Flash, so people just download it, learn how to use it and then when they go professional, they have to buy it.

Seems to work quite well for them.

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:


If you're passionate about programming or technology in general, then working for Microsoft can be very oppressive. In many cases they come up with really cool stuff, then patent it and sit on it.

How would you feel if you were working for Microsoft research and wrote a program that could revolutionize how people use their computers... really poured your heart and soul into it... and then it ended up getting shelved?


i highly doubt that microsoft patents a product and then sit on it. they might be procrastinating it and that might be because they have other work to finish up. microsoft has made so many products and if they had a good idea they would do it and earn money. wats the point of patenting something and then not doing it?

Author:  rizzix [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well look at IBM, they don't procrastinate. They are much bigger than M$, yet when they can come up with something new.. the next thing you know it's already being used in the market.

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

alright point taken but procrastination can't be the reason to hate microsoft and from wat i've heard they didn't do anything that terrible. beating someone to the patent office is just business.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

cool dude wrote:
wats the point of patenting something and then not doing it?


Making sure no one else can?

Author:  md [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
cool dude wrote:
wats the point of patenting something and then not doing it?


Making sure no one else can?

Or charging them money to do it.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

That too.

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
cool dude wrote:
wats the point of patenting something and then not doing it?


Making sure no one else can?


but thats smart because if they get everything they're beating their competition. how else do u think they rose to the top? besides if i owned microsoft i wouldn't want my competition beating me to the patent office. they got there fair and square eliminating their competition. from my perspective it a good business move to eliminate competition. now i understand why other companies hate microsoft but i still don't understand why most of us hate it.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Because of the nifty stuff smart people are prevented from bringing us because of Microsoft's lawyers?

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
Because of the nifty stuff smart people are prevented from bringing us because of Microsoft's lawyers?


thats unfortunate. but if those are smart people then they would have beat microsoft to it, otherwise they lost and too bad for them. i do see now why some of u hate microsoft because u want the "nifty stuff" actually made and because of microsoft it won't be. but i still don't hate microsoft because firstly i wanna see proof of microsoft actially patenting products and then not making it. and secondly microsoft developed a lot of useful products for us, so its sad how people don't appreciate the good things microsoft has done.

Author:  wtd [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

What useful products did Microsoft create that couldn't have come about without Microsoft?

And yes, there are smart people, but smart people need money, and Microsoft, by putting lots of other companies out of business, has limited the places really smart people can go to find funding for their ideas.

Author:  cool dude [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
What useful products did Microsoft create that couldn't have come about without Microsoft?

And yes, there are smart people, but smart people need money, and Microsoft, by putting lots of other companies out of business, has limited the places really smart people can go to find funding for their ideas.


absolutely none. i'm almost certain if microsoft didn't exist someone else would have created all those products including office. but then show me proof wat microsoft patented that microsoft is sitting on their ass and not making? and wat do u mean limited the place smart people can go to fund their ideas?

Author:  chrispminis [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:57 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, IMHO, people hate Microsoft because it holds a near monopoly. It has a LOT of power. It can sell sub par OS's and still beat Mac and Linux with no hands, running in a burlap sack. People have come to DEPEND on MS. People don't like the feeling of oppression and the feeling that MS is abusing (not to an illegal extent tho) their power, which they might be (smart business move.). Microsoft may not have the greatest products, but they obviously had a good enough business strategy to rise, and take over a market, creep into others, and to market itself so well that entire generations depend and know the name Microsoft, perhaps better than any other company in the higher technology sectors. I do believe that MS sits on its patents, but only because it is the smarter (shrewd) thing to do, to use the patent office as legal protection from competitors and to eliminate possible revolutionizing technology that could compromise MS, or to slice off a cut of the profits of another company. ex. Buying out a large percentile of Apple shares allows MS to capitalize on the growing demand and popularity of Apple's IPod series.

So in the end, many people will hate MS (perhaps for good reasons, perhaps for not), but you really can't blame them (except for perhaps slowing tech progress.). They are basically the corporate champions and you have to respect them (grudgingly or not) for being so damn successful and powerful.

P.S. the 360 is sort of an example of what happens when you prematurely release a product, perhaps another reason to sit on your patents.

Author:  Geminias [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 

cool dude i understand what you are saying: if you were Bill Gates you'd be just as greedy and profiteering as he is. That's a safe way to play if you aren't much of a humanitarian.

But isn't the fact that you are not Bill Gates? Isn't it true that Microsoft does nothing for you? Isn't it true that by Microsoft beating everyone else to the patent office (not because they are smarter, but because they can afford it) the products you buy are often more expensive (or not available at all) because Microsoft is collecting royalties that other manufacturers must account for?

So isn't it true that Microsoft is no friend of yours? So isn't it true that you mine as well fight them?

Author:  wtd [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:20 am ]
Post subject: 

You don't fight Microsoft. You vote with your money, and you educate people. Don't buy Microsoft products, and make sure other people know there are viable alternatives. Don't come across as a zealot. Don't try to force people. Just make sure they know the truth.

Author:  chrispminis [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Plus, you can't really say Microsoft doesn't do anything for you, unless you lead a lifestyle completely non-dependant on MS, which isn't the majority of North America. (Plus unless its by complete coincidence, MS sorta defines your lifestyle if you base it around avoiding them). I agree with wtd, there are alternatives, but i believe a great thing about MS is that windows is IMO the most user friendly OS. And, Geminias, when you say they beat people to the patent office not becuz there smart but becuz they can afford it, i disagree. Sure money gives them a HUGE advantage, but they got there somehow, through the fact that they have in their employ some of THE smartest people in the world, their collective intelligence and their effective use of law and marketing, make them the strongest company. Im not the greatest humanitarian, but i do believe in human progress, and although MS may be slowing it down, I think they have the right to continue, until someone like you, outwits MS, whether on a legal loophole or whatever, takes them down, and assumes the new position of biggest company.

Also I think its a good idea for the market to be dominated, by an at least fairly stable company. It doesn't look like MS is leaving us soon. Sure, if there were a whole bunch of equal companies, there would be much innovation, through competition, but would there be as much compatability? IMO we need to have a "standard" OS and all other software, apps, etc. Should be compatible with this OS. This so far only works with MS, because they are giant. It could work with multiple small companies but they would have to agree on one OS, and stay with it for many decades until the evolutionary stable strategy is to be compatable with this standard OS, and all others who deviate would be penalized in the world of competition, and conformity. Thus i somehow brought evolution into this. lol.

Author:  wtd [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 

chrispminis wrote:
but i believe a great thing about MS is that windows is IMO the most user friendly OS.


Wrong.

And no, it's not subjective. They've just got so many things wrong, and it's the users who pay for those flaws.

Author:  Tony [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:40 am ]
Post subject: 

chrispminis wrote:
IMO we need to have a "standard" OS and all other software, apps, etc. Should be compatible with this OS.


So like... UNIX? Laughing

Author:  Geminias [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:46 am ]
Post subject: 

All I'm saying is that Microsoft continually rubs me in the wrong way, whether it be their faulty products or their conning terms. Being the richest corperation in the world, it is very difficult not to leave your mark somewhere in the world, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm simply saying Microsoft sucks, let someone else take over. But shifts of this nature are very difficult to come by, given that the stream of luck Microsoft corperation has had has put them on the top. And money keeps the rich ones rich and the poor ones poor.

And wtd what did you think I meant by "fight" them. Well, I'll tell you I meant exactly what your elongated form of "fight" stated.

Yes, lets just find all the guys who work for Microsoft and punch them out...

Author:  Martin [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:26 am ]
Post subject: 

What I think that we need is open standards and proprietary implementation of said standards.

I like OSX's philosophy. You are on an open source OS. Apple has a proprietary GUI. Documents are saved in (for the most part) open formats.

But my view on software is quality. I use Office because I think it's the best document editing suite available. I'm using OSX and Linux right now because I think that the quality of the operating systems is better than Microsoft's. Does this mean that I'll never go back to Windows? Of course not. I want to use the product that provides the best value for me. Right now, I don't think that's Windows. Tomorrow, it might be.

Author:  cool dude [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
chrispminis wrote:
but i believe a great thing about MS is that windows is IMO the most user friendly OS.


Wrong.

And no, it's not subjective. They've just got so many things wrong, and it's the users who pay for those flaws.


firstly there aren't so many things wrong with their products and if something breaks its usually the users fault. now tell me why would users continue to pay for microsoft products if your saying they're paying for those flaws?

also there are a lot of other rich companies who could make products and patent them, and its not microsofts fault that those companies aren't fast enough. plus those companies should not be making the same product as microsoft if they always get beaten and they should start thinking of being original which will blow microsoft away. i see no problem with microsoft patenting a product first and i don't believe microsoft is sitting on their ass. they constantly make new products good or bad. just look at the new windows Vista coming out. i don't know if it will be much better but at least they're not sitting on their ass.

Author:  Martin [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 

There's a philosophy. The user's part.

Look at the basic turing program

code:
var age : int
put "enter your age"
get age


whose fault is that when it crashes because the user said 'fifteen'?


But the thing with Microsoft is that they're not lightyears behind the competition. They're behind the competition, but not enough so that most users are willing to learn something new.

Author:  cool dude [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
There's a philosophy. The user's part.

Look at the basic turing program

code:
var age : int
put "enter your age"
get age


whose fault is that when it crashes because the user said 'fifteen'?


But the thing with Microsoft is that they're not lightyears behind the competition. They're behind the competition, but not enough so that most users are willing to learn something new.


actually its called error proofing! if u error proofed for letters then it wouldn't crash. turing is a program for the coder to insure all the errors are fixed. the computer want do it for u so its not a very good example.

now when u say microsoft is behind the competition i disagree. if they were behind how do they steal the patents from other companies? how r they one of the richest companies in the world? how are they beating their competition?

Author:  Martin [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 

In product quality, I mean. Yes, they make tons of money, but just look at the past few years. Tons of people have shifted from Windows to OSX, from Internet Explorer to Firefox.

Author:  wtd [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
What I think that we need is open standards and proprietary implementation of said standards.

I like OSX's philosophy. You are on an open source OS. Apple has a proprietary GUI. Documents are saved in (for the most part) open formats.

But my view on software is quality. I use Office because I think it's the best document editing suite available. I'm using OSX and Linux right now because I think that the quality of the operating systems is better than Microsoft's. Does this mean that I'll never go back to Windows? Of course not. I want to use the product that provides the best value for me. Right now, I don't think that's Windows. Tomorrow, it might be.


Indeed. Embracing ope standards is the best thing that could possibly happen for all of us. Programs are not important, after all. What is important is your data. If you stick with open formats for that data, there's a good chance you can work with it on just about any platform out there.

Honestly Microsoft has repeatedly ignored the best thing for their company in the long-term. Split the company up. Let one company create Office. Let them throw every resource they have solely at that goal. Let them port it to every platform in existence. Now they are not held back by the baggage of Windows.

Letthe Windows people focus on Windows exclusively. Dump IE, Outlook Express, etc. Port it to any platform your heart desires. Sell it for super high performance computing because running Windows doesn't have to mean having to run MSN Messenger on every cluster node.

Create an applications company that does nothing other than generate kick-ass APIs. Don't let them talk to the other Microsoft "baby bells" anymore than any other company. That ensures that those APIs are as widespread as possible. Again, port to your heart's content. If people want your windowing APIs on Linux or OS X, give it to them! But hey, if the Office folks want to develop Office in something else, like Qt, then that's their choice.

Author:  rizzix [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
I like OSX's philosophy. You are on an open source OS. Apple has a proprietary GUI. Documents are saved in (for the most part) open formats.
Sun has adopted similar standards. Check out OpenSolaris Although it's not entirely like Apple, cuz OpenSolaris is by no means the underlying OS of Solaris, but in fact just a subset of Solaris 10. Sun claims to exchange a lot more Solaris 10 technologies with the open OS in the future.

For those interested, there is a very user-friendly OS created to run over the OpenSolaris core: Nexenta OS.

PS: I encourage you all to opt for Nexenta and provide them with useful feedback. They are willing to make it "the best in the world" Wink

Author:  chrispminis [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

To Martin: When you say (if nobody's noticed, i dont like quoting lol), that tons of people are swtiching you have to remember even if its rising by a large percentile its not a significant percentile to make too large a difference to the tons of users who get their first computer, and use Windows. perhaps both are opinions are biased around who we spend time with, but since i am in high school, most of the people i hang out with, dont have the slightest clue how to program, and are "just" computer literate. So IMO people still use Windows way to many times more than those switching to OSX (you have to spend above average time on computer, and be genuinely interested with another OS). Many people do not know what OSX is, and feel it is too much trouble to switch, Windows is more comfortable for them.

To wtd : Your idea in principle is a nice one, would be efficient but... Would cost tons of money, and create many many problems with business plans, business contracts, and other such legal and binding agreements. I think MS would probably be crippled by such a move financially, legally, and stability-wise, and only if they survived such a radical movement would we begin to see the long term benefits. But it is a large risk, for a large company, that could easily play it safe and play it in IT's best interest not ours. Which is a big reason many hate them.

Author:  Martin [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 

chrispminis wrote:
To Martin: When you say (if nobody's noticed, i dont like quoting lol), that tons of people are swtiching you have to remember even if its rising by a large percentile its not a significant percentile to make too large a difference to the tons of users who get their first computer, and use Windows. perhaps both are opinions are biased around who we spend time with, but since i am in high school, most of the people i hang out with, dont have the slightest clue how to program, and are "just" computer literate. So IMO people still use Windows way to many times more than those switching to OSX (you have to spend above average time on computer, and be genuinely interested with another OS). Many people do not know what OSX is, and feel it is too much trouble to switch, Windows is more comfortable for them.


Of course it's more comfortable, because they're used to it. I'm much better at reading English than Japanese, but that doesn't make English the better language, nor should it be an excuse for me not to learn Japanese.

That is one of Apple's problems - Windows IS good enough for a lot of people not to warrent switching - but the gap is widening. Whether Vista will bring things up to speed remains to be seen.

Look at web browsers for example - Microsoft has dropped about 10% in market share. In a $100 million dollar market, 10% is $10 million dollars. Doesn't seem like such a small number now, does it?

Author:  chrispminis [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Touche! and nice japanese/ english analogy. But frankly ten million dollars isn't THAT much to MS and even then, not all ten million dollars can be attributed to people switching over. It may not be a drop in revenue from people switching, but a increase in cost as well. Whether material now costs more, human resources or research products etc. And people are getting bored of MS. People enjoy investing in newer, prospective companies.

Author:  Martin [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

As soon as your company stops thinking that $10 million isn't important, it's time to leave.

Author:  wtd [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
Look at web browsers for example - Microsoft has dropped about 10% in market share. In a $100 million dollar market, 10% is $10 million dollars. Doesn't seem like such a small number now, does it?


There's a lot more money in it than that. Every company that builds their internet and/or intranet sites to work with Firefox represents a company that has one less reason they must continue to use Windows. They also present their customer base with one less reason they must use Windows.

Author:  Martin [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

wtd wrote:
Martin wrote:
Look at web browsers for example - Microsoft has dropped about 10% in market share. In a $100 million dollar market, 10% is $10 million dollars. Doesn't seem like such a small number now, does it?


There's a lot more money in it than that. Every company that builds their internet and/or intranet sites to work with Firefox represents a company that has one less reason they must continue to use Windows. They also present their customer base with one less reason they must use Windows.


I don't think so. For a while keep in mind that Microsoft released versions of Internet Explorer for the Mac. They don't anymore because rendering differences between IE and other browsers are quickly disappearing, so there's really no demand.

You're right about Microsoft though - they really should split up. Not yet though. I want to see OSX and Linux reach a combined 20% market share before Microsoft starts to get competitive. Sadly, that's probably what it would take.

Author:  cool dude [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

this might be another reason people hate microsoft

NetScaped
A slang term referring to an instance in which a company gets
hurt materially or put out of business as a result of head-to-head
competition with Microsoft. Microsoft's size, resources and
expertise mean there is always a risk that the company will
steal market share. Many competitors have tried to beat the
software giant and ended up suffering serious damage.

------------------------------------------------------------
This term is derived from what happened in the 1990s in the
market for internet browsers. Originally, Netscape was the leader,
and its cutting-edge browser controlled a large portion of
the market. However, Microsoft put huge resources into developing
Internet Explorer (its own browser), which gobbled up market
share from Netscape. This dashed Netscape's hopes for any
long-term success. Some critics questioned the legality of
Microsoft's competition strategy, which essentially consisted of
giving the product away for free. In the end, it didn't matter - a
decimated Netscape was bought out by America Online in 1998.

Author:  wtd [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martin wrote:
wtd wrote:
Martin wrote:
Look at web browsers for example - Microsoft has dropped about 10% in market share. In a $100 million dollar market, 10% is $10 million dollars. Doesn't seem like such a small number now, does it?


There's a lot more money in it than that. Every company that builds their internet and/or intranet sites to work with Firefox represents a company that has one less reason they must continue to use Windows. They also present their customer base with one less reason they must use Windows.


I don't think so. For a while keep in mind that Microsoft released versions of Internet Explorer for the Mac. They don't anymore because rendering differences between IE and other browsers are quickly disappearing, so there's really no demand.


They may well be ready to concede the battle, especially when one considers that they've worked on specifically making sure some of their more recent web ventures work with Firefox.

Still, it's a tremendous ace up their sleeve to have the ability to control where the web goes. That's what Internet Explorer represents (or perhaps what it used to represent).

Author:  cool dude [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

this is a bit off topic but did anyone try the live microsoft products.

i suggest don't bother trying it because i tryed their system scan on finding viruses and you'll never believe wat happened. it restored somehow one of my other viruses Evil or Very Mad luckily my current antivirus alereted me about it and i deleted it.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

I just tried the M$ live map thing witch was auctly kind of impressive since it had some more clear maps google erath. But i still perfure the google software b/c of it easy of use and intregreation in to there sreach engeion. Also the google erath software has better ablity to find places on there maps.

Author:  cool dude [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

the live map isn't bad but their security protection stuff isn't very good. plus it takes too long to do it. also finally after an hour it finishes and it says no viruses found. however it is in beta which means it should get better Smile

Author:  codemage [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 

There's nothing wrong with being a near-monopoly, or with being competitive. The thing that embitters a lot of people about MS is that they're Anti-competitive.

They don't just want to beat other companies in the marketplace, they want to either absorb them or put them out of business. While that might be an effective business strategy, and really good for the bottom line - the lack of innovation and competitive prices birthed by a healthy competitive market hurts the consumer.

Particularly when you use borderline (or straight out) illegal methods to put those other companies out of business.

Don't get me wrong - I use and appreciate MS products. They have market share for reasons of quality too - not just because they're being forced on us.

Author:  Rasta Fella [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

"It doesnt matter what tools you use its how you use them" I dont know who this quote belongs to but my dad said it to me once...

Author:  wtd [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes. A truly dedicated person can work wonders even if his or her tools are crap. But imagine what they could do if their tools weren't crap.

Author:  Martin [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people lay the blame on the tools rather than themselves. They become excuses. Good tools help good workers, but don't create good workers. Some of the best programming I've done was created with a simple text editor.

Author:  wtd [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Perhaps part of the problem is that we tend to think of a simple text editor as being somehow inferior to a program crammed full of buttons and features.

Author:  Martin [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Maybe, but I mean with Eclipse I can churn out high quality Java code faster than I could with a text editor because of the project management features and the debugger.

Author:  rizzix [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Exactly! IDE's pwn. Programmers suck. It's time we create programs that program themselves. Too bad they'll suck!

Author:  wtd [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:02 am ]
Post subject: 

rizzix wrote:
Exactly! IDE's pwn. Programmers suck. It's time we create programs that program themselves.


This is what macros are for. Wink

And no, I'm not talking about what C and C++ call macros.

Author:  rizzix [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:09 am ]
Post subject: 

You missed something -- my point.

Either way I really did mean to create programs that created programs. Not more source code. I'm trying to get rid of the programmers here. Razz

Author:  wtd [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, but that's an extraordinarily unrealistic goal. The best you can do is create tools that make it necessary for programmers to write less code.

"Tell the machine what you want it do, not how to go about accomplishing that task."

Author:  Martin [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Or not even less code. Just nicer code.

Author:  wtd [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, the number of bugs tends to be directly proportional to the amount of code written, regardless of skill level, though for the highly skilled the slope may be less steep.

Author:  bugzpodder [ Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

woah... this debate is pretty heated... well personally I am getting closer to a coop position in MS Smile Is everyone gonna flame me now? 

Author:  rizzix [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:09 am ]
Post subject: 

aight! lets flame the M$ guy...

Author:  codemage [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hey - it'll look good on the resume, you'll learn stuff, you'll get paid & compensated pretty well. Just don't consider it an end-career goal, and keep an eye on your soul at all times.

Author:  wtd [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

You're contributing to the ultimate downfall of the entire human race.

Good luck! Smile

Author:  md [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hey now! My girlfriends sister works for Microsoft and I've got nothing against her... working for MS may be like working for the devil, but think of all the evil power you get!

Author:  Mazer [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Cornflake wrote:
Hey now! My girlfriends sister forks for Microsoft and I've got nothing against her... working for MS may be like working for the devil, but think of all the evil power you get!

Wink
(Bolded to make sure nobody misses it)

Author:  md [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

Coutsos wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Hey now! My girlfriends sister forks for Microsoft and I've got nothing against her... working for MS may be like working for the devil, but think of all the evil power you get!

Wink
(Bolded to make sure nobody misses it)

Damn... I've really got a problem... I seem to be typing similar but totally different words half the type now... methinks I should get this checked out.

And it's supposed to be worked, as it reads now Razz


: