Slashdot Mirror

I remember when the internet for me consisted of the Berkeley Mac Users Group (Now PlanetMUG) - a local BBS. People sharing icon collections, sound clips, game demos and postings about how the hell to use RESedit.

Those were the good old days, before spyware and major spam. Back in those days everyone was just trying to help out everyone else. The community the internet once had, which meant general positive regard for most people you met - is no longer.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

At that time, PC viruses weren't so much of a problem. But as the home PC market exploded, viruses grew along with it, and there soon came a point where no one in their right mind so much as DIR'd a floppy without scanning it first.

Similarly, in the era when shared floppies were the primary infection vector, and the average PC ran plain old DOS, nearly all PC viruses targeted either the boot sector or ordinary DOS executables. Now, when hardly anyone uses floppies but everyone uses the net (mostly via vulnerable Windows apps/script engines), the internet has become the major transmission vectors, while boot sector/file infector/DOS-based viruses have fallen out of fashion.

Point being, viruses are written primarily for mass-market platforms and utilize mass-market vectors, and it really doesn't matter what that platform or vector IS. Virus targets shift right along with the consumer market. After all, there is an ego factor involved: who wants to be known as the lamer who infected three XTs and a Mac, when they could be known as the [perjorative] superhacker [/perjorative] who infected 10 million PCs worldwide??

MS charged us $150/h to talk to us

Well, when factoring support into TCO, don forget to include this study.

This would be funnier if it weren't so accurate: Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

And I'm not just MS bashing. I've had experiences with MS tech that closely resemble these. Every time I hear a PHB say "We have to use MS, becase we need the support" I just laugh and laugh and laugh. Then I go back to my office and cry.

"This is one of the better comments on this thread."

To me, these comments seem utterly out of touch with reality. I find bugs and insufficiencies in open source software. But generally open source software impresses me as an attempt to do a good job.

In contrast, Microsoft software seems just sloppy. For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer has 18 unpatched security bugs (when this was written). These active security risks are different from the recent 15 that have already been fixed. This is sloppiness, not mistakes, and I don't find anything like it in the open source world.

When I have a problem with open source software, I find that I can get help. When I call Microsoft, I find that, usually, no one with whom I am allowed to talk knows any answers. Right now, for example, no one seems to know how to repair a new, Intel Motherboard, Windows XP installation that won't create a virtual memory paging file. It's buggy, and nothing can be done other than re-install the OS and all the applications.

If you find a big problem in open source software, chances are that you will communicate directly with the main authors. With Microsoft, I have not been able to get answers. This article says that the Psychic Friends Network is equally as good as Microsoft technical support: Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network The conclusion of the article seems reasonable considering my experience with Microsoft. Neither organization has useful answers, but The Psychic friends Network is more friendly and less expensive.

See Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

The conclusion: The Psychic Friends Network is better at answering technical support questions for Microsoft products. Neither organization has useful answers, but The Psychic Friends Network is more friendly and less expensive.

A great piece of satire/research dealing with the "usefulness" of Tech Support can be found HERE

I have seen a comparison done on the difference between MS Tech Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network.

It is obvious who should win but just in case you want to be sure go and see for yourself :)

But its not up to the standard of the Psychic Friends Network

Here's a review of how well MS's tech support really works: http://www.bmug.org/news/articles/MSvsPF.html

...You can call microsoft and get tech support...

Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to call microsoft! You can call, but don't count on much support if it isn't in the KB. I know, I've tried. There is an article floating around comparing microsoft to the psychic friends network. Read it here.

dlb, we must have very different support needs. Microsoft has never been able to help my company with Windows operating system problems. They never know the answers, and can't find them. True, we only call with difficult problems.

My experience has been identical to that discussed in the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) about who is better at answering Microsoft product technical support calls: Microsoft Technical Support, or The Psychic Friends Network? You can read it at http://www.bmug.org/news/articles/MSvsPF.html

Actually, this comparison has been done by BMUG. You can find the results of their "study" here. (No goat links, I promise)

Actually, this comparison has been done by BMUG. You can find the results of their "study" here. (No goat links, I promise)

To establish your own private and secure personalized support web page where you can interact with our award-winning Microsoft Support professionals, first time users will need to (1) sign-up for Passport or sign-in to Passport and (2) complete a profile.

My question here is, when were Microsoft's support professionals ever award-winning? Awards for most useless perhaps? I'm sorry, but I've heard nothing particularly good said about Microsoft tech support, except that if they really don't know the answer, they might not slug you with a $200 fee. Never mind that you've actually purchased the software and are a competent computer user or anything. (For anyone who hasn't read it, have a look at Microsoft Technical Support vs. the Psychic Friends Network.)

I know this is redundant, but I know people are too lazy to cut and paste, so the link is helpful.

Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network...

http://www.bmug.org/news/articles/MSvsPF.html

in most cases you're not paying for any actual support, you're simply buying a scape-goat.

i can't remember the last time i had a useful conversation or email with a support tech ... most problem-solving occurs when the user goes out and finds the answer in a 3rd party faq or website (im sure there's a rule for it, but it seems that the less affiliation a website has with a company, the more useful it's information tends to be).

of corse, you could just be spending that money on the Psychic Friends Network:
Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

_f

In my extensive experience with Microsoft, since the days before PCs existed and we had the CP/M OS, Microsoft has only answered one question correctly. That was a question about a C compiler problem.

Obviously, part of the reason my friends and I don't get help from Microsoft is that we don't call to ask easy questions. No doubt Microsoft provides help to many of its customers who are novices.

I have called Microsoft technical support about operating system problems many many times, and they have NEVER been able to solve the problems, although once a technical support representative and I worked out a solution together, after 4 difficult hours.

Once about four years ago I talked to a friendly Microsoft technical support representative. He was very knowledgeable. I had a written list of questions about Windows. He was able to give me no answers. He just laughed at some of them and said he wouldn't know how to begin finding the solution. He did, however, provide me with some very useful information concerning problems I wasn't currently having. I remember this representative so clearly because I called expecting the usual Microsoft roughness, and he was friendly.

I liked the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) titled: Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network: Which Provides Better Support for Microsoft Products?

Look at the problems mentioned in the BMUG article. They seem to me to have a typical quality to them. To me it seems that many of the most difficult problems with Microsoft products are ones that come from programmers who just don't care about doing a good job.

Neither Microsoft Technical Support nor The Psychic Friends Network were able to answer any of the questions, but the BMUG article says: "... the Psychic Friends Network has a distinct edge over Microsoft in the areas of courtesy, response time, and cost of support ..." I liked this article because it is the only one I've read which exactly mirrors my experience with Microsoft.

I think I would find the BMUG article more humorous if it weren't about such a painful subject.

Microsoft's Flawed Business Model -- The Microsoft business model is extremely flawed because it is heavily influenced by conflict of interest. It is in Microsoft's financial interest NEVER to deliver a good operating system. If they deliver a good operating system, that will be the last operating system most of its customers will buy.

Microsoft is a huge company, much bigger than most of the retail customers they might serve. If you have a problem, chances are they are too large to care.

Microsoft's Abusiveness -- Microsoft has a history of being abusive. The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is titled Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion.

No one, apparently, has gathered all the abuses in one place. If that were done, we would have an important way to show why Open Source/GNU is better.

Abusiveness is one of the biggest reasons to stay away from Microsoft. Stay away from habitual abusers if you don't want to be abused. Even if Microsoft technical support could answer my questions, I don't like their arrogant manner. I don't want to have to accept abuse to get something I want.

Contrast Microsoft's abusiveness with the friendliness of the Open Source/GNU community. One Sunday about 8 AM, I sent an e-mail message to an important person in the community, requesting information for an article I was writing. I was surprised to get a complete answer less than 3 hours later. It is possible that you have a problem that people in the Open Source/GNU community cannot answer, but they will usually be extemely friendly while they are discussing it.

Closed source software is like sausage. -- Closed source software is like sausage. You don't know what's in it. If you did know what was in it, maybe you wouldn't want it. Has the U.S. government forced Microsoft to put back doors into its software, so that the U.s. can more easily spy? You don't know and you may never know.

Disclaimer Nonsense -- The Microsoft document gives importance to Red Hat's 10-Q disclaimer. But look at Microsoft's disclaimer at the end of the article. It is much more sweeping: MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. Basically, this disclaimer says that Microsoft does not have to be honest.

Microsoft Windows Encourages Playing. -- A huge problem with Microsoft's operating systems in a retail environment is that there are large numbers of minimum wage workers who like to play with the OS. Sometimes I have arrived to do system maintenance and found that the cursor has become a spider. Sometimes I have found systems that have been re-configured to allow exploits. Microsoft Windows 2000 may have a lot of security features, but it has no defense against someone who knows the passwords. If you know retail environments, you know that there will be times that the passwords are compromised. It is much better to have an OS that does not look familiar and does not invite playing.

Here is a typical scenario. Joe and John are night shift workers at a fast food restaurant. Joe is senior at 23. He makes $8.50 per hour. John is 19 and makes $7.65 per hour. They often find themselves bored when business is slow.

One night they find that the store manager has left his desk open. In his desk they find a list of passwords.

Joe and John have both had computers since the early years of high school. They decide to try to load a game one of them has at home. But Windows 2000 doesn't work well with some games. The game doesn't run, but they leave the system in an unstable state.

Retail hardware is very standard and conservative. -- In a retail environment, you want a fixed solution. You buy the hardware and software, and the two work together as a unit until you buy new hardware and software. Once you make it work, chances are there will be no need for big changes. In a retail environment, you try to buy very standard hardware.

Usually this hardware interacts in a manner that is well behind the frontiers of technology. For example, receipt printers use very standard interfaces. Yes, Microsoft has more drivers, but in a retail environment you won't need to support the latest game.

This is just a short list. -- This is just a very short list of answers to Microsoft's article. I would like to see a comprehensive list. If we can get a team together to write one, I will help.

If I were Red Hat's marketing manager, I would have no trouble selling against Microsoft. Unfortunately, Red Hat does not have a strong marketing department.

Microsoft receives little effective criticism. -- People who write comments on Slashdot often complain about Microsoft. But, since the complaints are usually brief and not well documented, the aggregate result is that Microsoft receives little effective criticism.

Michael Jennings
Futurepower Computer Systems
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606

E-Mail: mikejen@hevanet.com
E-Mail: Futurepower@MailAndNews.com
Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001 by Michael Jennings.

Let's answer Microsoft's criticism. -- I'd like to see an article that discusses the Linux side of the issues mentioned by Microsoft.

Lack of Technical Support -- For example, I have found Microsoft technical support useless. I know someone who headed the system administration at the headquarters of a $300,000,000 a year company, and he also found MS technical support useless. Microsoft's technical support representatives didn't know why SQL Server was failing, and they could not discover the reason.

In my extensive experience with Microsoft, since the days before PCs existed and we had the CP/M OS, Microsoft has only answered one question correctly. That was a question about a C compiler problem.

Obviously, part of the reason I don't get help from Microsoft is that I don't call to ask easy questions. I'm sure that Microsoft provides help to many of its customers who are novices.

I have called Microsoft technical support about operating system problems many times, and they have NEVER been able to solve the problems, although once a technical support representative and I worked out a solution together, after 4 difficult hours.

Once about four years ago I talked to a friendly Microsoft technical support representative. He was very knowledgeable. I had a written list of questions about Windows. He was able to give me no answers. He just laughed at some of them and said he wouldn't know how to begin finding the solution. He did, however, provide me with some very useful information concerning problems I wasn't currently having. I remember this representative so clearly because I called expecting the usual Microsoft roughness, and he was friendly.

I liked the article published by the Boston Mac User's Group (BMUG) about who is better at answering Microsoft product technical support calls: Microsoft Technical Support, or The Psychic Friends Network? You can read it at Microsoft Technical Support vs. The Psychic Friends Network

Look at the problems mentioned in the BMUG article. They seem to me to have a typical quality to them. It seems that many of the most difficult problems with Microsoft products are ones that come from programmers who just don't care about doing a good job.

Neither Microsoft Technical Support nor The Psychic Friends Network were able to answer any of the questions, but the BMUG article says: "... the Psychic Friends Network has a distinct edge over Microsoft in the areas of courtesy, response time, and cost of support ..." I liked this article because it is the only one I've read which exactly mirrors my experience with Microsoft.

I think I would find the BMUG article more humorous if it weren't about such a painful subject.

Microsoft's Flawed Business Model -- The Microsoft business model is extremely flawed because it is heavily influenced by conflict of interest. It is in Microsoft's financial interest NEVER to deliver a good operating system. If Microsoft delivers a good operating system, that will be the last operating system most of its customers will buy.

Microsoft is a huge company, much bigger than most of the retail customers they might serve. If you have a problem, chances are they are too large to care.

Microsoft's Abusiveness -- Microsoft has a history of being abusive. The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)

No one, apparently, has gathered all Microsoft's abuses in one place. If that were done, we would have an important way to show why Open Source/GNU is better.

Abusiveness is one of the biggest reasons to avoid Microsoft. Avoid habitual abusers if you don't want to be abused. Even if Microsoft technical support representatives could answer my questions, I don't want to be forced to experience their arrogant manner. I don't want to have to accept abuse to get something I want.

Contrast Microsoft's abusiveness with the friendliness of the Open Source/GNU community. One Sunday about 8 AM, I sent an e-mail message to an important person in the community, requesting information for an article I was writing. I was surprised to get a complete answer less than 3 hours later. It is possible that you have a problem that people in the Open Source/GNU community cannot answer, but they will usually be extremely friendly while they are discussing it.

Closed source software is like sausage. -- Closed source software is like sausage. You don't know what's in it. If you did know what was in it, maybe you wouldn't want it. Has the U.S. government forced Microsoft to put back doors into its software, so that the U.S. can more easily spy? You don't know and you may never know.

Disclaimer Nonsense -- The Microsoft document pretends that Red Hat's 10-Q disclaimer is important. But look at Microsoft's disclaimer at the end of the article. It is much more sweeping: MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. Basically, this disclaimer says that Microsoft does not have to be honest.

Microsoft Windows Encourages Playing. -- A huge problem with Microsoft's operating systems in a retail environment is that there are large numbers of minimum wage workers who like to play with the OS. Sometimes I have arrived to do system maintenance and found that the cursor has become a spider. Sometimes I have found systems that have been re-configured to allow exploits. Microsoft Windows 2000 may have a lot of security features, but it has no defense against someone who knows the passwords. If you know retail environments, you know that there will be times that the passwords are compromised. It is much better to have an OS that does not look familiar and does not invite playing.

Here is a typical scenario. Joe and John are night shift workers at a fast food restaurant. Joe is senior at 23. He makes $8.50 per hour. John is 19 and makes $7.65 per hour. They often find themselves bored when business is slow.

One night they discover that the store manager has left his desk open. In his desk they find a list of passwords.

Joe and John have both had computers since the early years of high school. They decide to try to load a game one of them has at home. But Windows 2000 doesn't work well with some games. The game doesn't run, but they leave the system in an unstable state.

Retail hardware is very standard and conservative. -- In a retail environment, you want a fixed solution. You buy the hardware and software, and the two work together as a unit until you buy new hardware and software. Once you make it work, chances are there will be no need for big changes. Microsoft's statements about upgrading often are not based on reality. My experience has been that there are few operating system upgrades.

In a retail environment, you try to buy very standard hardware. Usually this hardware interacts in a manner that is well behind the frontiers of technology. For example, receipt printers use very standard interfaces. Yes, Microsoft has more drivers, but in a retail environment you won't need to support the latest game.

This is just a short list. -- This is just a very short list of answers to Microsoft's article. I would like to see comprehensive answers. If we can get a team together to write one, I will help.

If I were Red Hat's marketing manager, I would have no trouble selling against Microsoft. Unfortunately, Red Hat does not have a strong marketing department.

Microsoft receives little effective criticism. -- People who write comments on Slashdot often complain about Microsoft. But, since the complaints are usually brief and not well documented, the aggregate result is that Microsoft receives little criticism that would be effective with non-technical people.

Seriously, it's here

While they have evolved from the Hermes and Fido BBSes of old, there are still a bunch out there and some have successfully migrated their paradigm to the internet.

My favorite examples are FirstClass systems. They have real forum areas, real chat, the ability to 'yell' at other people who are online right now, their own internal email systems, file upload and downloads, and they work seamlessly with dialups and TCP connections at the same time.

check out PlanetMUG, the evolutionary step of the Berkeley Mac User's Group, as an example. You can take a look at a slideshow tour at http://www.bmug.org/planet. Please don't spam about commercialism. I'm just citing it as a societal example, not hawking on /. .

They're out there, but they don't have the viral growth potential of usenet or mailing lists, which is why, for better or worse, they've largely fallen to the wayside.

Kevin Fox
www.fury.com