Why Microsoft sucks?

[Ashok Mash]

Why every body is so dead against Microsoft? Even an all-techie-one-line-story spins up mocking Microsoft.... In fact doesn't that show the actual importance Microsoft have in today�s IT world, where most of us find our bread and butter?
Though I am not a fan of Microsoft and its policies , I not bold enough to criticize them for each and every thing they do, when I am using MS products in all around.. even to write this mail....
Convince me please.....
Cheers,
Ashok.
[Bill... my 2p please...]

[Joseph Russell]

Doesn't everyone enjoy picking on the big guy? I think it's mainly for fun. I personally respect Gates. Anyone that can sell IBM on something he doesn't even have when there really wasn't even a market yet... has my respect. Doesn't mean that I'm a microsoft chearleader or I love all of their products, though. I have to use them doens't mean I have to like them or think their the best thing since sliced bread. I've always been one to vote for the underdog.
My $.02

[Glen Tanner]

Yep, I still believe that most Java Developers develop on Windows.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Joseph Russell:
I have to use them doesn�t mean I have to like them or think their the best thing since sliced bread.

Agreed. But still is there any other reason to treat them like this? I think it has gone a level up from 'just picking on a big guy' - I have heard Bill Gates and Microsoft being mocked even in major Java conferences.. where we are supposed to talk about Next Gen Java and such wonderful things, we waste at least a minute laughing at Some Gates or a MicroSome-Product.
Hey, whose yelling over my shoulder? ::: "Give respect and take respect"
Cheers,
Ashok.

[Amit Badle]

hey Ash,
taking a dig at some1... especially the BIG GUY is turning as a resolve to profanity for some dudes. what u said is right give respect and take respect but who decides that??? as 4 in a capitalist society these things r a part of life. monopoly is never accepted easily...as some ppl think it as an encroachment on their freedom. even i belive in that.... then y dont v as java afficionados(sorry!!! if it sounds a bit biased) make the best of what v have 2day... after all the future still is unknown.
amit

[Andy Ceponis]

Down with the evil monster!!!

[Jane Griscti]

What's to like?

• they didn't include a mouse driver with their original DOS, you had to by it seperately in a package which also included PaintBrush
  
• same thing with their other products ... by QBasic, oops, if you want to use a database with it, upgrade; MSWorks ... not bad, oops, won't do this .. upgrade to MSWord; ... on and on and on
  
• buy up everyone who could be a possible competitor but only if you can't bury 'em first
  
• the first Windows demo was a complete sham; there was no working code behind the gui
  
• then they are the multitude of stories like this one http://windows.about.com/compute/windows/library/weekly/aa031801a.htm
  
• now they're pushing Net and C# and their licensing policy is draconian
  

One thing you've got a give Gates .. he knows how to market his wares.
[This message has been edited by Jane Griscti (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Andy Ceponis]

If i was in Microsoft's position i would do the exact same thing. They make hordes of money and they know that whatever they do they will still make bank.
That doesnt mean i have to like them though. Thats why i have never and will never pay for anything microsoft. Just my way of bucking "the man". But i still enjoy some of their products....

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Glen Tanner:
Yep, I still believe that most Java Developers develop on Windows.

Maybe. I develop on a Sun Solaris box. I have a Win NT box of course because that is what my users have and I need to test on that platform.

[Ling Wu]

Originally posted by Joseph Russell:
Doesn't everyone enjoy picking on the big guy? I think it's mainly for fun.

I think so, too:
The residents of Silicon Valley are more confused than usual after a billboard campaign by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society of America used this line in an ad slogan.
"MS: It's not a software company."
Exploiting the fame of a certain company to draw attention to an altogether worthier cause. Requests to comment on the campaign have been met by a surly silence by Microsoft which does not relish the association of ideas, but is painfully aware that it can't afford to appear insensitive over such an issue.
Seasoned IT professionals, however, will have no trouble telling the two MS's apart, so remember:
One is a debilitating and surprisingly widespread affliction that renders the sufferer barely able to perform the simplest task.
The other is a disease.


[This message has been edited by Ling Wu (edited April 23, 2001).]

[Ashok Mash]

Meanwhile I found another one !
'Anti-consumer' Microsoft dumps RealPlayer compatibility :
Oh I feel pity for Mr. Gates... after all what else he can do?
But I still believe in the process of getting their product in to our desktop, they also helped to increase PC penetration - esply in countries like mine, India, all of a sudden software became affordable, and popular.. ( thanx to piracy - no I didn't say that - still ) Any way - may be just two sides of a coin !

[Ray Marsh]

M$ is like IBM and other software/hardware venders. It's all about domination. No one wants to play nice, no one wants interoperability ( impressed? , I am! ) They all want themselves to dominate the landscape and push the others into oblivion and beyond. Some appear more ethical than others, yet somehow it's like using a Republican politician to criticize a Democrat. One criticizes the other for the way they cheat and lie, while justifying their own indiscretions.
A classic case of the kettle calling the pot, black.
Don't get me wrong, I despise M$ for many things they do and what I consider dirty dealings. I�m an old-time IBM'r ( not that old ) just feel that way lately. However, IBM has many anti-monopoly rulings against them, have had for many years. So IBM may appear to play nice at times, it's only cause they are required to by law.
As far as the anti-trust trial, against M$, that has been on-going, I believe that the government should stay out of it. Let the law of the jungle take care of it. There are still some big boys out there gunning for the top-dog spot. It's not a slam dunk for M$. Plus I'm not a big fan of government interference.
my 2.5 cents.

[erich brant]

You have to see 2 movies: 1 is called Pirates of Silicon Valley
and the other triumph of the nerd
Here are articles on XML and MS's likely plans for it!:
http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum31/HTML/000642.html

[Joel Cochran]

Dats some Catch dat Catch-22! (my favorite book in high school)
------------------
I'm a soldier in the NetScape Wars...
Joel

[Badriprasad Bumbabol]

Read this and you will know one of the reasons why :
In the past few weeks, I've spent time with Beta 2 of the next version
of Windows NT in its business desktop, home, and server versions. As you
know, Professional (business) and Personal (home) editions are called
Windows XP, whereas the server is still called "Whistler." All three are
jam-packed with a surprising number of great features. In all of its
forms, Whistler is more than just a "version 1.1" of Windows 2000.
Unfortunately, one of those "features" is a poison pill called Windows
Product Activation. And no matter HOW good Windows XP/Whistler is,
Activation might be sufficiently pernicious to make you decide to give
Whistler a miss. We still don't know a number of things about how
Activation works, but you should understand what we DO know about it--to
make your own decisions about Windows XP and Whistler.
The Activation Process
Here's how Activation works. You install Windows XP Professional,
Windows XP Personal, or Whistler Server on a system, and it runs without
restrictions from the first time that it boots up. But you soon notice a
little "balloon" message that pops out of the system tray telling you
that you have only 13 days left to "activate" your system. If you click
where the message tells you to click, as long as you're connected to the
Internet, the system basically comes right back and says, "Thanks,
you're activated." No registration, no prying questions.
What happened is that your system contacted a Microsoft server and
transmitted both your system's 25-digit product key as well as some
information about your hardware--probably things such as the CPU ID that
appeared with the Pentium III and the media access control (MAC) address
on any NICs in the system. (Sorry I'm being vague, but I don't have any
more specifics from Microsoft yet.) That information then goes into a
database on a Microsoft server that asks itself, "Has this product key
appeared before on different hardware that someone else activated?" If
that product key has shown up on too many other systems (again,
Microsoft offers no specifics about what that number is), the database
server doesn't tell your copy of Windows XP or Whistler to activate
itself, and you can't use the computer. Otherwise, the database server
tells the system to activate itself, and all's well.
As Windows XP activates, Microsoft says that the process doesn't gather
any personal information--not your name or data about your hard disk
(nothing like that). Activation has one purpose: to limit the number of
machines on which someone installs a given copy of Windows XP/Whistler.
And in case you wonder, you can activate a system that's not connected
to the Internet by calling a phone number at Microsoft; I've not seen
how it works, but I'm told that a human can take the proper information
and give you a code that lets you activate a system by hand. (Anyone
who's ever done an over-the-phone activation of Citrix's Metaframe
product can only hope that Microsoft created a better way.)
I understand Microsoft's concern about piracy, and I recognize the
company's right to enforce its copyrights. (I don't feel that software
licenses are or should be enforceable, but that's another column.) I'd
even go so far as to say that as copy protection goes, this method seems
fairly painless.
Until you start thinking about it.
Reinstallation and Reactivation
If I never had to reinstall an OS, I would have little objection.
Unfortunately, the two most effective troubleshooting techniques for
Microsoft OSs are still the "two Rs"--reboot and reinstall. So suppose I
buy a computer in December of 2001 that comes with a consumer version of
Windows XP on it. In April 2002, I install a service pack that
bluescreens the system (not an impossibility; I've seen NT service packs
do it), so I must reinstall Windows XP from scratch. But when I try to
activate the copy of Windows XP, it refuses to activate--because between
December and April, I've added more memory, installed a new hard disk,
and upgraded the processor. Microsoft's database thinks that I'm trying
to put the software on a new computer, and demurs.
At this point, Microsoft says, I'd call the company (a toll-free number)
and talk to a human, who would unlock my copy of Windows XP presuming
that I offer some bona fides. (Hold the hologram up to the NetMeeting
camera?) Now, let's be generous and presume that the phone number is
staffed 24 x 7 and that enough operators are available, so I don't wait
more than a minute or two to get connected to the human. Still, I'm
troubled.
First, having to essentially ask Microsoft's permission to reinstall my
OS--which is what this matter boils down to--rankles. I don't want to
reinstall an OS at all; I do it solely because of defects in it or in
drivers and applications. If I buy a book, read it, and decide to reread
it in a different chair, I don't have to call the publisher for
permission, no matter how many chairs I sit in as I read that book. Yes,
Microsoft will allow a "certain number" of reinstallations on
"different" hardware, but it's a fixed number. (Too bad consumers can't
force Microsoft to hold system-crashing bugs to a "certain number.")
Second, I presume that Microsoft would--or could--choose to stop
authorizing reactivations on an OS a few years down the road on the
grounds that the company no longer supports the OS--or something like
that. This notion isn't fanciful by any means because virtually every
software company would love to stop selling software--and start RENTING
it to you.
Third, Activation feels very much like the "camel's nose under the tent"
sort of ploy. Is it hard to imagine Microsoft in 5 years telling us that
just too many of us are reinstalling systems and that the company's
phone support costs are going through the roof, so it'll have to charge
a modest $25 reactivation fee? At that point, it will be a little late
for consumers to say "Well, in that case, I'll go back to Windows 2000,
which doesn't require Activation." The hook will be well set by then.
Fourth, the whole activation process assumes that Microsoft's database
servers on the Internet are up and running all the time. And although
they're pretty good, 100 percent uptime's just not a reality.
Fifth, a network trace of Activation seems to show that it's just a
secure HTTPS transaction. So what happens when a firewall product
inadvertently keeps the "okay to activate" message from getting from the
Microsoft server to your machine? Must everyone in a company make the
call to Microsoft for Activation help? (If one could "undo" or
"transfer" an activation, this situation wouldn't be quite as bad. But I
can't see how that's possible, given the way that this particular
copy-protection scheme works.)
Activation: Not Everyone's Affected
What's that you say? People won't stand for this, so it'll never happen?
Well, get ready for the clever part: You'll have to activate only those
copies of Windows XP Pro, Windows XP Personal, or Whistler Server
purchased through retail channels. CD-ROMs purchased though Open,
Select, or Enterprise licenses won't require activation.
In other words, divide and conquer.
You see, if Microsoft told big corporate and government customers that
they must do this Activation stuff, making automated rollouts all the
more difficult, big customers might well just say "no." (Just ask any IT
professional if she'd be interested in a new OS version that is actually
HARDER to roll out, and see what answer you get.) But large, medium, and
some small business customers don't (or needn't, anyway) get their OS
licenses retail--most businesses can benefit from one of the licensing
programs. The Activation process really affects only home and very small
business users, so Microsoft's high-revenue clients won't have reason to
squawk. The camel's nose appears again: If Microsoft gets away with this
with Whistler for the really little guys, then why not extend the reach
with Blackcomb (the NT after Whistler), extend it further with the next
NT, and so on? I'd hate to see a world 10 years from now, in which every
organization had to install and maintain an "activation server" that
Microsoft owned but was sited on that organization's local intranet,
policing licenses and activations--but not collecting any personal data,
of course.
I feel strongly that copyright law is important and must be enforced,
particularly in light of the importance of intellectual property in the
US economy. And, to be honest, because I make much of my income from
intellectual property, I completely understand the frustration that
Microsoft's bottom-line watchers must feel over the immeasurable number
of pirated copies of Microsoft products and the lost revenues. And I own
Microsoft stock, so in a sense I personally lose from piracy as well.
But it's bad business practice to irritate your existing customers in
hopes of finding new ones, to first establish a monopoly (remember, the
courts said it) and then exploit it to the customers' detriment. Because
that's the most odious part about this scenario: Microsoft wouldn't have
dared anything like this move without that monopoly. If that seems
unreasonable, ask yourself whether you can imagine DOS, Windows, or NT
succeeding had they required something like this?
Mark Minasi
Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine
[e-mail]

[Greg Harris]

i posted this in another thread, but it relates to the above post:
"Microsoft has confirmed that one of its regional units sent PC makers an email offering prizes for reporting customers who ordered "naked" PCs, those that lack Windows or any other operating system."
Click for full story
i built 2 machines at home, and the one with Win2000 / Win98 (dual-boot) has been formatted / reinstalled 4 or 5 times... each time i have been given a different registration key to call-in or submit electronically.
i also had to register Office 2000 on both partitions, even though it is the same box! so far Office has been registered 6 times... i am waiting for the Microsoft Police to show up at my door

[Badriprasad Bumbabol]

The Email prize most probably would be a Free CD of Windows XP Trial Version

[Andy Ceponis]

One correction. The server version is no longer called Whistler, its going to be called Windows2002. But the XP stays for the other versions.
Product activation is the gayest thing ive heard in a long time. I constantly change my computer's hardware. There is no way i am going to ask MS if i can go ahead and reinstall because i changed my hardware. MS has even acknowledged the fact that there will be a crack out to bypass the activation within a week of XP's release.

[Jane Griscti]

I just purchased an MS product ... not that I wanted to give Gates any more money; it hurt like hell paying for it but I also believe theft; no matter how you justify it, is wrong. What blew me away was the following text that appeared in the licensing:

9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Translation: Java can kill you!
MS is so subtle
And please don't post that this could be true (once had to listen to someone drone on and on about the design of IBM PC fans and how dangerous they could be on oil rigs). The warning was in MS Office 2000 ... who's going to install it as a Control System???
One of the best, and well written rants I've seen against MS is here: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html

[Greg Harris]

we actually used Wind95 on my ship in the Navy... we used an old Excel spreadsheet with macros to search through COUNTLESS radars and missile radio frequency signatures (we built the database on the way to the Arabian Gulf from San Diego). my job was missile defense, so time was critical... granted, we only used it as a suppliment to our normal gear, so it did not matter too much if it crashed. we thought we were really cool when we got win98 my last year on the ship.

[Ray Marsh]

Jane... That link was great! I didn't read the whole thing, didn't need to. No need to convince me of M$ shortcomings.
The best part was the beginning where the warning boxes that popped up....
! Warning you are using MS ie5 !
! Are you sure you want to do this?
! Dont say I didn't warn you !
Loved it!

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Ray Marsh:
! Warning you are using MS ie5 !

Did u note that it was "Warning You are using Microshaft ie5 !".
That was a good one! Agreed. But still I think they are acting just like any other software company. Trying to pool more profit and more profit. And there were no real compitition, who could win the war, either by good or by ugly tricks.. isn't that true?
Cheers,
Ashok

[Ray Marsh]

I didn't notice the "Microshaft"
M$ has taken software company greed to new levels and new ground.
Yes software companies tend to commit legalized highway robbery, however, M$ has taken it into legendary territory.

[erich brant]

Microsofts "plans" for the future very very scary
http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000443.html
I personally think that MS has its good side and bad side.
I am hoping XBOX will be a hit because in that space MS
is not a monopoly like the others that are ( sega never was)

[erich brant]

why Linux rules :
Because with 1 linux cdrom one can install linux on
an infinite number of computers ! for the cost of
the cdrom !

Linux can be downloaded and then burned on to
cdroms legally or go to a bookstore and get linux cdroms
that come with books on linux for 19 bucks up to 49 bucks.
Linux comes with tons of free software !
Office applications:
go to www.sun.com/staroffice
(Star office is free and open source ! )
webserver - www.apache.org
free books and linux documents ?
www.linuxdoc.org

Mandrake linux is the best in my opinion check it out !
easiest to use ! http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/
www.redhat.com
www.suse.com Most popular in europe
Linux and Java ?
great book on It !
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571691669/qid=989200140/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_2/102-5837959-6188129

Books for Linux here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-5837959-6188129
PS: for the Gui use KDE it is rock solid because gnome is
newer.
Also you need 128 SDRam as a mininum for running the newest
Linux version with the gui.
Without the gui you need <16 megs to run in terminal mode.
(Its like DOS )

[erich brant]

This is the linux superguide !
http://www.techtv.com/superguides/linux/

http://www.linuxnewbies.org/
Tons of open source here !
http://www.sourceforge.net/

http://www.linux.com/learn/ Learning linux here !

http://www.linux.ie/ Irish linux users group

http://www.ilug-cal.org/ Asian indian linux users group

Massive list of user groups here !
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Linux+user+groups

The best linux gui Kandauf ( Gandauf from the Hobbit )
http://www.kde.org/
James Gandolfini of the Sopranos ( U got a problem with that ?)

Linux Distrubitions list
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Linux+Distributions
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Linux+Distributions&hc=3&hs=44&b=18&h=s

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Linux+Distributions&hc=3&hs=44&b=38&h=s
http://www.linux.org/dist/
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/
http://www.linuxberg.com/distribution.html
http://www.linuxhq.com/dist.html

Halloween papers : How the empire tried to
discredit LINUX
http://www.opensource.org/site_index.html

[Anonymous]

Jane, that "Java can kill you" paragraph is part of Sun's license agreement. You will also see it when you install the JDK. Even Sun acknowledges that "Java can kill you". But I'll be not as fast as C++.

[Jane Griscti]

Whoa! Really? Never noticed it during the JDK install. Ok, so the 'evil empire' ain't quite as bad as I thought; see what preconceived notions can do to you, you only see what you want to I am, therefore, I don't need to think

[erich brant]

"The java can kill you" is to protect them from lawsuits !
It does not mean java is less stable then C/C++.
For stable code (bugless) the key is the programmer not the lang.

[erich brant]

Linux book for users of win98/winme/winnt/wink2 and MCSE's

http://www.minasi.com/linuxbk.htm

Linux videos ! at
http://www.klscorp.com/

[Greg Harris]

erich,
i have the "Java Programming on Linux" book you listed above and i LOVE IT! i am learning to use Linux at the same time as Java, so this book is a HUGE help...
just thought i would give the book some more advertising.
[This message has been edited by Greg Harris (edited May 07, 2001).]

[Ashok Mash]

I am a Linux Novice -
My one and only encounter with Linux leaves me with these mommories :- Once I tried to install Linux ( Red Hat 2 or 3 ) couple of years back. I crashed a NT system for a reason to install Linux But then I simply coulnt get it uninstalled it !!
After repartitioning & formating the whole harddisk a number of time, when I rebooted with NT installation, again I got a LILO Boot... that was the most horrible installation night ( upto 4:30 AM ) I had... I has absolutely no clue about FDISK /f !!
Ok, now my point is..
since Linux is an open standard, and so many versions/vendors of Linux is out there, will there be a situation in future that if I write some code/application which makes use of very advanced/specific components of say, RedHat Linux - can I be 100% sure that, my code will work in all other versions of Linux?
Sorry if my question is too stupid.. See I have just started thinkinig about Linux for Dummies...
Cheers !
Ashok

[Stuart Ash]

Originally posted by J Ash:
Why every body is so dead against Microsoft? Even an all-techie-one-line-story spins up mocking Microsoft.... In fact doesn't that show the actual importance Microsoft have in today’s IT world, where most of us find our bread and butter?

Though I am not a fan of Microsoft and its policies , I not bold enough to criticize them for each and every thing they do, when I am using MS products in all around.. even to write this mail....

Convince me please.....

Cheers,

Ashok.
[Bill... my 2p please...]

I had once seen a raging discussion on this topic surprisingly in, I think, a Python list. An rancher participated in that one as well??

[Paul Bourdeaux]

For the record... I personally don't have any problems with Microsoft. Sometimes I think that many (not all) MS haters do so only because they have been endocrined in that particular ideology by their mentors (who actually had good reasons to be MS haters). There are some valid reasons for not liking Microsoft, but I would guess that most of the new generation of MS haters haven't got a clue as to what they are. My favorite three complaints that people make about MS:

3) Sure, people will always be quick to blast MS for the amount of money they make off from their software (even though they forget to mention the [b]billions[/i] of dollars the Gates family donates to charity)... How dare they actually make money on a product...

2) When MS releases a new product, you have to pay for the upgrade. I.e. Works --> Word. Is MS really the only company that does this? I remember paying to upgrade from Quicken 2002 to Quicken 2003... to 2004 to 2005 and most recently to Quicken 2006. Heck, my antivirus software charges me a yearly subscription fee. And I don't remember MS charging for Service Pack 1 or 2, or any of the thousands of updates I have downloaded since I installed XP in 2001.

1) Microsoft is full of security holes! MS is the biggest, juiciest target. So of course people have found more ways to exploit security deficiencies. That doesn't mean that they aren't there in Mac or Linux... it just means that they haven't been found yet.

Just my $0.02
[ December 29, 2005: Message edited by: Paul Bourdeaux ]

[Bert Bates]

My two cents:

As has been eloquently stated already in this thread, M$ products are invasive. In every way. For instance if ever my machine suddenly starts to slow down, the first thing that comes to mind is that I've inadvertently left a M$ application open. For instance if someone sends me a "word" document, M$ Word will promptly grab HALF A GIGABYTE of my RAM! Why? Why? Why? And when I close the tiny little two page document, Word doesn't give me back my HALF A GIGABYTE of RAM!

Security is an obvious problem with M$.

Reliability. I think that Operating Systems should. And Window$ doesn't. If you baby it, it might run for a day without crashing, not good enough. I wouldn't mind paying them their asking prices for their products if they actually worked!

Arrogance. I don't want Word to "help" me without asking. I don't want an application to default to a behavior of changing what I type (apart from maybe a spell checker), unless I ask it to. I don't want Word to assume that I want a bulleted list...and on and on.

Their products are hard to use and they lack aesthetics. This is more important than mere "style" points...learning studies have shown that good looking products are easier to use than ugly ones, and M$ products are simply ugly.

Innovation is subverted in favor of profit. Their products tend to lag a decade behind whatever their state-of-the-art competitors offer, and the only reason I can imagine that this is true is because M$ spends so much time trying to figure out how to squeeze every last dime out of a product rather than spending time actually making it good.

Okay, okay... I'll walk away now,

[Ram Bhakt]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
My two cents:
As has been eloquently stated already in this thread, M$ products are invasive. In every way. For instance if ever my machine suddenly starts to slow down, the first thing that comes to mind is that I've inadvertently left a M$ application open. For instance if someone sends me a "word" document, M$ Word will promptly grab HALF A GIGABYTE of my RAM! Why? Why? Why? And when I close the tiny little two page document, Word doesn't give me back my HALF A GIGABYTE of RAM!

Really? I have used MSWord on W98, Win2K, and now on WinXP. I never had this problem. As soon as I close last word doc the I see that the exe goes away in the taskmanager. I just re-verified this right now.

In fact, Acrobat reader has this problem. Even after closing all pdf files, acroread32.exe (and multiple instances of it actually) keep lingering around until I kill them. I hate that.

Security is an obvious problem with M$.

Can't really defend it on that point. Windows is inherently an all trusting OS. It assumes that the user knows what he/she is doing and depending on the rights, it will allow the user to sabotage the system. So yes, it is only as secure as the smartness of the user.

Reliability. I think that Operating Systems should. And Window$ doesn't. If you baby it, it might run for a day without crashing, not good enough. I wouldn't mind paying them their asking prices for their products if they actually worked!

Again, really??? I am right now working on my WinXP professional box and it hasn't been rebooted in a month. I know that because I rebooted it last month to load some drivers for dual monitors. Before XP, I have extensively used 2000 Proff and it ran without any issues for months. I do heavy Java development using netbeans, which I have to restart quite often because netbeans apparantly doesn't release memory after you terminate tomcat debugging session.

Yes, win95 and win98 were crash prone.

Lot of our applications, databases (MSSQL) are on Windows 2000 Enterprise (server) boxes and they run without any crash. I am not talking about mom and pop store applications here. I am talking about a huge financial company whose trading depends on these servers and databases.

If your win2k or XP box is crashing on you, I would suggest you to investigate any rogue application that you might be running.

Arrogance. I don't want Word to "help" me without asking. I don't want an application to default to a behavior of changing what I type (apart from maybe a spell checker), unless I ask it to. I don't want Word to assume that I want a bulleted list...and on and on.

That's pretty much a usability issue. Most of the MS applications are for common public i.e. non geeks. I am sure MS have done quite a bit of leg work in determining how to make their product more helpful to their core market. Otherwise, we would still be using Wordstar. Yes, it does get irritating sometimes but over all I think I like it. Also, most of the options that you are talking about can be turned off. You just need to read the fabulous manual

Their products are hard to use and they lack aesthetics. This is more important than mere "style" points...learning studies have shown that good looking products are easier to use than ugly ones, and M$ products are simply ugly.

Well, I strongly disagree with this. I think huge credit goes to MS for the popularity of personal computing. Do you really think PC would be so popular with only Unix (and clones) around? There can be a big discussion on this but the bottom line is that Unix clones are still strugging to find a place on a common man's desktop. It is precisely the ease of use (which, understandably, brings other issues too such as security), of MS OS and apps that has allowed it to flourish.

Asthetics? Ugly? Can't really argue with that. If you find them ugly, so be it. I personally find Unix interfaces ugly and hard to work with.

Innovation is subverted in favor of profit. Their products tend to lag a decade behind whatever their state-of-the-art competitors offer, and the only reason I can imagine that this is true is because M$ spends so much time trying to figure out how to squeeze every last dime out of a product rather than spending time actually making it good.

I am sure you have a lot more industry experience than I do so I would like to ask you a couple of examples that prove that MS products lag 10 yrs behind their state of the art competitors. While I agree that they may be lagging a couple of years but I think that that is their business model. They see where the market it going and act accordingly (instead of making the market). What's wrong with that approach? Producing cutting edge products is never a requirement for running a business. It is policy that a company may adopt or not.


In this era of Enrons and Worldcoms, I think MS has done well to earn my respect.

[Michael Ernest]

If M$ could be accused of competing within the bounds for the consumer market, that would be a different matter. Problem is, the fact that so many other players in the market must bow to M$ one way or another means we get products by force, not innovation.

[Ram Bhakt]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
If M$ could be accused of competing within the bounds for the consumer market, that would be a different matter. Problem is, the fact that so many other players in the market must bow to M$ one way or another means we get products by force, not innovation.

I do agree with that. But hey, no nobody is perfect

[Bert Bates]

Hey Ram,

Well I have to confess that I'm a big Mac fan - and the Word problems that I talked about have all occured on Macs, not PC's - it's probably just M$ punishing us Mac users

Security is an obvious problem with M$.

Can't really defend it on that point. Windows is inherently an all trusting OS. It assumes that the user knows what he/she is doing and depending on the rights, it will allow the user to sabotage the system. So yes, it is only as secure as the smartness of the user.

I don't think that that's a good enough answer. Scott McNealy has said (this isn't an exact quote), "Anyone using ME in a government facility could reasonably be charged with treason." His point is that ME is so full of security flaws that no transactions that require any level of security should be attempted using ME.

quote:

Reliability. I think that Operating Systems should. And Window$ doesn't. If you baby it, it might run for a day without crashing, not good enough. I wouldn't mind paying them their asking prices for their products if they actually worked!

Again, really??? I am right now working on my WinXP professional box and it hasn't been rebooted in a month. I know that because I rebooted it last month to load some drivers for dual monitors. Before XP, I have extensively used 2000 Proff and it ran without any issues for months. I do heavy Java development using netbeans, which I have to restart quite often because netbeans apparantly doesn't release memory after you terminate tomcat debugging session.

Yes, win95 and win98 were crash prone.

Again, I must confess that for the most part I've been able to escape M$ for the last several years, and the last significant time I spent on a M$ OS was indeed win98. I would have to say though that apart from what has seemed like marketing hype, I haven't heard lots of people saying that post-98 OSs have changed their lives To be fair, I'll concede that I don't have significant direct experience with their newer offerings.

Arrogance. I don't want Word to "help" me without asking. I don't want an application to default to a behavior of changing what I type (apart from maybe a spell checker), unless I ask it to. I don't want Word to assume that I want a bulleted list...and on and on.

That's pretty much a usability issue. Most of the MS applications are for common public i.e. non geeks. I am sure MS have done quite a bit of leg work in determining how to make their product more helpful to their core market. Otherwise, we would still be using Wordstar. Yes, it does get irritating sometimes but over all I think I like it. Also, most of the options that you are talking about can be turned off. You just need to read the fabulous manual.

I infer that you think usability issues are minor. I think that they're huge and central to the quality of the product. I think that what really drives M$ (and a lot of other companies too) is the belief that more features are better than fewer features. I believe the business model is that if they can tack a few more features on, they can "upgrade" their product, and charge everyone for it. My experience has been that most everyday users dread having to install a new version of Word or Excel. It means unlearning that which wasn't broken, and learning new interfaces that have changed for (often) undocumented and arbitrary reasons.

Their products are hard to use and they lack aesthetics. This is more important than mere "style" points...learning studies have shown that good looking products are easier to use than ugly ones, and M$ products are simply ugly.

Well, I strongly disagree with this. I think huge credit goes to MS for the popularity of personal computing. Do you really think PC would be so popular with only Unix (and clones) around? There can be a big discussion on this but the bottom line is that Unix clones are still strugging to find a place on a common man's desktop. It is precisely the ease of use (which, understandably, brings other issues too such as security), of MS OS and apps that has allowed it to flourish.

Asthetics? Ugly? Can't really argue with that. If you find them ugly, so be it. I personally find Unix interfaces ugly and hard to work with.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Unix's aesthetics either, but M$ is WAY behind Apple. It's clear that Apple cares about aesthetics, and M$ really doesn't. M$ certainly has the funding to hire decent designers, but they don't appear to. I really think M$ has a geek sensibility that's been foist upon the public.

Innovation is subverted in favor of profit. Their products tend to lag a decade behind whatever their state-of-the-art competitors offer, and the only reason I can imagine that this is true is because M$ spends so much time trying to figure out how to squeeze every last dime out of a product rather than spending time actually making it good.

I am sure you have a lot more industry experience than I do so I would like to ask you a couple of examples that prove that MS products lag 10 yrs behind their state of the art competitors. While I agree that they may be lagging a couple of years but I think that that is their business model. They see where the market it going and act accordingly (instead of making the market). What's wrong with that approach? Producing cutting edge products is never a requirement for running a business. It is policy that a company may adopt or not.

I'm sure that arguments can be made that their OS isn't a "decade" behind OSX, but I'd venture to say that it's close. I don't think they have anything in the ballpark of Photoshop or InDesign. Again, the problem isn't that their products are terrible (well, some are), it's that they're mediocre, and lots of innocent people get stuck with them. If, in fact, their newer OSs are more stable, "doesn't crash much" is hardly the basis for a marketing campaign.

In this era of Enrons and Worldcoms, I think MS has done well to earn my respect

I think that comparing M$ favorably to Enron is to damn them with faint praise

[Ram Bhakt]

Thanks for your comments, Bert. I have absolutely no experience on Mac. So I guess we are not really suitable to debate with each other

Some points anyway,

1. I have been hearing people stouting Macs superiority over WinXXX since I started working...about 8 yrs ago. While I am sure there is something about Mac ( no pun intended ), I don't understand why it is not popular? When I go to local best buy or compUSA, I see Mac boxes, which I agree look very pretty, that are so expensive. When I compare the specs, I find that Mac boxes are way underpowered, have smaller harddrive and lesser RAM than other PCs. I don't get it. Why do people buy it??? Is it just the looks?

2. I have never used WinME but I can certainly tell you that post-98 OSs have changed my life. I keep my home PC and office PC always on. I never shutthem down unless I have install some things that explicitly ask for a reboot. I am very happy with most of the apps I use - Word, Outlook Express ( I have tried Mozilla Thunderbird too but went back to OE), IE, and MSN Messenger. And since Java works well on WinXXX too, I don't need any expensive OSs or PCs. Other apps that I use less frequently are Photoshop, and Paintshop both of which work well on Win2k and XP.

But yes, there is no doubt that WinXXX are inherently less secure than Unix. Not sure if that can ever change because the reason that allows having such a huge application base, contributes to its inherent insecurity.

BTW, Scott McNealy's comments are pretty much useless because ME was never meant for corporate use in the first place (and neither were 95 and 98). NT, 2000, and XP are for corporate use and they do their job well there. It's like saying anybody using a Segway for a cross country drive should be .....whatever.

3. What I have observed is that MS usually enters a market late, but when they enter, they enter fully prepared. They better the existing products and deliver a good value for money proposition. As of now, I don't think MS has entered the market for Professional Image Editor s/w so I don't think it is fair to bring Photoshop into picture or InDesign ( I don't know what that is though).

It would be fair to talk about Excel and Outlook (they bettered Lotus Notes), Visio (yes, they bought the company but I consider it as a MS product now), Money, IE (yes, I think even IE bettered the existing browsers such as Navigator), and even MSN Messenger.
So basically, what I am saying is that they have almost always beaten the competitors in terms of functionality, and price.

4. To be frank, I don't believe that upgrading Word or Excell is an issue at all. I am running Word 2000 on my personal laptop since 2000, and have never upgraded. In office, I use Word 2002 and I don't see any difference in terms of user interface. All the menus work exactly the same as before. There are new options, which are harmless if you don't even know about them. There is absolutely no "relearning" or anything of that sort that you seem to claim. I would really like to know which feature changed in Word from 2000 to 2002. Or even in Excel.
Further, you don't really have to upgrade. If you are satisfied with what the product is doing, why upgrade? If you are not, then either upgrade or return the product for full refund. Isn't it common sense?
I would like to know which product have you used which did not change its US all after an upgrade.
You want to use new features and at the same time you don't want to learn new things....I don't think that's fair and I don't think that is possible either.


Upgrading an existing product is a standard practice since time immemorial. Auto companies upgrade their models every year, books are upgraded every year, electronics get upgraded everyyear. But that doesn't mean you have to buy it every year, does it? So why all the fuss about upgrading s/w?
I am not sure but wasn't MacOS upgraded like twice in past 2-3 yrs??? Haven't they had problems with their Safari browser? I don't follow Mac news much but I did read something to that effect on several newsgroups.

5. I don't think usability issues are minor at all. On the contrary, I believe that usability issues are the most important part of the product.

What I am saying is that MS won precisly on that front. It made products that were far more usable for ordinary people than anything else on the market. It is not possible to please everybody and therefore it is an extremely difficult task to make a product that pleases majority of the market. MS did just that, while others failed.


BTW, you left an important point in my previous post unanswered: Do you really think PC would be so popular with only Unix (and clones) around? (I think Mac is a Unix based OS too, right?)

In my mind, that pretty much nails it. I think that's what makes me respect MS a lot more than any other company.

On the offshoot, I heard long time back IBM OS2/Warp was quite advanced. I don't know why it dies but I don't think MS's strong arm tactics were the reason because IBM is also equally powerful.