Why do we all hate Microsoft? [Archive]

Confused

04-01-2002, 06:02 PM

I certainly don't hate MS. I remember when PC's first started appearing in the business world and they were available to only a select few that knew something about coding. Windows opened up the PC world to the average user like me and now I have 2 in my house. One for my wife with WIN98 FE and this one for me with XP. All software purchased and registered with MS. I keep my contracting books, vending expenses and receipts, surf the net and play games. I attribute that to the ease that Windows has made things.

You think Windows is proprietary and has strong control, get a MAC and start trying to modify it.
Chas

KronoLeginaire

04-01-2002, 06:17 PM

Yeah, I see what you all mean, but then again I see these I HATE MICROSOFT SITES.com but they are using WIndows!

What I figure is that With linux being so -open source one can creat a linux that is just liek windows and say its open source, thrown it out there and take no responciblity that way we have a solid and equal choice besides Windows(r).

minutrice

04-01-2002, 06:36 PM

Why does everyone harp on the bugs and security issues that microsoft programs have. It's an OS for christ sake. There is so much crap that goes into this that it can't be perfect. They release updates. Download those, get a firewall and stop complaining.

I think that linux is good for some things but not for an everyday desktop. Admit it..... it's terrible for a desktop.

Microsoft's price? Well, I don't know how much it takes to pay everyone that works on each program (plus the thousands more than don't help directly) but I'm sure the price is not too bad. I mean $300 for XP pro and it's a whole OS. Borland's Jbuilder and Cbuilder cost somewhere around $3000 each. The same as with Adobe products, maya, 3d studio max?!? I know you will say "Look at all the money microsoft has," but just because you were good enough to make money in the past, should you give away your products. If they did that they would begin to loose money and that's not good business.

One thing I don't think I agree with is the .Net stuff. I'm not exactly for sure what it is, but I've been told that it will eventually lead to us downloading our software from Microsoft instead of owning a cd and that is never good.

If windows is so bad why do all the other OSs mimic it? And why do you use Microsoft's products if you hate them so much? Go use the competition's inferior products.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some Microsoft lover, but I just have to take up for them sometimes. I'm sure they do some things that violate antitrust laws but they had to be really good to get big enough to be able to violate those laws.

Last but not least, I wish I were as smart and as good of a business man as Bill Gates. :)

Josh

Floppyman

04-01-2002, 07:18 PM

For the price you pay you would expect less bugs/glitches. Afterall linux is free.

doctorgonzo

04-01-2002, 07:23 PM

Why does everyone harp on the bugs and security issues that microsoft programs have. It's an OS for christ sake. There is so much crap that goes into this that it can't be perfect.

Well, that's part of the problem. Many of their security holes are in products that aren't needed in a pure OS, but that come with Windows anyway and you can't get rid of. The rest of the security holes are a result of services being turned on by default that few people need and fewer understand. That could be easily fixed as well, but M$ doesn't seem to care.

Think of all the problems that businesses have dealt with as a result of some M$ product having holes. All of the lost business, the network downtime, and so forth. If a car maker made a car that thieves could get into unless the driver fiddled with some obscure mechanisms under the hood, do you think people would stand for it? Of course not. M$ gets to play by a different set of rules, and I don't like it.

homer15

04-01-2002, 07:31 PM

i like microsoft... i mean, everything that i've gotten from them works fine. just because i can't figure it out sometimes doesn't mean they are idiots. they make stuff that works. windows 98se has never given any problems whatsoever, and on the flip side, other things that do have problems, microsoft tries to fix with patches.
and os/2 was actually designed by microsoft for ibm. there is no other game in town, and that's probably for a good reason. linux is good, but it's got problems just like everything else.

Blankman

04-01-2002, 07:39 PM

I wouldn't have such a hard time with Microcrap if they would just put out a reliable product for the $$$. If their existance would just parallel what users want, and quit putting crappy OS after OS onto the market, causing major changes in gaming, apps etc. that cause our lives to be just a tad more harsh.

mbossman2

04-02-2002, 09:06 AM

Looking at the size and scope of the MS O/S, it is suprising that they have as few issues as they do.

With any process that is as broad and as deep as Windows is, there are bound to be issues. Couple that with the fact that any company that large has a nearly unmanageable bureacracy (sp?) and you end up with situations of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

To scrub every possible bug, hole etc, would be a monumental undertaking and frankly not very profitable.

Could MS plug, fix, and patch all the issues? Yes, they could. How much would that add to the price? I could not even hazard a guess.

Also you need to look at MS as a unifier within the IT field. Without MS you very well might have had 10-20 (or more) competing O/S's out there. Who knows if there would be the same level of interoperability that exists today. Multiple implementations of network connectivity, many more compatibility issues with various hardware devices. Compaq with 1 O/S, HP with another, Dell with a 3rd and none of them integrating seamlessly with the other. Then you have the different O/S's supporting 1 component manufacturer but not others. Not only are the implications for the computing field pretty staggering but the economic repercussions would have been widespread. Could the technology boom of the 80's and 90's have occurred? I don't know, it might have, but then again it might not have until or unless 1 player emrged to show leadership and direction.

Linux is a wonderful O/S for certain applicaitons, but in the overall scheme of things is still very much a niche player.

HAL9000

04-02-2002, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by doctorgonzo

If a car maker made a car that thieves could get into unless the driver fiddled with some obscure mechanisms under the hood, do you think people would stand for it? Of course not. M$ gets to play by a different set of rules, and I don't like it.

Do you have any idea just how easy it is to steal a car? 13 year olds are a problem with car theft around here and they're yanking them in less than 30 seconds! Here is the driver fiddling with mechanisms such as The Club, car alarms, ignition kill systems, etc. We're all putting up with this for some reason.

doctorgonzo

04-02-2002, 10:24 AM

Well, of course stealing a car isn't that hard. However, on NPR this morning I heard a story that basically makes the same argument: that M$ (and software makers in general) do get to play by different rules. If I buy a car (and I just did), I have certain consumer rights. If the car has a flaw that puts me in danger, I can seek legal redress (look at the Ford Explorer "beta" release that caused so many problems). I can also turn around and sell the car if I want to. I can complain about it in print if I don't like it. However, the EULA from M$ keeps you from selling your software or even giving it away, it keeps you from publishing a review of the product without written consent, and it absolves M$ from all liability.

Having no liability is a license to act with wanton disregard. How much would it cost M$ to fix their holes? I'm thinking not much. It doesn't cost anything to not enable Universal PnP, for example. And other software has far fewer security holes, a lot of it freeware.

Of course, it's not all the fault of M$. People in general don't have a clue and don't understand that increased interoperability also can lead to increased risk. But I think the fact that the products from M$ are unlike any other products when it comes to consumer rights and protection is quite problematic and is causing this problem.

Toaster

04-02-2002, 11:55 AM

Howdy,
My biggest complaint with Micky$oft is their total lack of support and blatant disregard for its users. Virtually all O/S vendors have some sort of free support, Micky$oft has none what so ever.
Then there are the security issues that plague Micky$oft products. Throw onto this "activation" and other "features".
Micky$oft doesn't trust its users and nor should we trust them.
Then there is compatability issues with "competing" products such as browsers.
I would forsake these shotcomings should Micky$oft do the following:
1, Compete without recourse.
2. Remove built in compatability issues. (Netscape and the like)
3. Actually "show" their users that they care more then just a way into someones wallet.

homer15

04-02-2002, 12:03 PM

microsoft offers a whole knowledge database on known issues with it's software that is readily accessable by anyone with an interent connection. they offer synopsis of problems, and solutions and workarounds.
you know as well as i do that there are loads of people out there that have no idea about anything that is inside of their computer. if microsoft were to offer free support beyond the knowledge database, millions of boobs would call in on a daily basis asking how they can get an shortcut back that they deleted weeks ago or something like that.

Sauron

04-02-2002, 07:34 PM

Well, hey, they made it, they make the rules. Sorry, but thats how I see it. Thats what I would do. They want to be the only software company out there. Sure...isn't that what all the giants want to be? There is close to 1 million of lines of code in 95. Heavens knows if that is true. I heard that. Its either more then that or the exact amount. Free support? Very few companies offer free support. High price? Well they made it, they designed it, they get to put the price on it. This isn't the days when a penny was worth something. I also feel they have a right to put in a Internet Browser in if they wish. Right now I am using IE, and I am not having probs with it. Same with Netscape. Have that too. Why should they care about us? There is 6. something billion ppl in this country. Can't care for each and everyone of us :D Its something like a resturant, for instance you wouldn't go to some, lets say Wendys and get in there, and yell : HEY THIS PLACE S*CKS! LOOK AT THIS BURGER! ITS SQUARE! They would have a right to throw you out, you don't like our cooking, get out. Their house, their rules. What could be simpler?

Hpro

04-02-2002, 08:08 PM

Who said I hate Microsoft ? Because I'm not.!

KronoLeginaire

04-02-2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Hpro
Who said I hate Microsoft ? Because I'm not.!

Because I'm not?

Hpro

04-02-2002, 08:21 PM

NO why should I?
Either Microsoft nor billy boy did something to me - so no reason to hate them as there is no reason to love them - I use the products of them because - my kind of work has to use it - and that's about it.
Hpro

Short note:
It is a huge tremendous task to write a OS which makes every user happy and will run on several hundred different motherboards VGA's NIC's Sound card's and etc.. Linux doesn't support everything as well - even less I might say but I still use it and there is no reason to hate..

More if it wasn't that time back for Bill Gates - to bring the users on even plattform - guys where we would be today.???

twenty years back there was so many differend OS which were completely incompatible with each other - no not talking about the hardware detections nor the application it self - but you couldn't even insert a floppy disk into another computer to view a simple text file -

so that and more bill gates knew made his choice and he won - so what for I should hate him? anyone would do the same and the one which is without fault - should throw the first stone..
Hpro

KronoLeginaire

04-02-2002, 08:54 PM

I wonder if Bill Gates has body guards?

BTW, I bet Bill Gates dosen't even know that much about his software like Windows 98SE and XP Professional. I bet if he had to help someone format and reinstall XP with Linux on a second drive he wouldn't know how.

Hpro

04-02-2002, 08:59 PM

Bill Gates is Programmer - he could teach some heavy stuff..

=justice

04-02-2002, 09:25 PM

I have to admire anyone who has helped to build a business of such size. Gates is a genius in a couple of ways, not just computing and programming. He worked his way into a position most businesses want to be in...top dog. The government went after him and Microsoft because of the money to be had...not because of any monopoly. Our political leaders can't stand to see someone more powerful or successful than they are. I am not a big fan of Gates in a personal sense, but I do admire him. He charges what the market will bear, as does any other manufacturer. All of us who enjoy this fantastic technical marvel called the computer owe him and his people a great deal. I do think that others are catching up, and that his OS monopoly will fade in time, but because of the universal appeal of Windows, that will be a long time coming.

highrisemech

04-02-2002, 09:42 PM

Most people hat em because thier stock fell $2.50 today lol.
No seriously most of the dissention was due to thier attempts to steer the computer using public to thier corporate advantage by
manipulating thier built in web browser. In other words steering the wheel for you and sending you in the direction they wanted you to go in.

Computer Hobbyist

04-02-2002, 09:42 PM

While I don't hate Microsoft, I don't have much truck with those of us who have allowed Bill Gates to corner the market on computer air.

Let me tell you what I mean when I say computer air. What does Microsoft sell? An operating system (or systems). What is an operating system? It is a bunch of code that allows an application to talk to hardware. In a rational world an operating sytem would be utterly transparent--like air. Like air it would be life giving. It would be necessary to, but not the focus of our daily existance. In a rational world the focus would be on applications allowing us to do real work. Because Bill Gates has a cornered the market, he has made the operating sytem the focus of our attention. Collectively we waste more time worrying about operating systems than should be necessary.

In addition by cornering the operating system market, he has limited the range of possible applications. I have no idea what we are not able to do because we are restricted to Bill's brand of computer air, but I do know that there is less air in a locked closed room than there is outdoors. Of course, outdoors you do have to deal with nature, the wind in your hair and all the choices that come with freedom.

I want to make computer air free so we can put the focus of the computer back where it belongs--doing real work for real people. That is why I support alternative operating systems. I want to get back to doing real work.

CH

erucader

04-02-2002, 09:46 PM

i agree. MS is extremely sucessful so they knew what they were doing. ms software is so expensive because there is little competition. you do have to give it to them, though, they made computers very easy to use. by the way what was OS/2?

Hpro

04-02-2002, 09:54 PM

OS/2 is IBM as far as I know and it's still around but with a lot of bugs - was out the same time as Win3.0 -11 workgroup - and definately it pusched win3.11 into the ground - never used it but I have seen it on computers running - have a copy of it but never installed it - and now to much time has passed to install it..
Hpro

highrisemech

04-02-2002, 10:12 PM

Actaully a lot of the original complaints were not with the OS itself but were with the Explorer web browser eg.. what was and was not supported. I'm not sure of all the specifics but it definitly had an effect on which companies made or lost money since most users were Windows/ Internet Explorer users.

RenegadeKing

04-02-2002, 10:13 PM

I think these things anger me the most about microsoft: Halloween Documents (http://www.opensource.org/halloween/)

Billkt49

04-02-2002, 10:21 PM

The only think I do not like about Microsoft is all the crap they bundle into windows that I do not want or use and I can't get rid of it. I love XP, but just give me that and let me choose what programs I want to go with it.

morriswindgate

04-02-2002, 10:48 PM

Thanks to Microsoft, computers don't cost $17,000 dollars each. If Steve Jobs had have won out we'd all be paying 4 or 5 thousand for a computer with the capability of the one we are on now. And Netscape would be sueing them.

audiyoda

04-03-2002, 12:13 AM

Everyone has been calling Windows (in whatever flavor) an OS -- it is not. Since Win98 (and partially Win95), it is a suite similar to Office. It has an integrated web browser, media player, communication tools, e-mail client, contact list, games, as well as OS-related tools such as disc compression, a defragmentation tool, disc scanner.....and so on. And let's not forget the actual Operating System. Linux is an OS, Be was an OS, OS/2 was an OS, to a greater extent, all Mac Operating Systems up to OS-X have been pure Operating Systems. All of those Operating Systems allow you to determine what facets/addons/options you want -- Windows does not give you that option, therefore it is not simply an Operating System and should not be treated that way.

A few years ago, I installed a small batch file called Win98lite. At the time, M$ said IE, Media Player, OE and some other aspects of Win98 could not be fully "de-integrated" (their words) from the Windows 98 OS. Win98lite proved them very wrong. It turned a bloated Windows folder (800+Meg) to a 'svelt' 560Meg OS and is now capable of taking that all the way down to 20Megs on a Network. So what M$ says cannot be done, can be done and very effectively.

I'm currently beta-testing Win2000lite -- I've not purposely used any M$ 'extras' since 1999 when I installed 98lite. I don't use or have any form of IE, OE, or Media Player on my system. As a pure OS, Win2000 is awesome -- it's fast, stable as hell, rock solid under the audio and video editing I do day in and day out -- it's great at what it does. But it does not browse, check e-mail, keep my client list or play any of the audio/video productions I create. Those functions are left for better products (at least IMHO).

This past weekend, I installed WinXP Home-edition for my mother-in-law on one of my old systems and a new HDD. I was actually scared at the size of the final installation -- it neared 1Gig. Certainly is a cute 'little' OS suite, and simple to use which is what she needs. Unfortunatly, the majority of the population needs this OS -- the rest (like those of us here at PC Mechanic) choose to use WinXP for whatever reason. At some point, I may install XP in a dual boot with Win2000 just for the heck of it (that will be in another post).

I certainly don't have M$ or Bill Gates for creating a usable OS -- I do fault them for thinking that we all fit into their idea of a computer user. I also fault them for lying about their OS and what it cannot do. I also hate them for this activation crap and the cost of most of their software. And please don't compare this OS suite to Adobe products or other specialty software packages. Those packages have very narrow markets and the costs are thereby justified. We all use some form of M$ OS suite. Even Adobe offers free software when the need is there.

-Craig

KronoLeginaire

04-08-2002, 07:50 AM

audiyoda: SO you are saying you'de rather use Linux or a Mac to do email, surfing, chat - casual things rather than windows anyday?

glc

04-08-2002, 09:29 AM

If all I did was e-mail, surf, and chat, I could do that on an old 486 with Linux.

KronoLeginaire

04-08-2002, 09:32 AM

It may run, but would it run fast enough for you?

CaptTuna

04-08-2002, 09:51 AM

Basically from what I have gleaned from this thread is that if Linux is free Windoze should be free also.
I blame all the yahoo's who stand in line everytime Bill announces a new upgrade for sale. They are the same ones who have to have the fastest new processor, biggest hard drive or loudest speakers.
Quit tweaking everypart of your computer. Stop fiddling and just use your computer as God and Mr. Gates intended to cruise Mr. Gore's fabulous information highway.
This is just my opinion and I just might be right.

Computer Hobbyist

04-08-2002, 10:32 AM

glc is right. As usual.

The requirements of your chosen applications should control your choice of operating system.

If all you are doing is web surfing, email and chat, a 486 running Linux is plenty.

Having installed Linux on my home computer, I can not think of any reason to pay the Microsoft tax.

On the other hand, if I must use some application that will only run on Windows, I have no problem running Windows.

CH

glc

04-08-2002, 10:45 AM

Well, you do have a point - I'm running a P3-600 on Windows 2000 and it does more than I need. I think browsing might be painful on a 486, but chat and e-mail with text-based clients would be just fine - especially considering I'm on dialup (not by choice).

audiyoda

04-08-2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by KronoLeginaire
audiyoda: SO you are saying you'de rather use Linux or a Mac to do email, surfing, chat - casual things rather than windows anyday?

So you didn't read my post at all, did you. I said I want my OS to be that, a Operating System. And that's what my copy of Win2K is -- it does not have Internet Explorer, Media Player, Outhouse Expre$$ or a lot of other crap I don't want from M$. Micky$oft says their OS and those products are integrated to the point of reliance -- I and many others that have used 98lite (and the beta version of 2Klite) disagree.

I want my OS to allow my to use the tools that I choose to use at their fullest extent -- the audio and video work that I do could certainly be done on a Mac or Linux machine - I choose to use a PeeCee for my own reason. I am currently looking at a dual G4 Mac for my studio -- not because It's better but because it's more compatable with other studios. Does that mean I'll change my office system to a Mac? No...why would I? I'm comfortable with the Windoze environment and hte software that I currently have -- all I ask is that my Windoze OS be a OS. I don't want it to control my computing experience. I'll choose what browser I use, what media player I'll use, and what e-mail client I'll use. The only product bundled with a M$ OS that I use is M$ chat -- simpley because I use chat so rarely I don't want to learn all the commands of mIRC.

If others want to use M$ products that are 'so integrated with the OS they can't be removed' (yeah right) that's fine. I really don't care. But for browsing I'll use Netscape/Mozilla until it's dead then I'll use Opera and for my media player I'll use Quicktime -- IMO it offers smoother playback and plays back more formats.

-Craig

homer15

04-08-2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by audiyoda
Everyone has been calling Windows (in whatever flavor) an OS -- it is not. Since Win98 (and partially Win95), it is a suite similar to Office. It has an integrated web browser, media player, communication tools, e-mail client, contact list, games, as well as OS-related tools such as disc compression, a defragmentation tool, disc scanner.....and so on. And let's not forget the actual Operating System. Linux is an OS, Be was an OS, OS/2 was an OS, to a greater extent, all Mac Operating Systems up to OS-X have been pure Operating Systems. All of those Operating Systems allow you to determine what facets/addons/options you want -- Windows does not give you that option, therefore it is not simply an Operating System and should not be treated that way.

-Craig

windows is an OS... what are you talking about?!? just because it's bundled with a web browser and some other apps, doesn't make it less of an OS. it still operates disks and it still allows the system to run. the only windows family that was not an OS was workgroup and 3.x.

doctorgonzo

04-08-2002, 12:40 PM

Sure, Windows is an OS, but the fact that it has all that extra crap makes it irritating. It is like buying a car that comes with fuzzy dice, an 8-track player, those beaded seat covers, neon lights, and a chain steering wheel and not being able to remove or replace those items you don't want. Sure, it is still a car, underneath all of that extra stuff, but all of that extra stuff isn't necessary for the car to be a car. The same goes for M$ and Windows, except that M$ is worse in that many of the extra add-ons Windows has creates security holes and makes it easier for people to spread virii.

Sphegdave

04-08-2002, 12:42 PM

Whoever thinks that making an OS is easy, try reading the book showstopper . The book is the true story of how the programers at microsoft created NT. Then you will see how hard it is to create a whole new OS. The only resentment I have against M$ is that they entered the gaming market with XBox. They have no buisness being there. I think that it is unfair to create a console so advanced and sell it at a loss to them just to crush the competition.

homer15

04-08-2002, 12:47 PM

so, then following your analogy, all you need is a frame and an engine (plus suspension and all of that) to have a car. then everything else you buy would be rediculously overpriced (seats, one of those cool gas pedals that look like a foot, a bad-ass 8-track player complete with lynard skynard). with all of those extra things integrated into with the OS, it saves having to buy extra parts for your computer, which you could hit conflicts with. for example, you can't through a camaro exhaust system onto a pinto... but since the cars come with everything already, you don't have to worry about it. the same goes with windows, since it has the browser integrated and it has the media player and all of that, you are set to go once windows is installed. plus, they just supply the basics, and they leave it up to you whether you want to use what they gave you, or go with some third-party software.

Computer Hobbyist

04-08-2002, 12:48 PM

homer15

What Audiyoda is saying is that Micro$oft has bundled a lot of stuff with an OS and calls the entire bundle the OS. His point is that the bundle of stuff is not the OS. The OS is the OS. IE is a browser. Media Player is a media player. Outlook Express is a mail package, etc. His point is that, dispite what Microsoft says, the browser, media player, mail package, etc are not necessary to the proper functioning of the OS. They are just a bunch of bundled applications that add unnecessary complexity to what is otherwise a nice tight OS. He prefers to decide which applications he wants to use and doesn't want to be bothered with the problems created by the the applications in the bundle of stuff called Windows. He wants freedom of choice.

Audiyoda, did I miss anything?

CH

doctorgonzo

04-08-2002, 12:58 PM

plus, they just supply the basics, and they leave it up to you whether you want to use what they gave you, or go with some third-party software.

Yeah, try getting some third party software to work with Windows. Many times, the third-party software I install doesn't get along with Windows because Windows expects that you will be using the M$ version of everything. It's not fun to have third-party software duel it out with Windows over software associations and the like.

The basics would just be an OS. No mail client, no browser, no media player, no nothing.

Now, I understand that many people think it is "convenient" to have all those things bundled in. I have no problem with M$ providing a version of Windows for those people. Call it Windows XP Complete™ or something like that. However, instead of providing complete and basic versions of the OS, they are abusing their status as a monopoly to force everybody to buy all of their bundles, and good luck trying to use something other than what M$ provides.

homer15

04-08-2002, 01:08 PM

microsoft started by supplying the basics... they gave us DOS. now, the average person today would not know a thing about DOS. personal computers would still be left to hobbyists like us, and we'd all be watching hella bad graphics in movies. since they went beyond DOS, they were able to bring computing power to the average person. now, does the average person know anything about anything inside their computer? no. they just know when they move the mouse and click on an mp3, they hear it getting played through media player. if all of this ease of use thanks to the os was taken away, millions of people would lose any computer knowledge they have.
so, think if we went back to DOS, or if everyone started using linux (minus the gui's that it offers), most of the population would be at a loss.

c-learner

04-08-2002, 01:52 PM

guys, hatred wont solve the problems... if you hate M$ so much why dont you make a new OS that will destroy M$ and Bill Gate..
how about that huh??
>>>>>Life is short, you must enjoy whatever you have<<<<<<<

Computer Hobbyist

04-08-2002, 01:58 PM

homer15,

I think you are missing the point. Let me explain by way of the common Linux analogy. When you buy Mandrake 8.1, you are not just buying an OS. You are buying a bundle of software Mandrake (and the rest of the Linux community) calls a distribution. With that distribution you get a couple of GUIs, a couple of browser, some media player software, some graphics manipulation packages, some word processing applications, some calculators, some server software packages, and a bunch of other stuff (actually a lot more stuff than you get with Windows). Mandrake doesn't claim that the whole bundle is the operating system. Mandrake does let you pick and choose the applications you install. If you want a GUI you can have a GUI. If you don't want a GUI you don't have to install one. If you want KDE as your GUI you can install that instead of GNOME, or visa versa. If you want a standard workstation install, you can select a standard workstation install. If you want to install for a server, you can install software for a server. Get the picture. You get to pick based on what you want to do with the computer. That is the way an OS suite should install. Maximum freedom for the user, including an option to allow the system to make choices for you. Windows doesn't give you that freedom of choice. Remember that there is nothing magic about Linux.

If Mandrake or RedHat can do it, why can't Micro$oft give you the same freedom of choice?

CH

pstj

04-08-2002, 02:11 PM

I do not HATE Microsoft; in fact, all the Microsoft products I use work fine, and I rarely have problems with Windows 98se, which I find very reliable. My only problem with them is their attemps to dominate and control the computer market; but that's also my problem with any other mega-corporation without significant competition (and I actually do have a friend who wants to someday compete with Microsoft :) ). But I don't HATE them. Bill Gates, in my opinion, was a genius, and it's in part thanks to him that home computers became what they are today...

Kassia

04-08-2002, 02:47 PM

I don't hate Microsoft. I wish I had shares.:D

pstj

04-08-2002, 04:20 PM

I wish I had shares

it would make my life (especially my student life) much easier... :)

piasabird

04-08-2002, 05:00 PM

When I was using DOS, programs still ran and my Tandy 1000A if it had a program it would run and not quit in the middle. It was easy to make simple navigation menus to get around the computer. Computer Games do not need Windows to Run.

Bill made some nice programs. He didnt really make anything himself. Almost everything he bought off of someone else. His Mommy suggested to an IBM Exectutive that Little Billy could make the Disk Operationg System for the IBM PC, and Boom Bill had it made. A Programmer from Park Xerox from Hungary named sylvonyi (spell) actually came managed with the Windows 3.0 project. Read Accidental Empires to get the real story.

I still have Office 97 and it still works fine for me. I don't really hate Microsoft. However I do not feel people should have to send some certification back to Microsoft just to load an operating system they already paid for. Microsoft wants to control everything we do with a computer. They specifically design their operating system to achieve that aim. World domination is their objective. You will be abasorbed, and you do not even realize it. Make Microsoft Seperate the browser from the operating system like it is suppose to be.

Originally posted by minutrice
Why does everyone harp on the bugs and security issues that microsoft programs have. It's an OS for christ sake. There is so much crap that goes into this that it can't be perfect. They release updates. Download those, get a firewall and stop complaining.

I think that linux is good for some things but not for an everyday desktop. Admit it..... it's terrible for a desktop.

Microsoft's price? Well, I don't know how much it takes to pay everyone that works on each program (plus the thousands more than don't help directly) but I'm sure the price is not too bad. I mean $300 for XP pro and it's a whole OS. Borland's Jbuilder and Cbuilder cost somewhere around $3000 each. The same as with Adobe products, maya, 3d studio max?!? I know you will say "Look at all the money microsoft has," but just because you were good enough to make money in the past, should you give away your products. If they did that they would begin to loose money and that's not good business.

One thing I don't think I agree with is the .Net stuff. I'm not exactly for sure what it is, but I've been told that it will eventually lead to us downloading our software from Microsoft instead of owning a cd and that is never good.

If windows is so bad why do all the other OSs mimic it? And why do you use Microsoft's products if you hate them so much? Go use the competition's inferior products.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some Microsoft lover, but I just have to take up for them sometimes. I'm sure they do some things that violate antitrust laws but they had to be really good to get big enough to be able to violate those laws.

Last but not least, I wish I were as smart and as good of a business man as Bill Gates. :)

Josh

Alan

04-08-2002, 05:22 PM

Personally I like having the browser, mediaplayer, scan disk and all those other utilities bundled. As a basic user I do not need the best browser, mediaplayer, etc. I just need to make sure I have one that works. If I need something more then I would buy it. Imagine if you had just an O/S and had to pay $10 for each little utility. How many utilities come bundled with Win O/S?

KronoLeginaire

04-08-2002, 06:16 PM

Well, I don't have any problem with microsoft or any Windows OS, except ME. I enjoy the fact the microsoft has stepped in to put a mojority of computer users on the same OS and while Linux users are running Winddos progams on linux we are chilling out on a OS -- its still a challenge left in Windows. Long story short, many people have differnt tastes, for whatever reason.

audiyoda

04-08-2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Computer Hobbyist
homer15

What Audiyoda is saying is that Micro$oft has bundled a lot of stuff with an OS and calls the entire bundle the OS. His point is that the bundle of stuff is not the OS. The OS is the OS. IE is a browser. Media Player is a media player. Outlook Express is a mail package, etc. His point is that, dispite what Microsoft says, the browser, media player, mail package, etc are not necessary to the proper functioning of the OS. They are just a bunch of bundled applications that add unnecessary complexity to what is otherwise a nice tight OS. He prefers to decide which applications he wants to use and doesn't want to be bothered with the problems created by the the applications in the bundle of stuff called Windows. He wants freedom of choice.

Audiyoda, did I miss anything?

CH

Nope, that's my argument in a nutshell. Like your Linux analogy, there is absolutley no reason M$ can't add one more screen to the install process for any Winders/Windoze/Window$ allowing users to determine what features they do or don't want installed. M$ says that is not possible -- others have proven it is. M$ says the core of IE is now the Windows Explorer, they are wrong. How is it that my version of Win2K (2Klite beta) does not hav IE and yet I have no problem using explorer? M$ says what they think the majority of the users of their "OS suite" want to hear which is fine. It's somewhat like HP or Compac selling a prebuilt system -- it may not have all the options you want and may include some features you'll never need, but it works. Then there are people like you and me that build our systems -- determining exactly what graphics card, sound card, NIC, HDD, CD-RW....and so on.....goes into our "box". M$ Windows is therefore more like Comcrap and HeytchPee and our custom builds are more like Mandrake and Red Hat.

-Craig

Toaster

04-09-2002, 12:47 AM

Howdy folks,
I think the main gripe is lack of choice.
That seems to be the focus point.
Aside from this, the obvious "included incompatabilities" to thwart "competition" which has become a "derty werd" to Micky$oft.
What is so terribly wrong with giving peoples a choice?

Alan

04-09-2002, 01:05 PM

I don't see this as an issue of choice. Anyone is capable of upgrading any part of the M$ package to their tastes. I'll admit that M$ utilities may not be the best.
But even if you buy a car the OEM parts are not always the best. For better sound you may need to upgrade the stereo and speakers. For better handling one would upgrade the wheels and tires. As for compatitiblity, not all stereos and speakers fit into all cars. Ford, GM, DM, BMW, etc. would not be expected to all alter their designed so that every aftermarket part will fit every vehicle. Plus Ford would not be expected to design a car so that a Honda engine is a drop in match.
There is nothing that says they have to make it easy for 3rd party vendors to produce add-ons. There will always be something better out there that is not available to the masses. Ferrari only makes about 100 cars a year. It is one of the finest vehicles on the roads but it will never be for the masses.

doctorgonzo

04-09-2002, 01:13 PM

If Ford produced cars that, when fitted with a competing radio system would chew up tapes, crack CDs and scream hiss on the radio, would people put up with that? I don't think so. No, Ford doesn't have to change their cars to be able to fit all aftermarket parts. However, Ford does provide specs so people can freely design aftermarket parts, and the car itself is neutral when it comes to adding parts: it will not refuse to work with fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror but work with beads hanging from the mirror.

It would be nice if people could update any part of their extras, but it is a pain. It is a pain if you can't remove what you don't want, because running two web browsers can be frustrating, as they duel for the right to be the default application that opens HTML files. The same thing goes for any other app. M$ knows it is a pain, it knows that customers won't want to deal with it, so they get away with it. I don't care for it, and it seems that the laws agree.

homer15

04-09-2002, 01:16 PM

you know what, that is totally bogus. the only thing that is microsoft that i have running on my system is windows. other than that, i have winamp, i have nero, i have countless other things, and my system works fine. when i go to install something, it does not say "microsoft did not write this code, so go f*ck yourself."

HAL9000

04-09-2002, 01:21 PM

Face it, MS isn't producing a product for the tweakers, the modifiers, the whatevers. They are producing a general software that performs it's function. You have an OS, and e-mail client, a web browser, etc, all functional and for the average person, will do the job just fine. They have no reason to cater to you. Sure, there are errors and patches, there are for other things out in the real world as well. Recalls on cars, appliances, etc. Mistakes happen, even in Linux, they have their share of security patches as well, but MS comes under fire more easily as it is the most widely used in the home and office environment. Of course it comes under attack from people looking to hack the system. If you wanted to do a DoS attack, would you attempt to get into all the flavours of Linux to do your dirty work, or would you attack the general mass that's running the same thing where one little script is going to do your dirty work?

What it comes down to is just because you want something a certain way, doesn't mean the highest percentage of users want it that way too.

doctorgonzo

04-09-2002, 01:31 PM

Sure, there are errors and patches, there are for other things out in the real world as well. Recalls on cars, appliances, etc. Mistakes happen, even in Linux, they have their share of security patches as well, but MS comes under fire more easily as it is the most widely used in the home and office environment.

Unlike any other consumer product, software makers aren't liable for their products. When Ford makes "little Pintos all combusting" they get sued. When crappy software design takes down networks and costs billions of dollars, M$ doesn't get sued. They can concentrate on expanding their tendrils into all apps possible instead of making a robust OS. Only when some huge problem comes up that gets a lot of publicity do they work on it.

If M$ was even partially liable for the problems caused by their bad software design, I am sure they would work quite quickly to produce a robust OS that didn't have any unnecessary pieces. I think that is where the real relief will come from. Sadly, I highly doubt that consumers will cripple M$ by all going to Linux or something like that.

I'm done ranting now. :rolleyes:

homer15

04-09-2002, 01:35 PM

most of the time, the software isn't actually the cause of a network crash, the user is. if you modify your engine and through doing so it blows up in your face, can you really blame the manufacturer?

Computer Hobbyist

04-09-2002, 02:56 PM

I have heard the car analogy before, it sounds nice, but it doesn't stand up to close inspection. To make the analogy more accurate assume there was only one manufacturer of cars-say Ford. Assume Ford did some marketing research and discovered that a lot of people liked Ford Explorers. Assume they did a little more and discovered that business people liked Ford F-150 pickups. Because the Explorer and the F-150 were what a lot of people wanted, and because it is a lot easier to build one or two kinds of vehicles than several, Ford decided to build just the Explorer and the F-150. Let us assume you decided to buy a car. Forget GM. Forget Honda. Forget Toyota. Forget Mercedes. Forget Rolls Royce. Forget every other car manufacturer. Remember you can only buy from Ford. Now you go to your local Ford store and look for a vehicle. You have two choices: a Ford Explorer or a Ford F-150. You don't have any choice as to color because all of them come in black. You don't have any choice as to the kind of radio. Just one kind is sold because that is what a lot of people wanted.

You don't get to negotiate price because where would you go to buy your vehicle. You either pay what the nice man at Ford tells you to pay or you walk.

Now let us assume you thought: "Wouldn't a red sports car be neat." "I want a red sports car," you say to yourself, "I'll go down to the Ford Dealer and buy a shiny red sports car." You go Ford. No red sports car there. Ford doesn't build one. "Explorers are good enough for most folks," they say. "Why aren't you like most folks? Get with the program. Your lack of graditute is shocking."

Of course, if there were such a world where Ford had a total monopoly, and only sold Explorers and F-150s, the idea of buying a red sports car would never occur to you, unless you were some sort of genius who really thought outside the box. In that case most people would consider you insane.

I could go on properly using the car analogy to describe the power of monopoly, but that would take all day. Hopefully the next time you all decide to compare Microsoft with Ford you will remember that Ford has to compete with GM, Crysler, Toyota, Honda, etc. It has to provide a broad range of consumer choices. It has to compete on price. None of those conditions apply to Microsoft.

In the entire rest of the world, in every other walk of life, the following is considered the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: "COMPETITION GOOD; MONOPOLY BAD."

CH

HAL9000

04-09-2002, 03:07 PM

Realistically, I don't get "exactly" what I want in a car either. I can custom order some items and have to wait for it, others would be aftermarket add-ons. When you go to get a car, generally you have an idea of what you want, then find the closest thing to it, and settle.

Alan

04-09-2002, 06:35 PM

Well I equate Fords and GMs to PCs and Macs. You can buy any kind of computer you want but once you decide on a Ford or GM, you're commits to that upgrade path suited for Ford or GM.
As a former marketing manager for the autos, there is no rule that says the autos must supply specs to any vendors. Aftermarket manufacturers can either get partial specs through marketing agreements (they can be as brutal as M$) or reverse engineering. Marketing agreements usually do not "give" specs. They are licensed at a huge cost. Reverse engineering can cause patent infringement issues. Regardless of how the aftermarket manufacturer gets the specs, the automaker is off the hook for any incompatibilites.

audiyoda

04-09-2002, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Alan
I don't see this as an issue of choice. Anyone is capable of upgrading any part of the M$ package to their tastes. I'll admit that M$ utilities may not be the best.

Ahhhh...but see that's the problem. You're talking upgrade -- I'm talking about the right to choose. You can 'upgrade' to a different browser, but try uninstalling IE. You can use a differnet defragment tool, but try uninstalling the M$ version. #ell, even uninstalling MediaPlayer completely is next to impossible -- without the right tools.

Sometime, go to your Windows folder and right click on it -- choose properties and tell me how big the 'OS' folder is. Betcha mine is around 1/2 the size of yours -- because I have the tools that will uninstall that crap -- the crap I didn't want in the first place and the crap M$ says can't be uninstalled. #ell, there are people in this world that have their entore Wondows folder down to around 100Meg....try that from the installation disk.

-Craig

audiyoda

04-09-2002, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by homer15
you know what, that is totally bogus. the only thing that is microsoft that i have running on my system is windows. other than that, i have winamp, i have nero, i have countless other things, and my system works fine. when i go to install something, it does not say "microsoft did not write this code, so go f*ck yourself."

So you don't have Internet Explorer on your Hard Drive? Or MediaPlayer, or ScanDisk, or Disk Defrag, or Windows Update, or a plethora of M$ communication tools (IC Wizard, Phone Dialer, Telnet....), or Drive Converter, or Disk Cleanup, or Task Scheduler......you get my point.

Well I don't. Using a tool like Win2Klite beta (and before that 98lite) I didn't have those things on my hard drive. I use other tools that I fell are better....my choice. But I would have liked that choice when I installed my OS.

-Craig

Computer Hobbyist

04-09-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Alan
Well I equate Fords and GMs to PCs and Macs. You can buy any kind of computer you want but once you decide on a Ford or GM, you're commits to that upgrade path suited for Ford or GM.

The analogy doesn't hold. Ford and GM sell the same kind of things, automobiles and trucks. Microsoft and Apple don't sell the same sort of things. Apple sells hardware/software bundles. Microsoft sells software exclusively. More importantly, Microsoft provides the operating systems for an extraordinarily high percentage of the PC market. A judge has held that Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft has lost all appeals on the issue. No way to get around it Microsoft is a monopoly. Neither Ford nor GM is anything close to a monopoly.

There is nothing inherenly illegal about being a monopoly. Things become illegal when you use your monopoly status to the disadvantage of the consumer. It has been held that Microsoft has used its monopoly position to the disadvantage of consumers. Microsoft fans, you are the consumers. You might love Microsoft, but those guys don't necessarily love you.

The last similar monopoly in the United States was AT&T--except AT&T was regulated. Anybody want to give up your cellphones and go back to the good old days? Nobody. Didn't think so.

You don't have to hate Microsoft to wish that they lose their monopoly. You just have to love your own pocket book.

CH

troysvihl

04-10-2002, 05:40 AM

Why do we all hate Microsoft?

The top dogs are always the easiest to bash. The trend of MS-bashing is nothing new. IBM, AT&T, Ford, Pan Am, Standard Oil, etc. The list of top dogs getting bashed is pretty long and has been going on for centuries.

piasabird

04-12-2002, 12:22 PM

If you choose not to want to use the glut of software that Microsoft keeps making and bundling with its Operating System it is too bad, because you will have to pay for it anyway.

The user always gets the shaft with any microsoft product that is actually paid for. I still use Office 97 and it still works. I have no incentive to purchace the next version.

Now Windows is contemplating using a completely different file system. Just wait till alll the data you have is incompatable and your old computer games can not even be read by your operating system!!! Why do users have to send some copy of their hardware configuration back to Microsoft just to get XP to work???
Why does Microsoft record everything you access with thier new Media Player in Windows XP?

The answer is simple; Microsoft wants to control every aspect of the computer software industry. The only reason they are commingling their browser code into their operating system is so that companies have a hard time writing any application for Windows.

Microsoft makes agreements with OEM's designed solely to keep other operating systems from being put on any computer with a Microsoft operating system.

Microsoft is 100% against any type of free trade or open competition. That is why they have been investigated by the U.S. Government since 1990. However, Microsoft has become so large and so powerful that Microsoft now tells the Department of Justice and the world what to do and how to think, and we let them do it.

Microsoft is 100% in charge and has a master plan to make sure that its software is on every computer in every home in the World. When Paul Allen and Bill Gates started Microsoft in the 1970's that was their stated goal and it is still the goal of Microsoft Today.

I do not hate Microsoft by any stretch of the immagination. However, I think they seek to use their Monopoly power to charge higher prices for their software. This is the natural effect of a monopoly. In any market where a Monopoly exists such as the Post Office or the phone company, the electric company or the gas company, the government forces them to go through a process to ask permission to raise their rates. However, no one has any way to control what Microsoft and the software industry is presently doing. If you have a dangerous dog you are required to keep the animal behind a fence or on a leash, but Microsoft has free reign over anything it wants to do.

Warning, you will be assimmilated!!!!!!

minutrice

04-12-2002, 03:23 PM

You whine and complain about all those little programs that microsoft bundles with their OS, but if they didn't, the dumb computer user would be in the same sad shape as they are now when they try to use linux. Yes advanced users could make it, but majority of the population could not. When will everyone figure out that (at this present time) windows is the best solution for the average, and alot of the times more than average computer user. I work with a guy that swears a mac is a million times better than a pc. They never crash, faster, yada yada yada. They don't have near the software selection, and they do crash. They may not crash as often but when they do, they crash hard. This mac user set up (many times) a mac for another guy that we work with and it still crashes at least once a day. This guys says sometimes he can't even open up internet explorer without it crashing. So everything has it's flaws. Use the OS that you're happy with. Don't get mad and tell people not to use Windows b/c linux is so much better. For the average Joe, linux is their worst nightmare when it comes to computers. (at the present time it is) Ok I'll stop rambling. I really don't even know what I've been typing. :)

Josh

RenegadeKing

04-12-2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Minutrice
For the average Joe, linux is their worst nightmare when it comes to computers. (at the present time it is)

Seriously, linux is not the worst nightmare for the average computer user. It used to be, but isn't anymore. With most distros it is just as simple to install as windows, and most come complete with a windows-like gui. But, there are lots more choices than with windows.

We are not saying that windows shouldn't come with all the extra software, period. We are saying that there should be more choice. Either in the installation, or two versions. The lite version without the software, and the complete version with the software. Yes, people should be able to use what they like. And that includes software. If you don't want it you shouldn't be forced to have it.

RenegadeKing

homer15

04-12-2002, 03:44 PM

good points, minutrice.
as far as linux goes, i find it to be hella confusing. i'm pretty technically inclined, computers and stuff just comes naturally to me, but compared to dos and windows, linux and it's gui's are out there. and it's not just because i'm used to windows. i gave linux an honest shot. i'm not giving up on it or anything, but there is no way that anyone in my household would be able to handle it. as far as the average person is concerned, windows is the best way to go.

edit (i meant to post this, but i got called away)
like renegadeking said, some users don't want all of that stuff installed without their permission. linux offers a choice of what apps you want installed, it would be nice if microsoft did too.

RenegadeKing

04-12-2002, 03:57 PM

??
What distro of linux did you try, and when? I first got it working on my computer in 7th grade and loved it. When I got my new computer I had a bit of a hard time getting it installed because my ide controller wasn't compatible, but got around it with some help from pcmech :). But really, linux is not that confusing. I agree if you get really down to the core of it, then yes, it is much more complicated then windows. But the way the current distros are, it really seems like you are on a really stable, customizable windows box if you use a gui.

Computer Hobbyist

04-12-2002, 05:03 PM

Windows is pretty complicated when you get below the surface as well.

Any worthy operating system has to be maximized for its intended average user. The average user, who is really trying to get out real work, shouldn't even be aware there is an operating system. He should be totally focused on task at hand.

Of course, Linux was developed for an average user whose computing needs are several orders of magnitude greater than the average Windows user. To the extent Linux still reflects that legacy, then it needs to change. I think it has been changing in the right direction. It is becoming more civilized with each passing day.

homer15

04-12-2002, 05:09 PM

doctorgonzo

04-12-2002, 05:13 PM

hold on, all linux is is a command based os. the gui's that come with it are "extra," and therefore not part of the os. windows is a gui based os, therefore much easier for the average user to attempt to learn.

By that definition, Win 95/98/ME are also not true OSs, as they are "extra" guis that go over the underlying command-based OS, DOS. Only Windows NT/2K/XP are true OSs in that regard, because they do not run over DOS.

homer15

04-12-2002, 05:17 PM

no, they are true os's, because they boot directly into themselves. the only windows that wasn't a true os was windows 3.x. that was an application that had to be manually started.
windows 9x are operating systems. they start themselves up and manage their own resources. and windows me has gotten away from dos (even though deleting himem.sys will still render it useless :) )

RenegadeKing

04-12-2002, 05:25 PM

With most distros of linux you can have it start up X by itself, just like windows.

Computer Hobbyist, yes windows is complicated below the surface, but what I meant was that with linux you can actually get there.

homer15

04-12-2002, 05:27 PM

having it run startx by itself is almost like putting win.exe in the autoexec.bat of a windows 3.x machine. kde and gnome are not operating systems.

RenegadeKing

04-12-2002, 05:38 PM

And dos tells windows to start.

Either way, the installation installs a gui (unless by choice you choose not to), so you don't have to worry about whether it is truly a part of the os or not, as it comes with distros. And linux without a gui pretty much has a similar interface as dos, so if you can use dos then you can figure out linux with no gui. One of the toughest things about it used to be the installation, but that is not the case anymore.

Computer Hobbyist

04-12-2002, 05:43 PM

All this talk of GUI v. Non GUI sounds like it came directly from the Microsoft public relations department.

Whether an OS is graphic based or command line based with a GUI has more to do with the response speed and stability of the OS than ease of use. A graphic based OS, in theory, is quicker and more stable than a command line OS with a GUI, because it eliminates one layer of software activity. A GUI, by definition, shields the user from the command line by giving him something graphical with which to "interface." Microsoft has taken it to the extreme in ME, which at its heart is a DOS derivative (command line OS) with a GUI overlay. In ME Microsoft took the "DOS prompt" away from the user. It didn't take DOS away from the operating system. Operated at the command line a command line OS is just as stable and probably quicker than a graphical OS. A command line OS with a well written GUI is just as easy to use as a graphical OS.

CH