I know alot of us here like to bash Microsoft, some of us for good reason, but I think most of us just cause they are a big company and a prime example of evil corporate America. So truthfully, what do you think of Microsoft, both their software and as a company in general?
What is your opinion of Microsoft
- Thread starter PT
- Start date
chcr
Too cute for words
They generally release software before it's ready (Can you say "service pack?"), but I don't think they're the great satan or anything. Linux is still better than XP IMO, but you gotta learn Windows because it's everywhere. As for trying to corner the market, wouldn't you? Office is actually pretty good, but openoffice.org is really close. Hosestly, if I didn't have to use it, I probably wouldn't, but that's more personal preference than out of any sense of outrage or anything.
Yeah, I can see that, they do seem to update their software more often than most. You could see that two ways though, are they just that much worse, or that much better. You usually get one or two updates to programs after the original release, Windows is constantly being updated. That could be a sign of a company that cares.
As for the business itself though, I think they have some very good business practices myself. I know they used a few bully techniques a few years ago, and some would say they still are today, but wouldn't you too if you were in charge? I'm pretty sure I would use my power and influence.
As for the business itself though, I think they have some very good business practices myself. I know they used a few bully techniques a few years ago, and some would say they still are today, but wouldn't you too if you were in charge? I'm pretty sure I would use my power and influence.
rrfield
New Member
MS products are all pretty good when you think about it. While Windows on the desktop has its flaws, almost anyone can learn to use it in a short ammount of time...the same can't be said for Linux.
IMHO, the reason there are so many Windows hacks is that EVERYONE uses Windows, there is more exposure to it and more familiarity. IF Linux were A1 honcho, there would be tons more security problems. Same with viri...if you want to do some damage, write a virus for Windows, not Linux or Unix or Mac...
rrfield
IMHO, the reason there are so many Windows hacks is that EVERYONE uses Windows, there is more exposure to it and more familiarity. IF Linux were A1 honcho, there would be tons more security problems. Same with viri...if you want to do some damage, write a virus for Windows, not Linux or Unix or Mac...
rrfield
I certainly wouldn't use my power and influence to drive my competition's companies into the ground. I would hope that my software could do that by itself. Windows alone is a fine product. It has its flaws, but what OS doesn't? However, the company is a different story.PuterTutor said:
The company can pretty well predict where the future of computing is going to go. It has been known to do so in the past, and it will probably continue to do so until it is destroyed by its own greedy practices. That doesn't excuse punishing computer vendors for providing their customers with choice (raising their license costs just because they don't offer Windows as the sole platform, or because they remove the IE, MSN, and Outlook Express icons to promote their own internet services). Nor does it excuse spying on their customers with the latest Microsoft SpyWare *cough* err... Windows XP.
The company itself is about as close to being Satan as one will ever get.
chcr
Too cute for words
No, that would be Enron or WorldCom.
Actually, I think that most people starting from scratch could learn either one. KDE and gnome both work quite well as graphical interfaces, and you really don't need the command line for normal uses. How many Windows users get into the nuts and bolts of their OS? I think it's the "something different" intimidation (and of course compatibility issues, although you can overcome that) that keep Linux from being a serious contender.
Just my opinion.
rrfield
New Member
fury said:
In an idealistic world, sure. But Microsoft is a business. Businesses are there to make money, plain and simple. Microsoft is very good at that. Sure, some business may try to do the right thing, and under certain circumstances and with very good strategic planning and a good business model, these companies will do well (I work for a company like this), but it's rare.
fury said:
There are plenty of other companies that help shape this. Cisco for one. Oracle. True MS has by far the most influnece, but to say they are the only ones who can shape the future is a little bit of an exaggeration. Perhaps this is true if one is only looking at desktop computing, but home desktop computing is not what makes the world go 'round.
fury said:
If I bought a Cadillac (Windows) from a car dealer (vendor) who left the Cadillac logo on the outside of the car (splash screen), but ripped off all the Cadillac logos inside the car (icons) and replaced them with his own logos, then said "if you want to put the Cadillac logos back on, go ahead, they are in the glovebox", I'd be rather angry.
Ok, ok, Chevy, not Cadillac.
As for the spying, if you are that concerned about what MS is looking at, get a good firewall (not ZoneAlarm, a real firewall such as a PIX, CheckPoint, Symantec's Raptor, or even a cheap home router/firewall would help).
fury said:
chcr said:No, that would be Enron or WorldCom.
Sure, Enron and WorldCom are worse. How about Disney? Martha Stewart/ImClone? Tyco? The Green Bay Packers? The RIAA? SBC/Ameritech (my own personal hate)? France? There are much worse corporate offenders/evil empires then Microsoft.
rrfield
Microsoft goes out of their way to do the wrong thing though.rrfield said:
I didn't say they shaped the future, I said they could predict it pretty well.
I would think a better analogy would be the stereo.
The average user would not know how to do this. Thus, the average user gets spied on.
Packers? How dare you?
Fact: Microsoft would be much more liked if they hadn't use their monopolic tactics with a ton of their competitors.
Fact: Microsoft products would be far much better if such competitors were still in the bussiness (i'm talking WordPerfect, QuattroPro, Lotus, etc). I don't recall any user hating Microsoft by the time of MS-DOS or Windows 3.
I've seen it, many Linux users started to use Linux not because it is great, they did it to feel "microsoft free", people that didn't like what MS did to Netscape, Sun, Compaq and the other companies affected by the monopolic tactics.
While Microsoft OSes are decent by now, they are not superb and certainly they could be better for a company that has been all that time in the bussiness.
Fact: Microsoft products would be far much better if such competitors were still in the bussiness (i'm talking WordPerfect, QuattroPro, Lotus, etc). I don't recall any user hating Microsoft by the time of MS-DOS or Windows 3.
I've seen it, many Linux users started to use Linux not because it is great, they did it to feel "microsoft free", people that didn't like what MS did to Netscape, Sun, Compaq and the other companies affected by the monopolic tactics.
While Microsoft OSes are decent by now, they are not superb and certainly they could be better for a company that has been all that time in the bussiness.
rrfield
New Member
fury said:Microsoft goes out of their way to do the wrong thing though.
They go out of their way to make money
fury said:
Correctly predicting market trends and user wants is how businesses make money.
fury said:
If you insist
fury said:
Aside from some MP3's, the average user has no reason to care if MS is looking in on their computer. Cheap home routers can be setup by just about anyone, anyway.
fury said:Packers? How dare you?
You seem surprised....
rrfield
tommyj27
Not really Banned
*cough* *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
Microsoft does care...about covering their ass when it comes to embarrassing security holes and buggy shit that crashes three times daily. Ok, maybe that example is over-exagerrated today but it wasn't too many years ago that it was a reality. Windows has improved without a doubt, but the fact that paying customers have been and continue to be essentially beta testers to help microsoft figure it's asss from a hole in the ground is ridiculous. Would you buy a life preserver that in many cases it will sink rather than float, with the understanding that eventually the company will figure out why people are drowning and offer for sale a new model that floats more often than iit sinks?
If business, government, and consumers are going to rely on technology to perform when needed, it damned well better work when the fit hits the shan.
Linux, MacOS, Unix, Cisco , etc. are not immune to bugs and security holes either. That's a certainty when you're dealing with a large codebase. But some of these other systems have a philosophy that allows true innovation and cooperation to thrive, leading to a product that is more stable, clean, and less problem prone. The linux kernel has had ONE significant security hole in recent memory. which was immediately patched and has been fixed in the next release. Compare that to the number of recent microsft security fixes.
Is linux harder to use than windows? depends on your use and your past experience. For windows users, linux is intimidating because it's different, and because their only likely exposure has been watching skilled users pound away at a command line. For new users who want to do nothing more complex than the 95% of Joe Windows Users, linux is just as easy. Word processing, email, browsing and listening to music are just as easy to do on a pre-configured linux platform as they are on a windows platform. The original configuration may need to be done by a more skilled user, but the same holds true for windows as well, it's just that such configuration is decided by microsoft and presented as the ONLY possibility.
I use linux on all of my own machines, as of this afternoon, linux is on every machine in the house. Since I made the switch from microsoft to windows I have had some confusing and frustrating problems, there's still a few things that bewilder me, but I understand far more about what's going on inside my PC than I ever did using windows. Eventually I reached a point where less of my time was spent figuring and configuring, and more time was spent using my computer for what I want to use it for, like post-whoring here.
Have I covered everything yet? Fuck it, this my quota of OTC typing for the day.
PuterTutor said:
Microsoft does care...about covering their ass when it comes to embarrassing security holes and buggy shit that crashes three times daily. Ok, maybe that example is over-exagerrated today but it wasn't too many years ago that it was a reality. Windows has improved without a doubt, but the fact that paying customers have been and continue to be essentially beta testers to help microsoft figure it's asss from a hole in the ground is ridiculous. Would you buy a life preserver that in many cases it will sink rather than float, with the understanding that eventually the company will figure out why people are drowning and offer for sale a new model that floats more often than iit sinks?
If business, government, and consumers are going to rely on technology to perform when needed, it damned well better work when the fit hits the shan.
Linux, MacOS, Unix, Cisco , etc. are not immune to bugs and security holes either. That's a certainty when you're dealing with a large codebase. But some of these other systems have a philosophy that allows true innovation and cooperation to thrive, leading to a product that is more stable, clean, and less problem prone. The linux kernel has had ONE significant security hole in recent memory. which was immediately patched and has been fixed in the next release. Compare that to the number of recent microsft security fixes.
Is linux harder to use than windows? depends on your use and your past experience. For windows users, linux is intimidating because it's different, and because their only likely exposure has been watching skilled users pound away at a command line. For new users who want to do nothing more complex than the 95% of Joe Windows Users, linux is just as easy. Word processing, email, browsing and listening to music are just as easy to do on a pre-configured linux platform as they are on a windows platform. The original configuration may need to be done by a more skilled user, but the same holds true for windows as well, it's just that such configuration is decided by microsoft and presented as the ONLY possibility.
I use linux on all of my own machines, as of this afternoon, linux is on every machine in the house. Since I made the switch from microsoft to windows I have had some confusing and frustrating problems, there's still a few things that bewilder me, but I understand far more about what's going on inside my PC than I ever did using windows. Eventually I reached a point where less of my time was spent figuring and configuring, and more time was spent using my computer for what I want to use it for, like post-whoring here.
Have I covered everything yet? Fuck it, this my quota of OTC typing for the day.
rrfield
New Member
Luis G said:
A vast majority of people I know don't hate Microsoft. These are people who use a computer for e-mail, some web surfing, maybe burn some CDs, type papers. These people could care less about what OS they use, as long as it lets them do what they need to do. Microsoft does that.
Luis G said:
All of those products are still being made. Corel recently released WordPerfect Office 11 (which includes QuattroPro). IBM bought Lotus and has continued its line of products, like Lotus SmartSuite (including 1-2-3 and Word Pro) Lotus Notes (competes with Outlook), and Lotus Domino (MS Exchange).
Luis G said:
I can't wait for the next TV campaign...a teenaged girl, probably 15 or 16, sitting on a couch with a laptop running Windows XP, surfing the internet via a Microsoft wireless access point, using Internet Explorer. A boy around the same age enteres the room. He pans the room, takes note of his surroundings and sits next to the girl. He leans over, kisses her and starts to undo her blouse. Cut to black. Girl says "wait..." in a dazed voice. Announcer voices over, "So, Microsoft products are harlmess? Microsoft impares your judgement. Please kids, be Microsoft Free." Paid for by the Partnership for a Microsoft Free America.
Luis G said:
When most people think of buggy MS operating systems, they think of 95, 98 and ME. These were crap and should never have been released, I agree. NT/2000/XP on the other hand are all solid, stable OS's, IMHO. I have XP Pro on my laptop and desktop, and the only crashes I have ever encountered were caused by a faulty video card in the desktop. And it's not like I'm afraid of a command line either; 50% of my job, the part I enjoy, is to manage 200+ Cisco, Cabletron and 3com routers and switches, all of which use command line interfaces.
Seems to me that among geek cliques, it's "cool" and "hip" to hate Microsoft. I have yet to be convinced that Microsoft is any different from any other corportation in the USA and that they are experiencing the same backlash any huge company experiences.
rrfield
rrfield said:
Isn't that another way to say what i said?
Linux can do that as well.
Yes but not widely used because MS pushed its MS Office suite with monopolic tactics.
What does that has to do with feeling "Microsoft Free"??
For heavy networking and services you should know that other OSes are better than Windows AS or Server
i don't hate them, but i their products are not worth what they cost.
I think Luis's last statement sums it up for most of us. I do want to clarify a couple things though. First of all, I really didn't intend for this to be a Linux vs Windows thread, but I should have known it would go that way. So.... If Linux is ever to be successful, it needs work. The last install I did it took me a couple days to get the video drivers installed, a task that would take an 8 year old 5 minutes on a windows machine. The same can be said about alot of software installs on Linux, you really know what your system can do, but you have to know your system to really use it effectively too. You don't have to with Windows. Now, for the geekier people here, (that is not meant in a bad way at all) that may sound bad. We want to know our computers, we want to know what processes are running, where our memory is being used and what not. For the average user, the real target market of OS's, they don't give a shit as long as it starts up and is able to connect to the internet and play a game now and then. For that, MS comes out a clear winner.
Now, Microsoft Free, that's a play on the US's war on drugs, Drug Free. Just a joke, Luis.
Now, Microsoft Free, that's a play on the US's war on drugs, Drug Free. Just a joke, Luis.
rrfield
New Member
The whole OS debate has become more like a religous debate...you could be a Microsoftic, Linuxite, Unixarian, Macintist, etc. You can talk all you want, but for the most part you aren't going to change someones mind. In this model, I would call myself an agnostic. I don't really think there is a "God" of OS's, they all have ups and downs. Except OS2/Warp, it sucks balls.
On that note, I have to ask the question, would we all have 5 PCs each without Microsoft? I think the answer is no. Plus, one must remember that the best technology isn't always the one that "wins"...whos old enough to have ever owned a Betamax? But what do I know?*
I have installed and used Linux a little, and for the life of me I couldnt figure out what everyone likes about it. It didn't seem like anything special to me. It's been probably a year, and it was RedHat 7.3. I don't mean this in a smart-ass way, but could someone enlighten me?
rrfield
*I know that Brett Favre used to be a girl.
On that note, I have to ask the question, would we all have 5 PCs each without Microsoft? I think the answer is no. Plus, one must remember that the best technology isn't always the one that "wins"...whos old enough to have ever owned a Betamax? But what do I know?*
I have installed and used Linux a little, and for the life of me I couldnt figure out what everyone likes about it. It didn't seem like anything special to me. It's been probably a year, and it was RedHat 7.3. I don't mean this in a smart-ass way, but could someone enlighten me?
rrfield
*I know that Brett Favre used to be a girl.
Apparently you haven't worked with OS/2 much. We use it on our Optical dataservers here at work and it's great. Of course it's running on 100Mhz machines, but it runs stable, 24/7. About once a month one of the four machines will crash, requiring a two minute restart, and everything is back up and going. Now, if you're trying to use it for an application OS, that's true, it sucks, but not because of the OS, but because there were exactly 14 titles released for it.
chcr
Too cute for words
What were the other 4? I didn't mean to start an OS debate either. I'm multilingual. I like UNIX for servers myself, but that's just what I'm used to. As far as Linux, well I started playing with it one day shortly after I got broadband. PT, in earlier distros I had some probs with drivers and such, but not with any of the newer ones. Of course, I look at compatibility now when I upgrade pieces. Windows 2000 is my favorite flavor of windows, and I use it more than anything else (even linux). I don't see all the advantages to XP, but I'm still learning. My last MAC experience was with OS 8, and I've never used OS/2 but I've heard the same things PT says about it from others. rr is right, it does become quasi-religious at times. When I grew up, they didn't really have "personal" computers; in college you shared time on the mainframe and wrote all your own programs. Can you say Fortran? So, all of the modern OS's are cool to me.
P.S. I still have a Bewtamax, and the picture was always better than VHS! Of course I only have one or two tapes for it anymore.
rrfield said:
IMO, Linux is not that great when it comes to being used as a desktop PC (easy-of-use), its strong points are mainly performance and server use.
One thing i dislike about Linux is the fonts, i hate them, all webpages look fucking ugly, even if i import windows fonts and set the browser to use them, all pages suck.
You should give it a try, you might find yourself liking it after you start knowing the system. Plus, your opinion would have much more weight when it comes to criticizing Linux and gloryfying windows, 'cause frankly now i take it with a grain of salt, since you have used Linux just a little