Slashdot Mirror
Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft?
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.'"
2 almost pro-MS posts on
someone please hit me...
"most of the people developing Linux probably sit at night writing up malicious code for windows!"
This guy really must not like open source developers.
Why is this in apple.slashdot.org?
FTA:
and a lot of things didn't work like they were supposed to
I'm to assume that the bugs currently in windows are there by design?
http://www.watacrackaz.com
Kool-Aid sales up substantially.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Illegally destroyed competition in the OS space.
Suppressed or destroyed competition in the app space.
Dictated an artificial (e.g. unnecessarily expensive) software replacement cycle.
Empowered unscrupulous businesses to spy on your every web surfing move.
I hear people say that things aren't so bad with the current state of desktop computing. After all, Windows rarely crashes anymore and you can surf the web, play games, read email, etc. What else is there? To be quite frank, a lot. It is difficult to quantify all of the software development that hasn't been done because of Microsoft's oppressive control over the desktop. I estimate we are at least three generations of software development behind because most businesses would not risk competing with Microsoft. Just 5 years ago I can remember reading stories about companies that decided NOT to compete in a particular area because they feared Microsoft would crush them. Forget the companies put out of business or the people who had to find a new job. The loss of advancement in software technique is incalculable.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Are we, Zonk?
Taco have you guys on some kind of a quota system? Or do you get bonuses for generating a certain amount of page hits?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
It had all the features it took Microsoft ages to nearly get working many years before and at a far lower price. Shame Commodore were morons.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered.
In what universe is that true?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Yes, it is.
Next on the agenda: is genocide really that bad of an idea?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
You obviously don't read at threshold: -1.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
What a worthless article. If it were a Slashdot comment, it'd be moderated to -1, Overrated.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I think it's safe to say that Mr. Dubey is afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.
First of all, the writing is less than stellar. Second, all of it is opinion based without any sort of facts to back it up, or in depth explanation of his point.
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.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
Evidence: slashdot.org
Next!
What price sheet have you been reading? Or do you know the difference between hardware and software?
Windows is NOT easy to use *correctly*.
This "ease of use" includes people running as Admin with all the services running and basically wide open to the universe. That's "ease of use".
I won't pretend that Linux or BSD is any easier but I really don't think this "ease of use" label is meaningful.
"Chainsaws are easy to use!" -- Said the current reigning king of the one armed people.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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!
This is the greatest sentence ever written in the history of man. Thank you for your penetrating insight.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Yes, absolutely it is wrong to love Microsoft. For that matter, it is wrong to love any company that you are not directly a part of, and even then loving a company is fraught with pitfalls. Love is something that must be reciprocated in order to have any meaning. It is a shame that English has evolved to the point where we "love" or "hate" things that we enjoy or dislike.
Microsoft has done a lot of things, some good, some bad, some neither. Businesses are just that way. Is Microsoft worthy of respect? Sure. They have done something that other computer companies only dream of: they own several of the markets that they are part of. But does that mean we should hate them? Does it mean we should love them? Of course not.
People who feel strong emotions towards companies that they have very little part in (having neither worked there nor been part of the founding and building of it) are misdirecting their emotions. Save your love for your neighbor, don't waste it on Microsoft.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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.
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...
...that was some god-awful writing. I think cool tech zone needs some editors.
What they "pioneered" was using feedback and network effects to force a marketplace to accept an inferior product at monopolist prices, costing the world trillions in lost productivity and lost opportunities.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Dubey doesn't get why MS is hated, that much is obvious from the "article". Rather than providing arguments, he publishes a load of fanboy drivel that's as inane as any Linux or Mac zealotry I've seen.
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.
Good lord, it's a troll article.
Finally, an article that actually gives Microsoft an objective look not skewered by the linux and mac trolls on the net
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
It is very easy, when you live in your own OS world, to reach out your hand and point at all the other OSes and say, 'they are bad!", and I'm not saying that people hasn't tried that other OS they are pointing at. I'm saying that they've dug themselves into a religious trench holding their position in fear of discovering something new or to have let go of their hate for the other, different things.
Yes, I've made the very same mistake. I held onto my precious Amiga until early 1995, only to find out that I've lost years of Intel PC experience by looking the other way. I also was a poor student back then too, so I wasn't likely to buy myself a new computer. But I think the OS love/hate wars are very much the same as the old Amiga/PC discussions.
My personal experience has lead me to atleast try and stay away from the religious discussion, they never lead to anything constructive. I have both Windows and Linux PCs at home, and I use them all with erhm.. almost equal passion and love.
When the OS you are using meet your needs in terms of quality and functionality, and you're satisfied with that. Then why go to the step of switching platform? If Mr. X at accounting has a PC that does the job for him, then why should he go to the bothering step of switching?
Getting a bit side tracked here, well, Microsoft and Windows. I think the problem is, a lot of people are confusing the OS with the company. The way Microsoft has been conducting business is appaling. Whether people wanna respect and give some love to their OS, or not, well.. I don't care.
Is this just me? I really think he's missing what Linux is all about. It's not supposed to be the most user-friendly environment. There are people that WANT to have to "recompile the kernel if [they] want to so much as change your modem" because they're looking for that kind of option and flexibility.
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?
The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river.
I definately agree. I know I am probably going to be modded troll for saying this, but Windows is a VERY reasonable OS. Crashes all the time you say? My computer hasnt crashed for over 3 years. Don't get me wrong, I use linux as well, but this site seems to be far too rabidly anti-MS.
/. crowd) by taking so long for making Vista, which from what I heard did not live up to its hype.
Really does sound like they lost some of their 'charisma' (what was still left amongst the non
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
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)
Did anyone else just remember back to that lovely lovely video of good 'ol Bill , and that scanner :)
'Plug and play' *grin*
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.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Hey, is it possible to dislike Microsoft, but actually like Windows?
Microsoft is a company bent on ruling the world by crushing all competition. It's a monopoly. It's taken dirty tricks to a level raw and cruel, even in their own Monopoly lawsuit.
But I like windows. It rarely crashes, is pretty easy to use and a lot of my favorite software runs on it. Direct-X works pretty well, the registry does what it's supposed to do pretty well, and if I want to share a file on the network, it's not very complicated either to set up or use.
Getting rid of viruses and malware is a problem, but I'm 100% sure it would be just as big a problem for Mac OSX or Red Hat Linux Workstation if those products had the market share that Windows does. It hasn't been a problem for me because I don't click on executable content I don't trust.
Poke holes in Windows all you want. The average person actaully kind of likes it and feels some frustration when faced with using a different platform. That wouldn't be the case if it just plain sucked. Think aout it.
TW
I (personally) find Windows to be around the right level of trade off between the "I want to be consumer electronics" Mac ethos and the "compile your own damn Kernel, biatch" way in the Linux world.
We all know Win9x stunk like hell. NT was too lacking inuser friendliness. Win 2k and XP really are solid and useable for a lot of people, though. The last time I say the fabled BSOD other than through overclocking and shitty drivers - probably 2001 or something.
Office is a slick bit of kit for people like me who can make a tidy sum developing and selling (cha-ching!) custom solutions centred around it. Word surely sucks but Excel is top notch and Access being good for smaller projects.
At the risk of sounding like an astroturfing troll, mainstream MS software just gets the job done and if you know what you're doing - with the minimum of fuss. OSS is all well and good, and a wonderful concept, but until it's got those Ts crossed and Is dotted, Microsoft just offers a more compelling option for those wanting to run a business that don't have the resources of someone like IBM.
In 5-10 years maybe I'll be singing the praises of a Linux/OO.o/xSQL solution, and I hope so too - I like the concept and theoretical freedom.
People don't hate Microsoft because of their products; they hate Microsoft because of their business practices.
;)
Microsoft isn't buggy, it's evil!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Magnificent Amazing Computer :-)
Heheh, kidding.
But seriously, I've thought this for a long while. True, it's free, and (arguably) good as a server platform. But hugely overrated - Linux nuts often (not always) seem to consider it a viable replacement to Windows or OSX for *everyone*, which it is not...especilly when you consider that users don't care about the "morals" behind their software, just whether they can share files with others and keep working the same way that they're used to.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
One small flaw in the argument: Microsoft wasn't always hated. During the 1980-1990 time period (approximately), they were seen as one of the "good guys". In particular, during the movement of PCs into large corporations in the 1984-1990 period, Microsoft was viewed by many as a strong supporter of personally-directed computing resources against the tyranny of the Data Processing Department. While their technology was never the best, it had its good points (MS-DOS 3.3; even Windows 3.1), and as Steve Gibson has pointed out its openness allowed a huge industry of improvements to spring up, which formed the basis for today's software industry.
So, my question to Microsoft fans is, what happened between 1990 and 2000 that turned Microsoft from hero to goat? You be the judge.
sPh
and this article is an absolute disgrace to our cause.
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.
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!
It's funny to think that somebody would willingly make themselves look like a doofus.
Is it wrong to love Microsoft? Do some research, like the rest of us.
This guy sounds as if he has Stockholm Syndrome, where he has become sympathetic to his captor.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Why is this in the "Apple" category? Apple is mentioned once in TFA.
"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!"
/ /www.cooltechzone.com
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
Seems it's good enough to serve TFA...
"In a nutshell, it's not so much as that the software is secure; it's simply that no one is interested in spending sleepless nights writing a virus that won't give them the satisfaction they get from causing havoc. "
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.
Awesome!
Personally I started respecting Microsoft a whole lot more when the developers started blogging on a large scale. Few people can possibly have missed Raymond Chen's excellent blog Old New Thing which really explains a lot of the things that Slashdot would consider "cruft" and "archaic design" in Windows. For those who missed it I would recommend the post about file-system tunneling. On one hand it is a downright revolting workaround to make old apps work and behave as one would expect, but on the other hand one has to respect the obviously huge amounts of thought and effort that went into it.
To some part this also goes back to a bit of a reaction against Slashdot and similar places obsession with hating Microsoft. They are a lot better than they were in say, 97. With NT under the hood Windows is an a lot more agreeable operating system. Slashdot may scoff at Microsofts security effort, but in all honesty it seems to be going fairly well form my perspective. Updates are quicker and more plentiful (also most vulnerabilities seem to be announced because the fix showed up on WindowsUpdate than because an exploit was found). Recompiling large part of the system with automatic buffer checks (where possible, this is C/C++ we are talking about) has helped the severity of a lot of exploits. The new low-rights IE seems to be a good approach to insulate any problems further (borrowed from UNIX daemons granted, but the OS-level security infrastructure is sound, and applying it in a useful way to desktop applications really is a new thing), check out the IE teams blog for information about that work by the way: IEBlog. They may not have had the best place to start from, but it does seem to be going the right way (I mean, hey, just getting a working software firewall in place was a huge leap forward), which I would think everyone can agree is a good thing.
Another popular blog is Michael Kaplan's blog dealing with internationalization stuff like character encoding and input support.
Overall I could link blogs for quite a while, pretty much all major Microsoft products have developers blogging. It can be interesting to have a read, they are often well written, have a nice technical content and give a bit more understanding for how things work (and may help cure some of the more irrational hate for Microsoft :).
Wow. Talk about your flamebait. Posting a pro-MS story on /. is just asking for trouble. But posting it in apple.slashdot.org is really over the top.
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
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Because Netscape and Stacker are dead and forgotten and can't defend themselves. Sure, Microsoft has created the Internet Browser market: just look at the competition!
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"?
This is an infalmmatory, trollish, childish article. It is not news. It rehashes tired old claims that have been dissected to bits in previous discussions here. The grammar is poor, the points are weak, the article is unconvincing.
Now how the hell does this get to the front page of Slashdot?
-phozz
What a load of tosh! It would appear you get a
:-) Lets see...
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
return 0; }
Where's one's sense of history and perspective?
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
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
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Turn off the compiled headers option, and watch out for "include" discrepancies in the header files you are using. For example, in some compilers might include , so when you are using functions from and you might mistakenly include only . This would then compile on the compiler you're used to, but would not compile on a different compiler. Neither compiler is broken in this scenario - it's your code that's broken.
However, the compiled headers option in Visual Studio is a "bug", IMO.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That'll teach me to use [Preview]. At least, until I forget again. :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
what a load of hooey, there's plenty of easy to use GUi based OS in the last 15 years that were superior in every way to windows and even easier to use. How many commercial desktop OS have you used besides Wnidows. OS/2 was superior. IRIX was superior. MacOS was superior. NextStep was superior. Microsoft OS (really glorified program loaders since a true Operating System fully manages the resources of the computer) are buggy, insecure, bloated, hard to use garbage in comparison, get on a REAL operating system sometime !
A good accomplisment? Probably not. Yeah it let in some innovation but not much. Mainly it sowed confusion and prevented the establishment of standards that would have moved the industry along faster. Where it did establish standards it mainly were undesirable ones. Witness all the legacy crap like parallel ports, old fashioned serial ports, and Bioses. How long did it take just to get something sensible like USB to be implemented?
On the other hand apple was a pioneer, though not always the inventor of PC methods. First (working practical) use of dynamic memory. First widepread use of memory mapped video (yes we have gone back to graphics cards but for anyone who used CGA you now what I mean), first integration of post script, First affordable Graphical user interface, first affordable mouse system, cut and paste between applications, Firewire, first consumer freindly unix desktop. first extensible files system (HFS+), metadata in file system, long liberal file names, Application oriented message passing scripting language (apple script). Self discovering local networks (first appletalk, now bonjour) If we include NeXT then we can include an OS based on Object oriented programming, Display postscript, First use of optical drives...,
Pioneering, but not settling. Not always inventing but perfrecting. They drove innovation by adopting it early and creating needs for it. Look at the first affordable desktop publishing. That required a Gui, and the ability to edit graphics as objects, and thus a mouse.
Microsoft...hmmm what can we say... they did settle the land and run on cheap hardware. Of course Cheap is why it was also so shitty. Macs were all configured at a high level. You didnlt need a pile of add on cards or figure out the interrupts and ports the card conflicts created. When you did need cards they were autoconfigured by the OS. macs had true plug and play from the day the mac II came out. Windows never really mastered plug and play till the PXI bus.
Linux on the other hand plays to a different market. Wheras macs were at the maximally configured end of the spectrum. linux allowed you to diassemble everything and configure it exactly how you wanted. Not a shrink wrapped solution like widows that tried to do it for you and consequently invented horrors like the registrtry, incompatible DLLs, and resource conflicts. Instead Linux is a tinkerer's toychest. Of course that's why it comes in third for desktop and ease of use. But it's also starting to become an innovator in software ideas as more tinkerers get linked together.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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. Financial and accounting software, there's Quicken 2006 for Mac. 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 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.Should there be a Law?
I find it oddly appropriate that the ads served up by Google for the second page were for Anti-psychotic drug ambulance chasers.
Even Google could detect that Dubay's meds aren't working.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
Nope. IBM's negligence allowed the likes of Phoenix and Compaq to make the PC a "standard platform".
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
I'l agree with you on your first point: I don't trust Microsoft as a company, I think that its policies have been illegal and unethical in the past and, probably, still are right now. It is, of course, a gigantic corporation; it's interests are in making money, not in making the world a better place or even making my life easier. I cast a skeptical eye on just about anything they do because my interests and theirs aren't likely to be aligned.
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.
2) the lowering of expectations for the reliability of computers.
Hardware compatability.
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.
put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard. Are you kidding? Apple had long filenames on Windows disks long before Windows 95 did. How did they manage that? It was pretty easy, and in fact the same way windows 95 later copied. they just wrapped the old 8.3 names with a layer that looked up the short name as was actually stored on the DOS disk.
What do you think would happen to the world economy if Microsoft only would release longhorn for PPC?
Uh dude, apple has switched many times and many processors and never left their currentusers behind. I was playing crystal quest, a game from the mid 90's on my OSX computer, just yesterday. When apple switched to intel they are still going to be compiling apps for my present computer.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Depends...is it tough love?
I'd say this guy is merely a pro-MS zealot, exactly like the anti-MS zealots here on Slashdot that he bashes.
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?
"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
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
W95 was also the debut of the Registry with all it's attendant obfuscations and encrypted entries. No more of this human readable
Then there were the help files. I taught myself how to use Win3.11 to quite a high level purely from the bundled helpfiles. W95 seemed a lot less helpful. However I think the nadair was reached with WinME when I was tryng to troubleshoot my wife's PC and suddenly though "all these halp files are, are a lit of reason's why the problem is not MS's fault".
Then there was Stacker - where MS bough out just enough of the company to squash the product. Everyone has their favourite MS unfair competition story - that was the one that made me realise these guys were not playng fair
And there was the chap on USENET - demon.local - who posted a message subject "Bastards! Bastards! Bastards!". Apparently he'd found a bug in 95, reported it and was told he'd be given 30 days free credit while they looked into it. He was outraged - he spent his own valuable time tracking down a bug for Microsoft to improve their product, and in return they threatened to charge him money if they couldn't replicate it in 30 days. How to alienate your techically adept userbase in one easy lesson...
The final straw for me, was finding that getting a copy of office for my dad's new XP machine doubled the cost of the computer (which we'd already bought) and that we'd need a new printer and scanner. None of which was advertised, of course.
These are some of the landmarks on the journey from me as a MS enthusiast c.1990 to a Linux evangelist in 2005. It's not that I woke up one day and thought "linux looks cool", MS had to work long and hard before I started to think of them as the enemy.
There's a line, arguably a subtle one, between wrtiting novice-friendly software and treating your users as idiots. Further on in the same directin there's another one markign the start of treating the user with contempt. As far as I'm concerned, MS crossed first one, then the other, and have not so much as looked over their shoulder the whole time...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
a) If you over-sell Linux and imply (as some people had done to me) that it can do damn-near everything Windows can do, and is better in virtually every way, you are setting them up for a disappointment that will lead to such a bitter backlash that they will probably actively despise Linux for a long period of time. This is what happened to me a couple of years ago - people sold Linux to me as if it were the Second Coming, and when I tried it the gulf between expectation and reality made me turn against big time. Thankfully I tried it again (pretty much by force of circumstance, rather than choice; as far as I had been concerned, based on my initial disappointment, I was done with it forever) and saw the light a year or so later :)
b) A measured, educated discussion of its good and bad points will sway people far more, especially if you concentrate on the bad points. I've seen this happen time and time again, and the best theory I can come up with is that, if the person respects your judgement and doesn't just think you are an idiot zealot (the "measured, educated discussion" can help dispell this notion :)), then listing a bunch of its flaws but still continuing to use it will make people curious about the good qualities that keep you using it, and make them want to try it themselves. I suppose it's like a weird kind of reverse-psychology, but that doesn't quite hit the nail on the head, I don't think.
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.
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.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
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. How about an article on that and a moratorium on doing marketing for MS?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Bill Gates was a good coder, as were many of the early Microsoft coders. Look at analysis of Altair BASIC and see how they used all kinds of optimisation tricks to get as much as possible into the limited RAM of the Altair.
l _gates_write_code/
This is why Microsoft became a bit of an expert on BASIC. Of course as soon as they expanded the software declined in quality and the cheese factor increased.
Can't find the original analysis, but there's an article here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/15/could_bil
It's not wrong to love an abusive spouse but that doesn't mean you shouldn't leave them for beating you up.
Can we update slashcode so that we can rate an article? I'd love to mod this article +5 Funny.
Thanks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For reasons already covered to death in other comments, the article is clearly written by either an idiot, a Microsoft shill, or both.
One of my pet peeves is people referring to Apple as "MAC". This is wrong for two reasons.
1) Apple is the company. Macs are the computers they make.
2) "Mac" is the short form of "Macintosh". "MAC" is an acronym for "Media Access Control", and refers to the unique identifier on NICs.
[/soapbox]
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
In 1983-84 the list price for an IBM XT was $7,495. The initial price of the first Macintosh was $2,499.
The IBM AT which was also released in 1984 retailed at $4,000.
The Mac 512 was then released for something over $3000 but with twice the memory of the AT. The Mac Plus was later released back at the $2500 price point.
Even in 1987 the high end macs continued to be a deal compared to other name brand PC's. To quote Dan Knight:
You can read the rest of his article about the Mac-PC price relation at LowEndMac As far as I can tell, Microsoft had absolutely NOTHING to do with the eventual affordability of PC clones. The price dumping was due entirely to IBM's failure to patent their architecture, thus allowing anyone and their dog to carve out their own share of IBM's retail profit margin.
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
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
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.
I would take issue with this statement; when the PC first came out there were three operating systems available for it (PC/MS-DOS, CPM-86 and UCSD). IBM wanted the marketplace to decide which was the best one. Microsoft did not have any kind of leg up with the other two competitors initially, all three were established software vendors.
Microsoft very quickly established itself as the most popular OS for the PC (I will refrain from saying "best") and went on from there.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Buddy is really happy about XP's PNP automatically detecting and installing drivers... as if it is some major innovation.
Well, let's see, ADB, SCSI, FireWire... for the most part even ancient Macs you could plug in devices and they just worked.
And don't forget seamless networking. In the 80s over LocalTalk/AppleTalk, we were plugging in computers, printers, and such and they just worked. And we were playing network games too... I fondly remember playing SpacewardHo with 6 buddies in my backyard.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Sure, occasionally they break a few kneecaps, and torch a few buildings, but most of them are probably real good to their faimlies, and to winows and orphans, even the ones that they helped create. Your honest, local, neighborhood business man is highly over rated anyway, and mostly exists to spite the mega corporations.
Well, then again, you might want to consider that a 1.7GHz Pentium M, for a lot of tasks, is faster than a 3GHz Pentium 4. Not that this has anything to do with the Steve's Reality Distortion Field, but his claims were at least plausible, if not correct.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Its a survival response I guess. I've loved every computer that I've used as a desktop except for my Windows computers.
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.
This is my constructive response to your column at CoolTechZone on the 5th of August titled "Is it Wrong to Love Microsoft?" To give you a little perspective, I have a WindowsXP desktop dual booted with Fedora Core 4 Linux, Windows XP Professional laptop, and Mac Powerbook at home and so have sufficient experience with all of them.
>>"Is it wrong to love Microsoft?"
First of all, the short answer is- no, it isn't wrong.
>>"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!"
I am curious what your experience with Linux is. I agree that Linux is not for everyone, but for a developer, researcher, network manager or someone looking to build their own systems there is nothing like it. Considering the fact that you have the source to do what you choose with makes it a tremendous platform. People have ported it to the Xbox, powerpcs, palms, ipods and all kinds of other antique devices and it still works the same. There is even a version (called busybox) that is under 1Mb and can be carried on a floppy. It is this flexibility and extensibility that people love.
>>"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."
Not really.
>>"I understand the criticisms about the security of the software, the critical flaws and what not but again, we must look at things in the proper perspective. More than 95 pecent computers in the world use one form of Windows OS or another. The remaining being divided between Linux, MAC etc. now lets say MAC has 1 percent, does it make sense for a hacker to create a virus that can at best infect just 1 percent of the computers in the world? It doesn't, therefore you don't have as
many security threats for other software as most of the people developing Linux probably sit at night writing up malicious code for windows!"
What you say is true- but you require some perspective as well. There are some basic security decisions that Windows has made that people
disagree with, the most important of which is that every user and process my default runs as an administrator. For the average, home
user this is dangerous. Otherwise, your point on security is valid.
>>"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."
Hmm... I wonder why everyone who knows programming wants to his Windows with a virus? Is it because people who program prefer other platforms?
>>"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."
I agree- it is one of the strengths of Windows. But can you install Windows on a powerpc, or a Sparcs, or an Xbox or ANY other hardware of
your choice? You can with Linux, though not as easily. I'm just demonstrating why people like other OSes.
>>"In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind
Windows XP and I am sure it will be further back biting the dust when Longhorn (now Vista) comes out."
>>Ummm, have you actually used Linux lately? I suggest you try out a user friendly version like Fedora Core and then rewrite your column.
>>"This reminds me of the bundled issues with the antitrust lawsuits being slammed on it."
Some, but not all, of the lawsuits are justified. Microsoft has been anti-competitive. Not many people dispute that- not even Microsoft,
they settled in a lot of cases and agreed to future improvements in their behav
I guess it's kind of like the Monty Python spoof of the Jewish Zealots' rebellion, as portrayed in _The Life of Brian_....
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!
I would rather be a bloody stump with no legs and arms and happily be using my PowerMac than have to suffer thru endless crashes and bugs with MS Windows.
=^..^=
Sure, Mac OS was a lot prettier but then it cost the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs.
...and I think, hey, if MacOS puts an end to that sort of bullshit, I'm actually coming out far ahead of the game.
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.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
Some guys love to get tied up, fscked, and flogged, and even pay for the privilege. We accept that, just like we accept Varun's love of Microsoft, which amounts pretty much to the same thing.
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.
Actually, Crystal Quest dates from the late 80's. In fact, it was the very first color Mac game, on the Mac II, in 1987. Yay, Casady & Greene.
I know because baby, I WAS THERE!! (that game was great. and I've used macs since 12/84...)
The right answer first appeared in Jerry Popek's UCLA Locus in the 1980s, and has been in some IBM UNIX systems since IBM bought the technology. It really ought to be in Linux.
It works like this. When you open an existing file for writing, you actually start to write a new file. But unchanged blocks are shared, using a copy on write approach. If you close the file normally, the new file replaces the old file.
If the program or system crashes, the old file remains intact and unchanged. So there's always a good copy of the file. No special action is required in the program to make this happen.
The program can also call "commit", to force the new version to replace the old one immediately, or "revert", to roll the file back to the "old" state. But that's optional. A program might do this after finishing some transaction, for example.
That's how to do it right.
I see my evil plan is working just fine.
Everywhere I go, I recommend Microsoft's very latest offerings knowing full well that they are not ready for the light of day and that a feeling of dissatisfaction, no hatred, of Microsoft can only come of recommending a product which is so early in its life cycle, which only the technically savvy will bother to try at this early juncture anyway. At the same time, I leave bitter reminders everywhere of previous generations of products which were likewise wronged early in their lives by my overeager recommendations.
Everywhere I go, I foment the dislike, the bitterness, and the fear of Microsoft's supposed dominion over us all. And I am served....
How am I served? Am I served because only the most bright, the most sensitive, the most pure among the technical ranks will bother to care. I am served because they turn away in disgust and leave this market. I am served because the users ultimately don't care and continue using the products I nurture through my evil machinations.
I am served because you are no longer here. I can now do with your users as I like. I can turn them to my ways, make them dependent, and continue to keep them for myself. For my customers. For my profit. For my entertainment.
Run punk. Run.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I use both a PC and a Mac. After some time with the Mac I could nail down the main difference in philosophy and user base between the two. PC's are like a home built car. You can buy pre-made kits but it's still a kit car. You can customize it out the wazoo to have something utterly unique and you can make it do what you want. Want a sport car, make it low and wide. Want an offroad car, make it big and beefy. The PC approach means high flexibility but some reliablilty issues and it means some parts don't always want to work together and when it breaks you fix it. Mac is more like a production car. Sure it's not going to beat a high performance kit car in price or in performance, but everything fits properly, all the pieces work together and offer you simplicity. You turn the key and it goes. It breaks, the dealer fixes it. But, it looks like every other car from that same model, has the same performance as anyone else who bought that model, the same factory colors etc. You sacrifice flexibility in the design and it takes more effort to customize it to your needs. Apples are great. You take it out of the box and turn it on and your done. Want to add an Apple upgrade? Just plug it in, your done. PC's are an open architecture with parts made everywhere. You get to pick and choose what you want but there is no garauntee that everything is going to work together. Some people want to just put the key in and go. Some people want to pick and choose. Different people, different philosophies. Both valid.
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?