Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft? 1643
vd writes "Given most comments on Slashdot, it would appear that anyone with even a slight knowledge of computers hates Microsoft. An article on CoolTechZone, though, argues that not everyone should dismiss Microsoft outright. According to Varun Dubey, Linux is over-rated, Macs aren't worthy and Windows deserves respect and some love. From the article: 'What has Microsoft given us? It has given us Windows, sure, it was buggy earlier and a lot of things didn't work like they were supposed to (plug and play springs to mind) but it was a pioneering effort. No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. Sure, Mac OS was a lot prettier but then it cost the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs.'"
Sadly (Score:1, Insightful)
Obligatory Amiga reference (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
In what universe is that true?
Will Slashdot comments be news next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrible article (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there's this: Lets be fair and honest about this. Here is a company that single handedly created the market for Personal Computers, brought computing to ordinary folks like you and me, made it affordable by encouraging mass acceptance and constantly strives to provide us ease of use in every sphere it touche
Gee, I remember something called the Apple II doing this long before microsoft was the force it was. What a maroon.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plug and play not pioneering on Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Plug and play was by no means a pioneering effort by Microsoft, the Macintosh has had it forever, so long in-fact that it had no name on Mac OS, not until it was a new feature in Windows did Microsoft give it a name. We Mac users just knew it as "stuff working when I plug it in just like it should"
Also I would argue (and I know there are many on both sides) that the Mac OS was prettier, cost more, and was easier to use as well.
Re:Freak (Score:1, Insightful)
I dislike Microsoft. They're convicted monopolists. They produce the lowest quality of software and use their illegally obtained market dominance to shut out any alternatives.
There is a price for what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
Good things cost more, it's a fact
If you want a good car, you'll pay more than if you just want a cheap car...
Regardless of your opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fatuous nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why was this even published? (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW: Nothing to see here, move along.
Okay, if you insist:
FTA: It is about time we stopped being hypocritical and appreciated a job really well done.
But it isn't. Popular or not, most of their products are mediocre hack-jobs that thrive despite their quality, not because of it.
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows != Pioneering (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that Windows was a "Pioneering" effort is like saying Columbus "Discovered" America, when there were already people living here.
Give me a break. Why do people insist on re-writing history?
kulakovich
He's missing a point about Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not even a hardcore Linux user (I've had Fedora Core for only a few months now) and even I can see this. Am I entirely wrong?
Re:Freak (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the people developing Linux couldn't care less about windows, so why bother writing up malicious code for it when they can spen that time (if coding) coding to improove the tools they use and learnt to love?
This article is written by someone who doesn't know nothing about OSS, and that quote shows it well.
Re:Freak (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you all flame him ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said all that, there is nothing wrong (as such) with loving Microsoft. If you like a product, find it easy to use and it allows you to do what you want to do, spend less time doing boring stuff and generally make the time you spend with it enjoyable then good for you. Some people can't stand it, some people love it.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows. I know it inside out (well, reasonably), can troubleshoot the few problems I have and so I'm reluctant to change to something else. Yes, the shell is a bit crappy, but XP+Cygwin in my mind is better and easier than Linux especially when under the latter my modem, sound card and network all fail to work.
Finally as for the "loving" comments, I find it odd that anyone could love an operating system. For me, the majority of the added value are the applications than I run on top of it. Sure the OS may have some neat tricks and features but I spend more time tinkering and using the apps than the OS directly.
But then I'm probably not your average Slashdot reader.
Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't buggy, it's evil!
Re:He's missing a point about Linux... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Freak (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never understoond slashdot's affinity for that line. There is nothing illegal about a monopoly. MS was convicted on illegally USING that monopoly.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Terrible article (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, be reasonable. The Apple II never saw the penetration into (especially small) businesses that even the earliest, crudest PCs immediately had. The PC, running DOS even, was hugely successful. When Windows hit, it made word processor users out of millions of people that had never even heard of the Apple II or had any inclination to spend Mac sort of money.
I'm a windows zealot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly there are flaws in windows, including security, which this guy just brushes under the carpet. And he clearly hasn't used linux in a while -- I can't remember having to recompile my kernel too recently to get things working.
This isn't even an article! I've seen slashdot posts that are more insightful (and better structured).
There are pros and cons to both OSes, and I personally feel there are more pros on the side of Windows. But this article is the kind of drivel that gives us windows fanboys a bad name.
Re:Freak (Score:3, Insightful)
i tried to port one of my programs to windows, and it wouldn't even compile. I toyed around with it in visual studio at my friend's job and nothing I did would get it to compile. it kept complaining about compiled headers or something. and I was only using the standard library in C. It wouldn't even compile in cygwin without the help of someone contributing a patch to my project.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is I want a GREAT car but some company is out there trying to change the gas pumps so they only work with the cheap cars.
Poor quality (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is no piece of crap, but it's not user friendly
Re:What else has Microsoft meant to us... (Score:2, Insightful)
Those are valid knocks against MS, and I'm no big fan of Gates and Friends. However, it is a historical reality that without MS windows, desktop computing would still be a idiosyncratic little community typing out cryptic strings to a command line OS to do computing. Windows brought computing to the masses. Command line OSes were just too abstract for casual, low-tech users and MACs were (and are) prohibitively expensive.
Yes, MS has done some very evil things and some very incompetent things. But MS Windows gave rise to our industry's explosion, and they deserve a small amount of positive affirmation for that.
Just as it is impossible to quantify how much development hasn't occurred because of MS competition stifling, it is equally impossible to quantify how much of the last decade's content would not have been developed if MS hadn't developed an affordable GUI OS where any monkey could launch an app by clicking an icon. So maybe we are 5 development cycles behind where we would be if MS had published Windows in a perfect and altruistic world, but we are many development cycles ahead of where would be now if Windows hadn't been developed at all.
I'm Confused? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the latest Netcraft survey I've read, Apache still show's %70 Market Share. So according the the Author's logic, we should be seeing CodeRed, et al. for Apache NOT IIS. According to the authors logic why would someone spend "sleepless nights" focusing on the %29, instead of the %70?
How come we don't see the same type of devestating worms that we've seen directed at IIS, being written and directed at Apache?
Seriously, I would like to see such authors as these explain that to his readers.
Can We Say FLAIMBATE??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now... addressing the , "is it OK to love Microsoft" question. It all depends on who you are and what your point of view of technology is. Let me explain:
1. There are people who love certain company/technology just because they are told the technology is good. Non-technical Sun Microsystems fans tend to be an example of this. They are told that Sun Microsystems is a good company to buy stock in, so they assume that the products Sun produces are good. But this is not the case. Trust me, I've worked with a few really bad Sun products for the past five years and I welcomed HP-UX with open arms where support and reliability are concerned.
2. There are people who love a technology because of it's status symbol ranking. Notable in this arena is Apple. Apple produces decent products, to be sure. But they are extremely expensive for what they are. They've been making a break with this as of late, so this isn't the ideal example, but there are plenty of products out there that fall into this realm. Think Adobe Photoshop vs. everyone else. Depending on your needs, Adobe Photoshop might be financial overkill. In many cases Paint Shop Pro or even GIMP might be enough. Especially where you don't need professional print features. But there are people out there who won't touch anything but Adobe Photoshop even to the extent of pirating it.
3. There are the people who actually know technology well. They might be programmers or engineers. To them, there are two possible divisions. The first one are the people who came up with the technology first. I know quite a few people who worship the DEC Alpha. Even to the extent of passing around unsubstantiated rumours that Itanium 2 is really a DEC Alpha in disguise. They hate everything else that has come along since the Alpha because their battle cry is that they had 64-bit RISC processing back in 1992.
4. The second group are those who know even more about technology than the people in example 3 above. These people usually have a really good clue about what constitutes good technology. They've usually been around a long time and have seen fads come, go and return as "new" again. They usually quitely shake their heads and take the more pragmatic view of choosing the most well designed technology. (They tend to be OpenVMS and Unix users)
5. Then there are the retarded suits who base what makes a technology company good on their stock portfolio. This group is the least well informed and are the most likely candidates to love Microsoft. When they get mailings from various tech companies, they'll ditch anything from smaller companies (even if the technology is superior to larger companies) and only go with big name brands. Dell, HP, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft, IBM, etc... To them, these are the only options. They even tend to eschew companies like Epson, Gateway, Corel, Redhat even though there might be some very good technology coming out of these companies.
So, the question, "is it OK to love Microsoft" is really a non-starter. Security and reliability issues aside, Microsoft has done very little in the way of creating new and useful technologies. They just buy up technologies rather then developing them from the ground up. The company is not run by engineers, it's run by businessmen. The approach is to do just enough to make their technology usable, but not to make it superior. Where they want real performance is in their profits. And that is completely counter to excellent software engineering. For someone like me, I can't love a company that doesn't engineer things properly. Of all the companies I've had to deal with, DEC was probably THE best technology company out there with a real eye on great engineering. When they got taken over by Compaq, a good deal of that got shitcanned. When HP took over Compaq even more got given away, sold off and
Yeah, sure (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how this guy can praise Windows for its ease-of use when you can't even connect a Windows Mobile 2003 Pocket PC to a Windows XP SP2 PC via bluetooth. If you ever make it work, Windows will automagically break everything apart.
Or the need to reinstall the OS at least once a year just to ensure it's fresh and clean. Otherwise Windows with the help of third-party products will commit suicide, rendering the PC useless.
I can write the list forever. When I get to use a Windows machine, I can't help the habit of opening another desktop. Or a proper file extension manager.
Oh, and has this guy seen kernel modules like ATi's or nVidia's? Has he ever seen someone "apt-get install nvidia-glx"?
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now how the hell does this get to the front page of Slashdot?
-phozz
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the best analogy, I know, but it is closer to what the article is trying to say.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
Macintosh was only one of many superior options. (Score:1, Insightful)
Most of you've probably never heard of GEOS or Geoworks (and there was an IBM PC version that came out around the same time as Windows). Before windows made the switch to 32 bits, I'd say the IBM PC version was almost in every way superior to Windows. Both from a UI standpoint, and from a programmer's API standpoint. Why didn't it succeed? There's two reasons:
1. Marketing power. Berkeley software, the sellers of Geoworks, while they were brilliant at selling Geos on earlier platforms, like C64, really screwed up marketing their product for the PC.
2. Microsoft used the fact that they held the keys to MS-Dos as leverage. It is well documented that Microsoft steeply discounted MS-Dos to vendors that sold Microsoft operating systems. Any other OS, or windowing evironment, was forced to sell in non-mainstream channels.
It wasn't until 1995 and windows 95 that I feel that Microsoft caught up in user interface design to some of the other early forerunners. Those forerunners however, were 10x more innovative then Microsoft has ever been.
People think Microsoft Windows is special because it was their first experience with a windowing operating system, and it sure seemed better than DOS. They know that Macintosh came first, so they feel inclined to find some reason to say why it was inadequate--and that's usually by saying (justifiably) that it was too expensive. What they don't realize is that there were quite a few graphical windowing environments that also predate windows (for various platforms). A lot of them ran on expensive machines (such as the Amiga, the Atari ST, and the Macintosh), but a few of them were very cheap and ran on PC hardware.
I dislike Microsoft because, at a time when computers were a hodepodge of competing standards, it marginalized the tools I loved and used. I was forced to use it, and it felt clunky, and was buggy. I took Microsoft almost 10 years to write an OS that had enough UI improvements, and was stable enough, for me to feel like it would be technologically competitive with some of the best of those early systems.
In other words, I feel that the industry got set back 10 years.
By the way, I've been using Linux off and on since 1995. I used Linux because its stable and powerful. However, Linux really does suck too. Especially as a Graphical operating system. It's built on all the cruft of good old ancient UNIX.
Dossey's Rule #1: If an OS is good, it will be marginalized.
As a Windows programmer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
story submitted on slashdoty now simply by stating
an option which is controversial!
What's next?
"SCO's a really great company!"
"Osama bid Laden's a really nice guy!"
"The Twin Towers needed to be demolished!"
"Windows Viruses are a good thing!"
Anyway, as a Windows programmer... the reason why Microsoft should be hated is because:
1) Microsoft's anti-competitive (illegal) practises.
2) Windows over complicated and badly designed architecture(s).
There's no doubt that Microsofts office suite is currently unriveled (Sorry OOo lovers!), but that's mainly becuase Micosoft have squashed all the opposition.
P.S. I recently bought a Mac mini for my mother-in-law. Wow! What a really lovely little computer! And MacOS X is _really_ nice. I've just bought some books on programming Cocoa... just got to buy a Mac now
Revisionism at work (Score:3, Insightful)
Berkeley Systems' GeoWorks was in many ways much nicer than Windows, ``run(ing) with a crispness Windows can only dream of on a 386'' (and was quite usable even on a lowly 8086).
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/geos.htm [fortunecity.com]
VisiOn was tracking quite nicely as well, but was undone by MS FUD.
PenPoint was way cool as well.
and of course, while MS was busy w/ Windows 3.1, NeXT had NeXTStep.
William
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's missing a point about Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Short sighted (Score:3, Insightful)
what Macs are good for (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac's are only good for video editing, music editing, graphic's and i think thats pretty much it.
This is a big misconception many people have about Macs, Mac are for more than just these. Macs can pretty much do everything Windows are tasked for. There may be specific apps that are only ported to Windows but more than likely there's a Mac app that can do the same or similar things. Database, there are dbs for Macs, same thing with wordprocessing and spreadsheets. Afterall Microsoft has MS Office for Macs, Office 2004 for Mac - Professional Edition [apple.com]. Financial and accounting software, there's Quicken 2006 for Mac [apple.com]. And not only can you run Mac software on a Mac but you can also install and run Windows and Windows software as well. By using virtual machines such as Virtual PC, the one below comes with Windows XP Home, Macs can run more software than any other computer. Virtual PC for Mac Version 7 - Windows XP Home Edition [apple.com] It may run as slow as molasses but it can run them. Try that on a PC.
Falcon
Written on an HP PC running Windows ME.Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:2, Insightful)
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered.
It's a flat-out lie. He can say this only because he immediately says that Mac doesn't count because of price. The reality is that Mac was much easier to use, but more expensive and not as well marketed. People almost always choose price over quality. The whole climate today, most obvious in Washington, is that you can't say "We're 20% better", you have to say, "We're 5000% better in every way!!!!". So, he loses points with me for lieing to better sell what he wanted to be able to say.
It also bothers me that the apologists can dismiss so many past actions. "Sure they made shitty products for years that gave the whole industry a bad name, and entrenched some very bad programming and release practices, but XP works pretty well, so that makes everything OK." I think that in a healthier marketplace there is a good chance that MS wouldn't have lived long enough to release XP. Selling better products doesn't make up for nasty (illegal) business practices that hurt the consumer. I also think that it's bad practice to release known crap in the 1.0 version, figuring you'll fix it later. If you did that with a physical product, you'd have to do a recall, and it would devestate your financials. I am willing to forgive the past, but not until they prove that they have changed their ways, which they have no intention of doing.
Personally, I tend to be middle-of-the-road (where you get run over a lot). There are a lot of things I don't like about Windows, but I use it for the advantages it does provide (application support). With 2000 and XP they finally have a pretty good OS offering. I use Linux as well, and I like it a lot, but it just doesn't have the commercial support, which makes a lot of things hard or impossible. Even the things it does do are often somewhat harder than they really should be. I haven't had much chance to use a Mac, but I hear they're very nice, too. To each his own. Competition is good.
Good things cost more, it's a fact
You're not a Linux or BSD user, are you?
Re:Short sighted (Score:3, Insightful)
Without Microsoft, the same thing would have happened via Apple, Atari, Commodore or someone else either through a primary platform or through cloning one.
Microsoft actually stunted the saturation of the home computing market by supporting the dominance of a dull, overpriced "business only" machine.
It took the PC a good 10 years to catch up to the basic standard features of a 1985 era non-PC home computer. This includes the GUI.
Re:I must be in a dream... (Score:2, Insightful)
While it is true that part of why Windows is insecure is because of its being so widely used, UNIX like operating systems are more secure due to their structure, and the fact that their authors and users are constantly looking at the OS under a microscope, picking out the vulnerabilities, and releasing patches. Even if UNIX based OS's were more widely used, there would still be fewer security concerns and fewer flaws. The flaws in windows go way beyond security.
Also, USB plug and play is actually pretty good on Linux. Also, using tools like yum, you can install software and all dependancies with one command.
If I recall, Apple was to market first with their personal computer (Apple II) while Microsoft was was still kissing IBM's feet, selling them an OS they didn't have. I myself still have my Apple IIe.
Also, from a programming perspective, Win32 is a monster. I have to modify perfectly good standards based C code to work on windows, where it will compile with very little modification whatsoever on Linux, and the BSDs, and the MAC. Standards exist for a reason.
Perhaps windows is easy to use, but it still presents way too many problems to be worthy of my respect. This article also puts everything else down waaaay tooo much (its just a tad biased.....like all of us I suppose).
Microsoft is a good business....not a good software maker.
Re:What else has Microsoft meant to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it didn't. MS Windows was a result of the IT industry growth, not a cause. The PC was already cheap and widely used (in the UK, Amstrad PCs running DR-DOS and GEM were selling well) before Windows turned up. There were many alternative GUI systems that could have become dominant on the PC.
Re:What else has Microsoft meant to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
EVERYONE else had GUI's 10 years before Microsoft. This even includes UNIX.
It was Microsoft that was the last lone holdout in this area. It was Microsoft that subjected it's captive audience to user hostile command line crap.
Infact, Macs were really never much more expensive than brand name PCs. PCs just gave you the option of el-cheapo brands or completely generic hardware.
ST's and Amigas were dramatically cheaper than either, just as easy to use as Macs and far better than either PCs or Macs in terms of multi-media hardware.
Microsoft is the great sandbagger.
Dragged it's feet 10 years for a real 32-bit OS.
Dragged it's feet 10 years for a usable GUI.
Even then, the usable GUI was dependent on outside price pressures to give the common consumer the ability to buy enough RAM to run the pig.
Re:"Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft?" (Score:2, Insightful)
In my take, Linux is good for running a dedicated process. If I were to set up a web/database/mail whatever server, Linux is my first choice. If I want to browse the web and fire up office apps, I would look toward using a Mac. But for workstation-level general computing (for me, video/audio conversions, Photo creation/editing, gaming) Windows it the king. None of these OSes are perfect. I have a lot of trouble memorizing useful shell commands in Linux and that makes daily use a hassle. If I only had a Mac I'd be terribly frustrated by my lack of software options (ok, ok, I'm mostly talking about gaming here). Windows is the target of nearly every attack on the web and requires extra care to use safely.
If people would quit arguing over one general point, namely which OS is "best", we could all realize they are tailored at different uses and get on with our lives.
Re:"Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft?" (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I also use Windows 2000 and am reasonably happy with it. It's stable to the point where my uptime is easily measured in months (and reboots only really happen when I decide to install some new graphics card drivers or new hardware), it runs just about everything I need, and it works well on computers ranging from six or seven years old to brand new. It's a good product for my purposes (PVR, games, Internet).
The reason I use Linux as well is that Linux gives me a much greater degree of transparency in what's going on behind the curtain; I can use it both as a productive working environment and to tinker with settings and configuration files to my heart's content. Linux offers a greater degree of freedom in allowing me to use a computer as I want.
Re:He's missing a point about Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Point is, who cares why he does it? It's his bloody decision and it obviously works best for him.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously. If the market was empty and all three OSs suddenly came on at the same time, would anyone bother with windows? The only good thing about windows is its user base.
Re:He's missing a point about Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several pairs of goals that preclude or inhibit the other ("security" vs "convenience" is probably one), but I don't think "user-friendliness" and "options and flexibilty" need necessarily be in opposition in any way, especially with a system as open from kernel to DE's as Linux is. Give me a system that can install easily on a wide-range of hardware (and Linux is making great strides in this area - the near-random bundling of parts that comprises my desktop PC requires far less effort to configure and set-up under Linux than it does under Windows, though other people's mileage will vary tremendously) but still give me the ability to tweak the source (or just give me lots of configuration options - I'm a KDE fan, if you haven't guessed) and I'll be happy as a clam. Give me the latter without the former, and all you've done is make my life unnecessarily difficult.
Re:Pioneers Get the arrows (Score:4, Insightful)
No, for the most part the PC isn't the early adopter but it does save lots and lots of money even if the system as a whole isn't as clean as Macintosh.
Don't you think MS and everybody else would have liked to change the 8.3 filenames faster then what was happening. It couldn't be done becuase there was millions of programs people relied upon that wouldn't handle the change. Apple whipes the slate clean from time to time and start over. That wouldn't be possible if Apple had 95% of the market insted of 3%.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Vista - It Just (Barely) Works!
To revisit the car analogy, I think anyone that's ever been in a wreck in a Pinto or a Corvair will tell you the negative implications to such a philosophy.
And the PC revolution was here without Microsoft. The IBM PC was not made possible by Microsoft, Microsoft only got a deal on OS licensing. If MS hadn't been around, the PC would still have hit the market with a different OS (CP/M perhaps, which by all accounts was the most successful OS of the day and of which QDOS - to be usurped and called MS-DOS - was a rough implementation), or perhaps ATARI would have stepped up in its place. Most probably Apple would have retained the PC throne. In any case, Microsoft did not make the PC possible, it only latched on to a market for profit. There was nothing noble about it, Bill Gates and his cronies made a deal with IBM to distribute exclusively a fictional OS that MS didn't have, bought QDOS from SCP, and gave it to IBM as their own. They used a cheap and dirty gamble to get their position and fortune, not a noble move on behalf of home computer users everywhere as you would pretend.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really true. They were barely adequate at creating software in the early days.
They started out with a bought copy of the base for both their OS and for BASIC. These weren't even the most advanced things going in the day, but they managed to acquire them.
What they were exceedingly good at is signing a contract with IBM that said all PCs would have their operating system on it. As the PC marketplace grew, it gave them a pretty much locked in revenue stream.
Once they had made a butt-load of money, they had the resources the hire a bunch of developers and actually start doing more.
But make no mistake about it, they didn't get where they are due to the (initial) quality of their product offerings. They got there by locking everybody in to Microsoft as early in the PC industry as you could get, and growing with an emerging market.
That's why we had to have court cases saying we're allowed to buy a PC which doesn't include a Microsoft OS on it and requiring they get paid for every single PC sold. Because people decided having to pay Microsoft for a PC which would run Linux was just plain wrong.
Re:What else has Microsoft meant to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame we couldn't have rounded up Microsoft's employees early in the game and gassed them.
Something most don't consider... (Score:2, Insightful)
How many different kinds of hardware can Windows plug and play these days? How many different chipsets?
Sure, its just drivers..but the ability to run out of the box without issue for millions of people with vastly different configurations, I feel, is a very strong aspect of MS Windows and something no other OS can claim.
Re:Freak (Score:2, Insightful)
that should have got them in trouble... unfortately they seem to be able to get away with it.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's great how people are so trusting of all the non-MS companies to think that if they were in the same situation Microsoft is, they wouldn't do the exact same thing.
In fact, Apple's iPod (which I own) is just as bad in how they lock it down. Not to mention how much I love people defending Apple's decision to not allow their OS to run on non-Apple hardware. That's classic Microsoft, yet the same people bashing MS will defend Apple. I don't get it.
Evidently not (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at the article piece by piece:
Recap on alternative/joke names for MS.
States explicitely that "I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!". He's clearly already marked out his opinion as essentially content-less uninformed flaming, exactly what he complains about when it happen to MS.
Calls Windows a "pioneering effort". Now, I'm no Linux or Mac fanboy, but I was under the distinct impression that Windows had very little innovation compared to the Mac. IIRC various Microsofties have even admitted as much before, albeit off the record.
Regurgitates the long-disproven "popularity => more successful breakins" argument. More popularity equals more cracking attempts, I'll grant you, but that's not the same as successful security breaches. And anyway, haven't we already disproven this whole argument [apache.org]?
"Considering the fact that everyone who knows how to write two bits of code dreams of hitting windows with a virus, the guys at the "Redmond Giant" are doing a spectacular job."
Bwaaaaahahahahahaaaaaa! As everyone knows, the two main groups who write viruses are security professionals offering a "proof of concept", and script kiddies. The overwhelming majority of coders/developers have never written (or certainly released) a virus in their lives.
In addition, given it's mostly VBScript kiddies - who are almost universally poor programmers - the runaway success of most Windows viruses is even more damning.
"XP is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it."
Dunno what version of windows he's using, and not to deny Windows has got better over the years, but I still have plenty of issues even these days with unrecognised hardware, pieces of hardware detected twice, crashes due to dodgy device drivers, etc.
"In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem!"
Now, I'm not that au fait with the low-level Windows or Linux processes, but I understood that they both used monolithic kernels (ie, drivers not in userland). Surely this means that Windows also has to "recompile" the kernel when the device drivers change? If so it might be hidden behind a pretty user-interface, but it's the same damn architecture and the same design problem.
Tackles the anti-trust cases. Totally ignores Microsoft's documented illegal behaviour and instead blames it on jealousy from competitors. Riiiiiight...
Suggests Sun and Oracle's business models are based around sueing Microsoft. Is he confusing "Sun" with (the Microsoft-backed) SCO, and "Microsoft" with Linux?
He's actually suggesting these companies sue Microsoft because they see it as an easy revenue-earner, rather than a highly risky attempt at redress against the richest organisation (with the most expensive and persuasive legal team) in the world. Mind-boggling.
"Microsoft made some products which it would like to ship together with its OS, no where in the EULA does it say that "you are not authorized to install other software" If Mr. John Doe thinks media player is the worst piece of software he has ever used, he is free to go and download Winamp or Musicmatch Jukebox (neither of these offer free full versions)."
Yeah, they don't write it into the EULA where anyone could see it, but you don't need to do that when you've got the CEO of Dell's balls in your office drawer. It's harder to prove, and leaves less obvious marks for the next lawsuit.
Oh, and the key thi
Why do you trust...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you trust our corporate masters?
To maintain that monopoly your company will have to lock out potential competitors with patents, laws, or failing all that good ol' threats and intimidation.
Your point, "there's nothing wrong with a monopoly" strikes me as naive. Capitalism, like a game or sport, only has a chance of half-way working when there's a somewhat level playing field. Monopolies are broken like the Black Lotus and Mox cards in Magic the Gathering, and they must be regulated as such. Please go crack open a history book and look up trust busting [wikipedia.org].
Sometimes the government will allow a monopoly to continue to exist provided the company is willing to allow itself to be regulated by the government. It's my understand that this is how Southwestern Bell worked at one time.
People don't hate MS because it's MS ... (Score:3, Insightful)
A timely case in point is how it broke into and gained dominance in the web browser market: it is a fact well documented in court records that this was purely because of being able to leverage it's desktop monopoly into control of the newly established web browser market. Yeah, both MSIE and Netscape sucked, but MSIE wouldn't have gone anywhere without the desktop monopoly and, oh yeah, ripping code from Mosaic.
Then there has been the strong arm tactics it has used, and still uses, with OEMs and partners. BeOS fell to that one. It won the right to distribution, but MS ensured that even when it came on OEM machines, it was not in the boot loader.
There has been sabotage. The AARD code against DR-DOS was one, but broken implementations of HTTP, TCP/IP and Kerberos make problems, too.
There have been smear campaigns spreading misinformation about competitors and their products (esp. Novel Netware) MS has also used its partner the BSA to raid businesses using competing products and negotiate contracts with an MS-only infrastructure in their place. There have been forged video evidence in US courts, but no charges of perjury. There were cases where the executives either perjured themselves or committed treason, no middle ground: they did this by swearing in court that their products were so shoddy that national security would be threatened by releasing the source code, yet they turned around and showed the source code to China.
Currently, there are problems with MS trying to use the WMA and WMP formats to break into the audio and video market. The EU has found them guilty of illegal, anti-competitive behaviour, but has been waffling on actually enforcing any punishment.
Currently, the licenses for 2000 SP3, XP SP 2 and later even give MS administrative rights to the machine. That's a back door by another name.
The list of ethical / legal problems could go on for pages. Why is Slashdot suddenly pushing so much stuff from MS apologists? How about more article about companies with a future, like Opera, Apple, IBM, etc. Or tools like OpenOffice, or codecs like Vorbis, Dirac, or Theora, which anyone could use. Shoot, such a big deal was made about Greasemonkey having some minor flaws, yet nothing has been said about greasemonkey being patched [eweek.com]. How about an article on that and a moratorium on doing marketing for MS?
Tough love (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do you trust...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to totally ignore what he said. There is nothing inherently illegal about having a monopoly. If you really have the best product and everyone buys it, that's not something you can be held responsible for.
All of those things you mentioned are illegal methods of maintaining a monopoly, which is what MS should have gone under for.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What else has Microsoft meant to us... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention paying for the lawyers to defend them when it comes to court.
Re:They could code (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
The original article is just a load of baloney. The guy asking is obviously clueless.
Really what has microsoft given us?
Did they develop the GUI?
No Xerox did. And no Apple didn't develop it.
Hey they sell alot of mice. Did they develop mice?
No Xerox did.
Hey they support Ethernet. Did they develop ethernet?
No Xerox did.
Did they develop the Browser?
No NCSA did.
Did they develop the Internet?
No Darpa did. Yes that's right it wasn't Al Gore.
Did they develop the word processor?
No.
Did they develop Desktop Publishing Software?
No
Did they develop Diagramming software like visio?
No they bought visio.
So tell me what did Microsoft give us other than a combination of other peoples technologies and ideas?
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:1, Insightful)
I guarantee you, $500 will not get you "the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs."
the most hated company in the history of business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding?
Survey the thousands upon thousands of citizens of India who either lost loved ones or are still living with the aftermath of Bhopal about what they think of Union Carbide.
Survey the thousands of people whose retirement was wiped out by the burnouts of Enron about how their medical bills may drive them into poverty.
Survey environmentalists around the planet about what they think of the parent company of the Exxon Valdez (and countless LARGER accidents" and the damage done to the environment.
The most hated? Maybe the company most expected to abuse their leadership position in the industry, but the most hated?
Maybe by many vocal slashdotters, but Microsoft doesn't hold a candle to how other companies have (intentionally or not) caused millions of people around the world to associate hate with a corporate entity.
Microsoft has done many baaaad things. But when it comes to causing environmental damage, wiping out people's savings, or just plain killing innocent people, they are just plain amateurs.
methinks thou just wants another reason to trash them
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:1, Insightful)
Being a car guy, I have to remind all of you Nader parrots that the first few years of Corvairs did have some handling quirks, but they had nothing to do with being cheap. The oversteer was no more a problem in the 'Vairs than it was in VW Beetles or rear engined Porsches. They were a relatively advanced design at the time. In fact, the Corvair beat Porsche to the rear engine, all aluminum air cooled flat six market by a number of years and also were the first truly mass-produced turbocharged passenger cars (Corsa Turbo and Oldsmobile Jetfire). They weren't perfect, but they certainly were affordable and do not deserve their reputation. Pintos? umm yeah, not so good, but they were absolutely a step in the right direction design wise.
Sooooo... my point is, be careful when using certain examples that really don't support your argument very well. Using your logic, then no one should have ever bought a PC because mainframes are better, an opinion which, by the way, would restrict access to technology to only those with sufficient (big $$$) income. Now, what are the implications of "such a philosophy"? Was that really your intent? It's nice you can afford the best. I supose the rest of us should dig a 6ft hole and just jump in now if we are so crude as to accept minimal functionality. Shame on us for existing in a world where we have to balance features and affordability! If you can't afford the Benz with 30 airbags, then just stay at home cowering in a corner just hoping for enough money to qualify.
The fact that some products have severly limited functionality (and sometimes quality) in order to reach a marketable price is one of the "negative implications" of what I refer to as "reality".
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
And viruses are not in direct relation to the market share: STs and Amigas had viruses without a near market monopoly. Viruses are just programs that use the flaws of a system. If there are less flaws there are less (posible) viruses.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
The Wright brothers invented the airplane, but were not able to turn it into a successful business venture, leaving plenty of room for others to come in and dominate the market.
Take cars for example, Henry Ford certainly did not invent the automobile, he just created a better way of doing it, along the way creating an empire based on his early work that has enabled his company to go further than he or anyone else at the time could have predicted.
Sure, Microsoft may not have invented many of those products you mentioned, but they certainly have taken each and turned them into major players in ways that their original inventors were not able to.
Would i listen to someone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do i really care for someone who can't notice the diffrence between Mac and MAC?
The remaining being divided between Linux, MAC etc. now lets say MAC has 1 percent...
Also another point:
The question is why do they? I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what's more, I hate Linux. I think it's the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!
The guy obviously loves GUI, and his WindowBlinds themes... fine Linux desktop enviroments are not up to play with the big boys yet, no reason to dismiss a whole OS on a few faults when your never going to come into contact with the real power. Its like saying AS/400 is crap at running games... therefore its crap full stop.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
From the begining the Microsoft crew has ridden the back of the PC industry. Not only have they blood-sucked consumers, they have made life hell for developers by leveraging their monopoly on the desktop to suppress standards, maniacal attempts to bring all developers to a mediocre 'good enough' level of capabilities (considering they are competing directly with the same developers they support, this is not surprising).
Re:Pioneers Get the arrows (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, not really. Microsoft ran on IBM hardware, which was not cheap. You can thank Compaq and people like Albert Clark [wikipedia.org] for commoditizing the PC, not Microsoft. Microsoft got lucky in that they were the default OS on expensive hardware at the time it got commoditized by other innovators.
Re:Can We Say FLAIMBATE??? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know it takes a lot less time to become a good windows admin than a good unix one.
I can pick up a book from 1992 about Unix administration and see that most of the material is still valid.
Now Windows. With each new release, the system settings have changed drastically. Setting up networking in Windows XP is not at all like Windows 95: the screens are different, the actual values are buried somewhere deep in the registry. When the system fails it provides almost no useable explanation. Network security is much harder to get right because so much more is exposed and so many broken applications expect to run as Administrator.
I've been administering just my own desktop for the last six years and feel pretty confident about what's going on and why and that I haven't been rooted. I think to reach the same level of comfort with Windows would take at least 18 months of full-time work and probably most of an MCSE prep. My friends who went the Windows route have told me quite a few horror stories over the years of automating NT 4 and Win2k desktops and how even large organizations have to commit years more time to get the same results as their Unix groups.
When I looked for a platform to get into 6 years ago, I took a lot of things into account. The main factor for me was this: Who will be giving me the best returns on my time investment? I decided to become a Microsoft platform developer, and I haven't been sorry.
I used to be a Windows developer too, mostly VB/VBA but some Win32 C. I switched to Linux in 1999 because I was working with a lot of Unix web servers and haven't regretted it at all. The last three jobs I've been the only Unix developer on multi-platform projects and it's been a good niche. I force my colleagues to alter their designs in ways that Windows-only developers never think of (like 'preserve case in filenames'). Economically it's done well for me, I am currently finishing a project with an embedded PC/104 device that runs TinyLinux for scientific data collection.
More personally, I feel like the code I write for myself really is free, that I can count on it being around and working when I someday retire and relax a bit. That's a really nice feeling for me, much like when I moved away from Turbo Pascal for DOS (which I knew would someday die out) to ANSI C back in 1993.
Development is the name of the game.
Exactly, as long as we remain employed and generally happy, who cares which system we use? Power to the developers!
Re:Freak (Score:1, Insightful)
2) The way a monopoly is defined by the law, Microsoft's monopoly is illegal. Microsoft "owns"/"controls" 90+% of the desktop computer software market; Microsoft uses that control to keep competitors from fairly competing. That is the definition of an ILLEGAL MONOPOLY. Microsoft was found to have violated the law regarding ILLEGAL MONOPOLIES. Unfortunately, the government did not server the same kind of medicine on Microsoft as they did to AT&T.
Is it wrong to love extortionists? (Score:4, Insightful)
people love their tools (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of my Windows computers were adequate but I just never could warm up to them. Unlike some of my other machines the passion of Microsoft craftsmen never seems to shine through. Maybe they don't care enough or maybe their designs are too constrained by the requirments for incremental increases in market control with each new version. In any case, by and large I find their products to be of low quality and buggy-geek-feature-laden compared to the competition in categories where competition still exists. Unfortunately they produce the operating system and every product that runs on that operating system suffers from their lack of vision and passion and their drive to incrementally increase their control of the market with each new release. The only time they care about quality is when there is a threat of revenue loss or a reduced rate of growth.
I love computers and computing technology. Its been my job, my hobby and my passion for many years now and when possible, I buy machines and software from people whose similar disposition shines forth in their quality products.
I don't believe that Microsoft leadership is creative, visionary or passionate about their products in anything remotely like a constructive way. Even their passion is a marketing ploy. As soon as the competition in a product area goes away they no longer have direction (nothing to copy) in the evolution of their product and they lose the incentive to make it better and it shows. Microsoft only makes pretty good products in an area until the competition is dead and then the quality sinks and the hostage users pay and come to love their abusive master and their "quality" products.
After Microsoft's external competition dies in a category the only competition left for their product comes from the previous version of their own product. This eliminates any incentive for support and backward compatibility. Ironically compatibility remains the main selling point of Windows systems.
I have nothing against Microsoft and people who love them for whatever reason as long as they don't systematically obliterate my access and option to use quality products crafted by people who give a darn. I'd willingly pay Microsoft for great products if I ever thought that they produced one. As things stand I am essentially forced to buy and use their products in a way that is shutting the door on quality competition. It isn't right.
Monty Python and the Jewish Zealots' rebellion (Score:3, Insightful)
zealot: "How _much_ do you hate the Romans?"
Brian: (trying to gain approval) "A lot!"
zealot: "Alright. You're in!"
You have to hate Micro$oft in order to have credibility, because for anyone to understand computing (technology and/or culture) and like Micro$oft is, well... incredible!
Cost is MUCH more than initial outlay of cash (Score:4, Insightful)
Macintosh cost more in initial cash outlay, but did it increase productivity?
I think back over the endless days I've spent fixing Windows problems, the loss of data when Windows has bluescreened, the loss of billable time and the loss of my hair...
The cost of an operating system and applications is one helluva lot more than merely the sticker price.
OS cultures (Score:3, Insightful)
I've posted this before, but this story makes it particularly apropos:
Microsoft has Billions of dollars, and yet they can't deliver products that are well documented, well-architected, stable and secure? If they could do that, they might get more respect.
my letter to author of article (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that quote from your article says almost all. You adore Microsoft. Good for you. You hate [L]inux (it's not capitalized). Good for you. That's really about the only objective part of you article. You don't think linux is good at doing something? You're opinion... It's misguide at best, but it's really wrong. Did you know at Microsoft for the longest time their e-mail servers were Unix machines? That was because their e-mail applications weren't up to the task. This I know because I worked there. Haven't checked recently, so I don't know if they're still using unix for e-mail.
Also, some of the world's largest, most complex, and savviest applications are running on linux platforms. Do you ever use Google? Google (last time I checked) is up over 40,000 linux servers running the show. Ever shop at Amazon? Amazon runs almost exclusively on linux and Solaris (Sun) boxes under the covers.
Sad, unfair and uncompetitive? Maybe you're only fifteen years old. If you were older and had any sense of history and knew what Microsoft has done in the past you'd understand better. Microsoft has gotten where it is, become what it is, with blatant disregard for fair and competitive business practices. (Not sure what "agreeing on a constitution" has to do with anything in your thesis.)
Continue to love Microsoft, it's a warm fuzzy world from your view. You obviously are part of the target demographic.
You're probably going to get hammered for your column. You deserve it.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they [Microsoft] did. You don't think Microsoft didn't make money off IBM's PC-DOS or OS/2? Think again. Strike one.
In that time period, the only way you could get away with not paying the Microsoft tax (aside from pirating) was buying non PC hardware...that being an Apple Macintosh, an Amiga, or an Atari ST. I'm not counting NeXT or Sun hardware in that category because they weren't exactly considered PCs in that era...
"Microsoft won the desktop war by being better than the competition at providing what corporations are interested in - useable applications."
OS/2 ran Windows apps. Strike two.
"Give credit where it's due. Without Windows 95 we'd all be running OS/2 by now and the Internet wouldn't be nearly as accessible."
Credit is not due. Guess you've never heard of OS/2 Warp for PCs. And Macs could access the net without Microsoft's software. Lynx and Mosaic worked on Amigas and Atari STs, not to mention software like Stik and Cab. Strike three.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever heard of Visicalc? How about WordStar? dBASE?
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
I call Bullshite. Apple didn't create their preferred audio codec (unlike Microsoft). They use Dolby's AAC. Encoded music using AAC does not sound "tinny" like Microsoft's rival WMA format. The iPod does not lock out MP3 files.
What does the iPod deliberately lock out? WMA. But why would you want to buy "tinny" music? While I had all the chance in the world to use the WinAMP plugin exploit to download as much free music c/o Napster's stupidity, I chose not to, because I can't stand how WMA sounds.
Does the iPod support OGG or FLAC? Nope. And that's a criticism. But is Apple doing that deliberately to squash OGG? No. They just don't see the support cost catering to some folks on Slashdot versus the hordes of the unwashed masses who don't care one way or another. If you want to change their mind, buy some shares, and advocate for the iPod supporting those open source codecs.
Now, the iTunes Music Store does lock out non-iPod players. However, since 80% of the MP3 player market in the U.S. is accounted for by iPod sales, do you really blame them in not supporting some throwaway obscure product sold at Fry's? Nope. And in all fairness, Jobs did offer a 50% stake in the store to Sony, but Sony turned them down because Sony's former president thought they'd do better on their own with the totally unpopular and exclusive Sony Connect store. Had Sony's former president had foresight, we would have iTunes Music Store support for all of Sony's MP3 player offerings, as well as the PSP, Sony Ericsson phones, and assuredly on the upcoming PS3. Blame Sony, not Apple on that decision.
ps. Napster and the other WMA offering stores don't support Apple Mac OS X. Microsoft has also not released a Windows Media Player 10 equivalent on Mac OS X either. What's good for the goose...
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
Clippy came from Bob. Clippy's actually a good idea executed poorly. Reparenting alerts, tips, and help into a predictable place is a GOOD thing, or do you actually prefer modal popups for everything? The interaction API is pretty sweet too, though that it really doesn't require an "agent". Poor execution by having the damn thing constantly calling attention to itself. They fell so in love with the idea that they assumed everyone else would.
But no, I must of course I must hate clippy with infantile apopleptic rage, clippyhate bellyfeelwise doubleplusgood all.
Re:I must be in a dream... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm hoping that everybody realizes that they're responding to three high school students [cooltechzone.com], of which only two seem to have enough grasp of the English language to passibly write in it. The other one is a "tech news analyst", whatever that means.
And you know what? Y'all (and me too...) just got pwned. They've managed to get a website going with minimal content, and seems to be over 50% ads, with crappy writing. Normally, this would be a bust. But, get your site on slashdot with a controversial subject and.... forgive the cliché:
At least you can feel good about getting Sandeep and Ravdeep money for college.
Ah, what the hell. Give the kids a break. We were all kids once too, and probably thought a bunch of stupid shit like "Microsoft is teh inovator!" But this definitely doesn't belong on /., it's pure flamebait. (not to mention sneaky devious, just like the guys in the black van outside... but they can't fool ME!!!)
Re:8.3 (Score:3, Insightful)
It was not until the first SuperDrive (the manual insertion 3.5" floppy, not the DVD writer) that Apples started reading MS-DOS disks and until MacOS 8 or 9, no Apple OS would see long file names in FAT floppies unless while using a third-party tool.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:2, Insightful)
Um...that's some kind of a joke, right?
Microsoft didn't give a shit about the internet in the early days. They were pushing their own proprietary Prodigy/Compuserve-esque solution. OS/2 had everything you needed for internet access built in well before Windows ever did.
PC = home built car - Mac = Factory built car (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. Apple's Mac OS X operating system is built atop a semi-open-source operating system, whereas Windows is not. Apple's Safari web browser is a standards-compliant web browser based upon an open source Linux program. Internet Explorer is not. Apple released Bonjour as open-source (which HP and TiVo readily implemented). What has Microsoft done open-source wise? They aren't the same. Not in the least.
"you realize the reason the Itunes music store is lokced out to other players is because the itunes format is copywrited and apple refuses to liscense it. while they woudl have early on, they can sense their impending doom as 10's of other companies are gearing up to attack this market."
The format is not locked. Apple refuses to license Fairplay - their DRM - to other companies, right now. Dolby licenses AAC to anyone interested. Get your facts straight. And 10 companies selling music in the same alternative format (WMA) does not mean 10 strong competitors. The MP3 player market is locked up. The next battlefront is the cell phone market, and all of the American carriers are doing their best to make sure they themselves call the shots in that aspect.
"now go the other way, apple won't support the other 20 percent of the market place. Why should MS support less than 5% of the market place by doing anything for apple??"
Why did Microsoft port Internet Explorer and MSN Messenger to Mac OS X? Why do they still offer Office on Macs? They profit very well off the Mac platform, as they always have. Get your facts straight.
"apple has always been the company vying for a complete monopoly in computer hardware, thank god they failed."
Yeah, it is too bad that the modern computer market is dominated by a microprocessor family (x86) created to run Coca-Cola vending machines instead of a modern RISC architecture. Yep, thank Zoroaster Apple failed.
"Because then they would have extended that to software."
No they wouldn't have. Apple never seriously challenged Microsoft Word on their own platform. They actually encouraged Microsoft working on it throughout the Mac's history.
"all I have to deal with is a software monopoly with so much competition its only monopoly is with the uninformed."
You must be referring to yourself.
"also, you do know shareholders(esp. small ones) have absolutely no say in the strategic business decisions of a company like apple except in that they can vote for a different member of the board. So really, buying shares is a completely worthless endeavor."
Are you really that uninformed? Through the proxie process, shareholders can force issues onto the table for all of the shareholders to vote on. You might do a Google Search on *shareholder activism* before typing another ignorant comment on Slashdot. Look up *CalPERS* while you are at it too.
I take that back. You seriously need to find a monolith to learn a great deal from first.
Re:There is a price for what you want (Score:3, Insightful)
In every listed case above the original product was either better than or equivalent in every way to the one that Microsoft "turned into a major player."
There is ONE reason alone that Microsoft makes markets for products that otherwise most people don't know about, and that's the MS Monopoly. Microsoft takes a good idea that works well but that most people don't have access to and makes (usually a lesser version of) it available to PC users (often without crediting or compensating its creator).
The most vexing aspect of this is that when said good idea (in poor MS form) spreads like wildfire throughout the world by virtue of the MS monopoly, the majority of sheep out there believe that MS invented it (MS not being unhappy about the misconception in the least), and then go about re-writing history. I don't know how many times I've cringed at computer magazines, computer and technology anchors on cable news, hosts of radio call-in computer shows, etc. that OBVIOUSLY bought their first computer with Windows 95 and believe that the information age was invented by Microsoft, and that before whiz-kid Billy G., the poor old-fashioned people in science and academics and business wrote on stone tables and hit each other with clubs way back in the dark '1980s' that pre-date, well, everything.
And of course since Joe Q. Public hears John Q. Radio say that Microsoft invented windowing, mice, desktop publishing, networking, and digital media, and Joe Q. Public has some sort of irrational faith in mass media, from then on you can't tell him anything else, because he won't believe you.
"John Q. Radio and Jack T. Television said that before Microsoft there was no such thing as electricity, so it must be true. What's your source?"
News for young slashdotters: scripting, programming, networks, desktop publishing, the Internet, games, multiuser and online games, databases, spreadsheets, windowing, mice, context menus, widgets, office suites, cutting and pasting, hard drives, floppy drives, removable storage, plug-and-play, and pretty much damn near ANYTHING else you can name, existed WELL before Microsoft introduced them. And in fact, if you do an unbiased comparison between their original incarnations years (and in some cases decades) ago on other platforms and the CURRENT PC versions, you will often be flabbergased to find that the original is better in many, many ways, if a bit out of date.
Instability, the sad fact. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most unfortunate aspect of operating system expectations to date. Barring a genuine hardware problem, all users should expect that their operating system will never crash.
Now the vast majority is so well conditioned, that halving the frequency of crashes on their system is seen as a benefit, when they shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place.
I've worked with someone who has high praise for SGI. I've not played with their OS myself, but from what I've heard they're a company that takes responsibility for it. As I understand it the bug policy is along the lines of "If your application can cause a problem with our OS, it's our fault, and we will fix it, at no cost to you." They believe in your right to trust that their OS is bullet-proof, providing of course that the hardware is maintained.
When will Microsoft and other commercial vendors to offer that kind of stability? When can we expect a crash-free OS to be the norm rather than the exception?