Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?
MrSplog asks: "I'm doing a short project on Microsoft and its impact on society. A considerable part of this project has been looking into people's perceptions of Microsoft and the heavily negative bias of that perception. Since Slashdot is one of the world's forefront leaders on Microsoft hatred, I wanted to know: just why do you hate Microsoft? Please be as descriptive and as thorough as you like. Counter arguments and positive comments are also appreciated."
Oh, I don't *hate* Microsoft. In fact, I have friends who work there and have made money off of Microsoft stock. I still use Word (although Pages is coming on strong and if I could get EndNote compatibility, I'd switch entirely) and Excel and root for the company on occasion. Where I object to Microsoft is in their shoddy products. Almost every product I've used of theirs that came out at version 1.0 has royally sucked. Their whole concept of bringing products to market is date/deadline driven rather than quality or product driven, much less consumer driven. Classic cases of abysmal products were Windows v1-3, Win-98 and ME, the Zune, Bob, that first tablets and the ultra portable systems I've previewed (error messages that were too big for the display for instance), and of course their always changing interface standards and poor security issues.
Saying all that, I actually had a pretty good Micron PC running Win 95 that was remarkably stable. Of course upgrading it to Win98 was a unmitigated disaster. Win NT was a very stable OS, that was just cryptic to use and administer. Win2000 was pretty decent, and it almost made me switch my home system from MacOS to Win200, but like most products they have simply used their monopoly status to make the right changes very late in the game if ever. How long did it take them to adopt all characters for file names?
Where I really started getting disgusted with their business was after I saw company after company run out of business due to business practices that bordered on illegal and in some cases blatantly crossed the legal line. I always tended to prefer the MacOS, but was fairly platform agnostic (using Windows, Solaris, Linux, Irix, MacOS) for whichever task needed the appropriate platform, but with the advent of OS X, I've become a strong advocate for the Macintosh platform which brings up another issue entirely.... Microsoft has for decades now used Apple as their R&D lab. It's an obvious and well known joke, but if you are familiar with OS X, just wait until you get to play with Vista. Come on now, there are some very smart folks at Microsoft, so why can't they come up with ideas and products on their own? My take on it is that it is an efficiency issue combined with a management issue with too much oversight at the early and mid stages of the game. For instance, how many programmers are there on the Windows development team? Its in the thousands for sure, perhaps tens of thousands all told. For OS X, the number of full on programmers numbers in the hundreds. Under 300 for sure last time I checked a couple of years ago. The whole Quicktime team numbers around 30-40 whereas the Microsoft Media Player team is well into the hundreds. We could go on and on here, but to answer your question, this scientist at least does not hate Microsoft. I've just watched the company for years, purchased some of their products and have found a product from another company (Apple) that meets my needs and does not get in the way of my work the way Microsoft products tend to do.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
An easier question would be "Why not?"
I hate Microsoft because I've used their products.
Envy and Jealousy.
Microsoft supports Open Source...
This is an obvious, obvious troll.
Tieing the web browser to the operating system and creating Active X controls, and then putting no security on them, ushered in the era of spyware and caused tremendous suffering for users and the tech support people scrambling to try to stamp out the spyware.
It's because everyone here is secretly jealous of Microsoft and it's wealth. ::clears throat:: I, on the other hand, am different.
Signature:
Micro$oft SUXXORS!!!
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I hate Microsoft because Slashdot hates Microsoft. I read Slashdot. Therefore, I hate Microsoft because I read Slashdot.
Before the DOJ case we all used to wonder why they produced such poor quality software at such high prices. In fact, we all felt kinda pissed off and betrayed by this. Then the anti-trust litigation put it all into perspective. No mystery anymore, that is, so long as you have even a basic understanding of microeconomics. Monopolies produce poor quality products at high prices - that's what monopolies do. So yeah, no reason to hate Microsoft anymore, we know what they are. Of course, a number of people are still pissed at Microsoft for their abuse of their monopoly, that's fine. But all those people who are pissed off at the government for handing Microsoft this monopoly they have, well, go be pissed off at the government.
Besides which, they'll be gone in 10 years anyways. That's not a rimshot. Shit, it's not even an original thought. It's just the way things are going.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It just seems like Microsoft does everything backwards. They have some feature for developers that looks nice and shiny, but there is just so much pain associated with using it, it just isn't worth it.
I wouldn't develop for Microsoft if they didn't have such a stranglehold on the marketplace and all my customers think it is the only option.
if it wasn't for Microsoft, we would probably still be using IBM PC's. We wouldn't have the tremendous diversity where everyone could build their own pc and it will just 'work'. Microsoft is a tough target to beat as there are still good reasons to favor some of their products.
Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
Because they use their monopoly status to crush competitors, and therefore retard growth and innovation throughout the entire software industry.
That's all.
I bet its just Microsoft Public Relations Blunder Research dept. letting slashdotters do the dirty work.
It's no different than any other corporation except it has become extremely successful, and has not exercised the highest standards of business practices. However, given the nature of the business, it's not doing anything that any other corporation would not do. Using all it's resources to be the most profitable it fan be.
I also think that a lot of people bash Microsoft because it's easy, and because they sound smart doing it. It's easy to sound smart when you are saying why things are bad. The more forceful you sound, the more reaasonable your argument. Most people don't understand/know/care enough to refute the argument.
Other people think that MS charges too much for product. Well, if you don't like it don't buy it. It's not my fault your on welfare.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
They've crippled inovation in favour of maintaining a monopoly for YEARS now. And I'm not just talking about having alternative OS and word processors. They have been THE_PRIMARY_OBSTACLE for software (and hardware) being truly useful and allowing choice and the possibility of enhancing our lives and contributing to the human condition.
Plus the windows interface sucks.
Believe it.
Anyone who does the above will not be the most popular guy around.
Everyone doesn't hate Microsoft. In my experience only people who work in the software industry are likely to "hate" Microsoft, and even then it's not a majority. Most people I've talked to in the industry seem more likely to feel indifferent towards them (including myself). And most non-technical people probably don't know enough to feel one way or the other. Just because somebody thinks Windows 98 is a piece of shit (which it is) doesn't mean he hates Microsoft. And just because a bunch of vocal left-wingers on Slashdot "hate" Microsoft doesn't mean everybody does. In fact, if you take the time to look outside of the tiny Slashdot niche you will find the vast majority of people are much more towards the center, and not just on the issue of Microsoft. For some reasons Slashdotters seem to believe that they hold views that are common with the majority; in a lot of instances, this just simply isn't the case.
i would stop hating Microsoft products if they would stop trying to make all my decisions for me... i currently am forced to use word and frontpage together. my day consists of ALOT of deleting, deleting the extra 2 lines of code it puts before AND after every line i paste into frontpage, deleting the extra tags it places whenever i hit enter. cant they just make a product that does what its meant to AND NOTHING ELSE?
One of my biggest complaints is how they FORCE people to upgrade to increasingly fragile, vulnerable versions of Windows. They make it so that software vendors mush move along, thus leaving odler versions behind, and ensuring that new versions do NOT run on older versions of Windows.
They have also really upped the "Big Brother" role, where in some instances, perfectly legitimate installs of XP have been shut down by MS's update servers, claiming that they were bootleg or pirate copies. Then just TRY and get MS to unlock your system...? Have your credit card ready. NO THANKS!
There are still a lot of systems running under 98SE that are working just fine, thank you. I don't need or want to spend $200 for a version of windows that is more likely to "break" my currently running software, and won't run on otherwise perfectly viable/functional hardware. I also do not like the "phone home" and "Big Brother" aspects that are built into XP and the new Vista. My 98SE runs everything I need.
Oh, and don't even get me started on their super-vulnerable browser and e-mail clients.
That's my 3c worth.
Willie...
I have to say, I thought that I'd seen everything, but this is the stupidest Ask Slashdot ever.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
makes me wonder, that without these super giant software companies, would opensource care to thrive or would people be even as committed as we are today? its not like we're trying to take them down and out.. we just want to give everyone the ability to use a computer regardless of money.. they both need to coexist to exist in the first place..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Here's an example...
When NT was first announced, I thought it was the coolest thing since bottled beer. The protected mode subsystems looked like a way to consolidate the APIs of multiple systems. As smoebody who'd already programmed Unix, PDP-11 (RSX), VAX-VMS, MVS, Univac, CDC, etc in the years prior, I thought NT was going to totally rock. It had the potential to subsume everything around it.
Little by little, the OS/2 compatibility evaporated, X-Windows was declared "brain dead", it went beyond embrace and extend, it became Microsoft's way or the highway.
I still wonder - if MS had supported POSIX / UNIX APIs in a protected mode subsystem, would Linux have really "happened"?
Alan.
I don't hate them. Windows 2003 Server kicks ass as a desktop operating system, especially with 50+ third-party products to make it usable. Internet Explorer is just an example of how broken the vendor-owned browser/client/server model is; Mozilla/Opera are just a temporary gesture of goodwill before the Web disappears as quickly as Usenet. ClearType is also the only font renderer that doesn't suck completely, which allows me to read for hours on an LCD.
...with inferior products that are poorly designed, work "most" of the time, and take power and choice away from the end-user and put it in the hands of the people at Redmond.
and thanks to software from Microsoft and the like, end-users have become the most stupid people on the face of the earth. Seriously. By dumbing down the OS and making it "user-friendly", Microsoft began Melissa, which begat Code Red, which begat an entire industry just focused on trying to secure Windows.
The end result is that Microsoft takes away choices. Microsoft locks in users. Microsoft is, dare I say, un-American.
Clippy.
A) Because the products aren't that good... They are often buggy and insecure,
B) They have way more money than me.
Either one of those is reason enough for me to hate them.
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
Because I imagine a world where Microsoft didn't exist would be better. Although
I do give them credit for providing a single, central scapegoat for anything that
goes wrong with computers ever. Blame Bill Gates!
This should have been submitted to domyassignment.slashdot.org.
the free software movement should thanks MS, afteral it was MS up-tight policies that cauzed so much pain that massively drove developers into volunteeringly developing an alternative in order to never suffer from the closed source.
revolutions need a motivation, thanks MS for beeing a large pain in the a... ehh.. motivation!
we needed a common enemy figure, a black sheep, a well known target for our jokes.
you have served us well i guess...
now it is time to leave, you served your purpose in this world, and (in directly and unknowingly) you made this world a better place.
dear MS, we will remember you long after you go bankrupt of not beeing able to succeed in the software as a service market: it was nice having such a good (anti) example!
They would be gone... the fact is that Microsoft's marketing & legal practices keep them moving. It gets to the point where it has nothing to do with how good their software is.
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
As the richest corporation on Earth, I would kind of expect their products to be beacons of excellence. But they are not. I like their software tools, but Word? I use it obviously, but if I make a complex document with Equations and similar embedded, it crashes and I lose data. It >still happens and it simply needn't. So I don't really hate Microsoft, I just hold them in contempt for being dearer and poorer than they could be. I too think they will collapse within the decade. OK laugh but when it happens it will happen quickly.
When it comes to commercial products, people hate their ____ providers (fill in the blank with the service). Blizzard makes a decent MMO product that millions of people use, but there's a HUGE group of their players who *hate* them even though they use the product. Same with Sony Online Entertainment and Turbine and so on. The same goes for Sprint, Cingular, Verizon, ATandT, et cetera for mobile telephone service -- especially big hatred among the users there, but the service is generally the same across the board... and it's even more ubiquitous. Microsoft is the big, bad behemoth that gives everyone their Operating System. Billions of people hate Microsoft, yet hapily use the product (myself included), likely for the same reason as the above reasons. The only non-commercial exception to this is Government, even though it's the same concept -- everyone hates their goverment, but without the governing, the world would fall apart and it would be a much, much worse place -- theoretically speaking, of course.
Opening scene of Pirates of Silicon Valley.
...or you can use the seven dirty words, your choice.
Video Production Support
i hate them because bill gates and his company is more interested in money than innovation and you can see that because it wasn't until firefox and linux's super take off were they like...hey we should get to work...on something
Another useful wikipedia article is Criticism of Microsoft.
Personally, I think most of the slimy stuff is due to business decisions. I know a lot of people that work there, and they are generally hard working, intelligent people that sincerely want to impact people's lives for the better, and see Microsoft's large market share as a way to actually make a difference. If the devs were in charge, or if they had scrupulous and competent businessmen, it would be a much different company. The fish rots from the head.
The recent change in leadership is promising, but I'm definitely in the "wait and see" camp. You know, the "buy a mac while I wait and see" camp. Hey, Disney is turning around. It could happen.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
Embrace, extend and extinguish, is only a symptom of the real issue. The real issue is that Microsoft fails to subscribe the culture that most geeks subscribe to which is simply: Technical freedom. We want to be able to do whatever we want with technology, and we dont want anyone getting in our way. Microsoft is constantly getting in the the way of technical freedom as it tries to bully its way into being important instead of innovating its way into importance... Microsoft refuses to be in a support role and wants to be the center of the technical world regardless of technical merit. That getting in the way and self centered attitude is the reason everyone *I* know hates Microsoft.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
MS conducts themselves as a bully.
Nobody likes a bully.
I think that for many people Microsoft is hated simply because it's the biggest target. Personally I don't exactly 'hate' Microsoft. I think their OS could be quite a bit better and that they could do a lot more to help their users out. Why do I think that about Microsoft and not, say, Apple? Well because Microsoft's what everyone uses. Frankly I could care less what Apple does, because I don't use it, no one I know uses it, and the computer I help set up as a part-time job don't use it.
So I look at those computers and I see how often they crash, how virus prone they are and the natural impulse is to blame the OS for not being more crash and virus-proof. And since in every case the OS is Microsoft Windows I've developed a bias from only seeing Window's fail. I've never seen another OS crash, I know they exist, so therefore my OS must be worse. It's the good old fashion 'grass must be greener, 'cause mine looks pretty yellow' problem.
I'm sure that if I were to use Linix or Apple (*dons protective flame suit*) I would encounter just as many problems as Windows. They'd be different problems, but there would be problems none-the-less. Frankly I expect my computer to run perfectly and without error in spite of what I do to it, and I expect the computer to compensate for other users who are no where near as technologically inclined as myself. Is that rational to expect that much? No. Is it human impulse to expect that much? Of course. So who's to blame for my computer not running as I irrationally want it to? It's much easier to pick a large target that other people pick on and blame them for every problem rather than acknowledge that the problem is at least partially my fault for trying to use the program in a way it shouldn't be used.
Another part of the Microsoft bashing, in my opinion, is the bandwagon syndrome. It's become officially 'cool' to bash Microsoft and so many people who have never had a single problem bash them anyways.
In all honesty Microsoft get's a lot more flak than they deserve. Is their product perfect? Certainly not! Is it supposed to be? Of course not! Do we expect it to be? Oh yeah. Who's easier to blame? Yourself, for having unrealistic expectation, or a large easy to bash company for not conforming to those unrealistic expectations?
Am I saying Microsoft makes the best software? No, there's better stuff out there for advanced users (take, for instance, my FireFox browser I'm using). Is Microsoft's products as good as should be expected of such a large program? I think so.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I have seen what could have been, that was not realized because of the current monopoly.
I liked BeOS, more than Linux, more than Apple. I though OS/2 was better than Windows but was not a fan of IBM at the time. I liked WordPerfect more than Office. In fact for each set of software Microsoft has, the alternative that was destroyed I liked before it died a horrible death due to a monopoly tie in. All because Bill Gates was able to sell DOS to IBM, before he actually bought the program from the developer. But good placement, good timing and there are wonderful things Microsoft has done for computing, but their defense of their market monopoly has destroyed some beautiful what could have beens.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
They became a giant by stealing other people's ideas, establishing a status quo of mediocrity, and squashed innovation.
It is frustrating knowing that better products exist that will never get a chance because of their hegemony.
However, I do really like certain Microsoft products. I think Defender is a great idea, perhaps a few years late in the game. MS Office is a great product. Their development tools are good.
And Microsoft has become considerably less evil in recent years, but they have no regards for standards and make life unduly difficult for a great deal of people. Sometimes it doesn't even serve a financial purpose.
Look at their history with Sun and Java. Microsoft clearly has no respect for other's rights or licenses. And they want the internet to be something proprietary that they control, again even if it costs them money, and they don't gain anything from it. They just want to control things. By pushing for browser-specific tags, and refusing to conform to web standards, every webmaster on the planet is put out to design around both standards and Microsoft.
Does Microsoft make money of IE? No. They give it away for free, while throwing butt-loads of money developing it. So why continue to spend money fucking the entire internet over? Because they are bullies who like to remain the king of every hill they can find, even if it means forcing customers into inferior products.
That's why.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
They created a platform that commoditized the underlying computer and jump-started a PC revolution. An independent developer can reach a market of half a billion desktops with a single binary. How neat is that?
Now, in theory Java, OpenGL, POSIX, J2ME, XHTML/CSS, etc. are supposed to allow you to do portable development and treat the underlying platform as a commodity, but the problem with de jure standards is that you'll either be stuck with a standard that lags far behind the state of the art or a standard that is loosely adhered to, and is rife with incompatibilities, despite passing all of the compatiblity tests people can think up. Maybe you've seen standards that work, but every single one that I've dealt with has cost me or my company a lot more than simply targetting a Microsoft platform with 90% installed base does.
It seems like the best way to get commodity behavior is for one company to win and push a homogenous platform. Of course, it sucks when you have 10 vendors trying to do that and none of them have any majority marketshare. Microsoft's neat because they won, and won so well.
What Microsoft did with PC hardware is similiar to what open source does with essential digital infrastructure: it commoditizes them by becoming the one standard reference implementation. Where a mature open source product exists, the only market for proprietary software in that segment seems to be niches.
Microsoft's goal is to own and control everything on my computer, in the server room, eventually perhaps in my lounge room and anywhere else they can imagine. And they try to keep it that way by deliberately avoiding existing open standards and interoperability with existing applications. They adopt new standards with reluctance, and even then they break them.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Think about the best French food in Paris some place that dinner can run $300 to $500 per person and then think about McDonalds.
Microsoft markets their products as if they were that French place in Paris, but in truth the they are selling at the McDonalds quality level. (Very clean, good ingredients, but it's not Haut Cusine...) and because they have such a large marketshare, they dump some products on the market cheap (E.g., IE) and some products they try to sell if you need them or not (e.g., Windows) and some they price higher than you would like (Office Suite vs the price of Word by itself..).
With the expectation/mindset that your getting the best food in world but when you actually get McD's and you pay what you pay the net results is that many people are less than happy.
They should just admit they make a mass market product for the masses, price it appropriately and call it day..
http://www.hawknest.com/
when i try to open powerpoints exported to webpages that teachers post their class notes in with firefox they wont open. and i highly suspect its on purpose.
\.
One poster said without microsoft we wouldn't have nice PC's and an environment which just works. I hate microsoft for the future that has been delayed by a good decade. For all the bloody inconsistencies between browsers, which are still present I hate them. Things like Ajax enabled Apps would have been possible earlier if these issues hadn't been so bad at first. Good on Google for making their Web Toolkit so I can program in Java and create Javascript compatible with most browsers out there. If Microsoft had used their position responsibly from the word go and encouraged or stuck to established standards for their browsers and documents we would not have had the lock in we did. Ever hear the phrase, "Oh we'd like to use XXXX software but it's not compatible with Microsoft XXXX". Yeah, I hate them for locking me in, and I hate them for making other companies trying to compete look like the bad guys for not having compatibility with proprietary obscure formats. Reboots. Maybe that's my biggest gripe. Bloody 3 Reboots on some of those Service Packs.
It's a monopoly. What's to like?
That's not a rhetorical question. The problem with Microsoft is that it blots out alternatives that could be considered on their merits with its market dominance and abuse.
And people can tell that Microsoft's "innovation" is so selfserving that there's not much new going on in the world, because there's not much going on at Microsoft. People want more, but we can't get it, because we can't get it from Microsoft.
That makes us angry.
--
make install -not war
...to do some research on why the Microsoft brand has developed such a negative association and to try and understand just why we continue to lose market share and get bad press.
I have been instructed to spin this situation as being "people's perceptions of Microsoft and the heavily negative bias of that perception" and "Microsoft hatred" rather than attribute it to any product shortcomings, late delivery, anti-competitive behaviour or other mis-steps conducted by my employer/client.
So, I wanted to know: just what is wrong with you? Please be as descriptive and as thorough as you like. Counter arguments and positive comments are also appreciated, as it makes our copywriters' jobs much easier.
And Gates bans their pervert literature from elementary schools.
No Daddy's MacBook Pro or Heather has 2 iPods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8DRvunhs0
I just went to a LUG meeting and listened to a talk from one of the industry pioneers. He was sharing his knowledge, experiences. Now I'm relatively new to the computing scene -- started maybe 15 years ago during college -- and the speaker had been involved with computers for decades. Before Microsoft there was a culture of sharing. People would do interesting things and let others know about it and teach them how to do similar things. With Microsoft this really cool way of life was lost and replaced with pure commercialism. Don't share because it would affect sales. Patent everything. Sue competitors out of existence. Engage in monopolist tactics to wipe out competition. Make money and screw everyone else.
The difference is that Microsoft is in it for the money first. Non-Microsoft folks seem to be in it for the technology or for making a difference in the world.
People claim that Microsoft, with their ever more complex software, drives the PC industry. My take is that they've hindered it because of their crusade against the culture of sharing.
KL
Because it hurts you, more than it hurts them.
Their business practices have always been to look at innovators, find out what they do well, then kill them after doing it better or just good-enough. They've been convicted in jurisdictions across the planet of evil doings in business practices. This started at the top, and it permeated much of the organization.
They tried to dictate to others, and use overwhelming financial muscularity to brutalize the competition, no matter who or what or how the competition did business. They violated anti-trust laws, patents, copyrights, all well documented.
They were overcome by the greed that their wealth produced. And they maintain this, assuaged only partially by governmental monitoring. They are bullies, and they are fat, and they are unkind, and they (almost psychopathically) don't care that you care. It's all for the stockholders, kid. It's capitalism at its very ugliest. Somewhere in there, they wrote some code and did a few innovative things. Like a sociopath has no need for love, Microsoft seemingly only cares for shareholder return.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's easy to find someone who hates anything. Microsoft however has been the prime target of computer hatred simply because there is a lack of options. Their are tons of choices for an OS, but for most consumers, they don't go much further than Windows. Also Microsoft markets itself as Professional software and in this day and age Professional anything is expected to be flawless. I personally don't like Microsoft simply because I am a strong believer and open source, and believe that the free software available is more stable and flexible than the products I have to pay for with Microsoft.
"As the richest corporation on Earth, I would kind of expect their products to be beacons of excellence" Why? Because they can afford to sell their products for less than it costs them to make? Find me a corporation that does that and I'll show you one that's out of business soon (I mean their entire product line, Sony's PS3 doesn't count). No matter how much money a corporation has it's goal must be to make a profit, otherwise it's going to die out. Microsoft sells their product at a price that's cheap enough for most people to afford but high enough to make a profit. If you want a better product then you're gonna have to pay more. I'm not saying it's right, and I do agree with you, in an ideal world those with money would make the best products. But this is not an ideal world, those with money tend to make the cheapest products and you get what you pay for. ((And, just out of curiosity, what kind of document needs equations and stuff embedded? All I can think of is forms for people to fill out, but I'd just do those as web-forms personally...though I guess I can see a use for something someone can work on off-line and then e-mail to you...))
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
We hate mircoshaft because of their business practices. Forcing small companies and larger vendors to ship only microsoft products or else kill them with unfair pricing, killing smaller competitors, stealing ideas and designs from everyone else, and producing fat, buge, slow bug ridden bloatware.
I don't hate them. I may not agree with how they go about everything, but they are there. I do prefer linux, espicaly ubuntu over windows, but I do have to use windows. The thing I hate is companies who create software that schools use that is only windows based.
hello
I don't really _hate_ Microsoft per se, but I find that they don't really have my needs in mind (as a developer and long-time computer user). My gripes are really pretty simple:
.net stuff, and that may be cool and all, but part of my job entails maintaining a large (30,000+ line) code base written in pretty much all straight C that uses a lot of win32 calls, and it really sucks that the best documentation on all of that is Google's translation of the chineese version of Visual C 5.x's help files.
I don't like being crammed into an unnecesarily GUI environment. I like the simplicity of scripting and automation that comes with a real command line environment.
I don't like giving up control of my computer. Microsoft is always pushing one thing after another which all take control away from me, the user, in the name of making things easier or safer or some other nonsense. Things that fall under this category are the following: DRM / Trusted Computing, Hiding of system files, Hiding of file extensions, animated toolbars, the fact that IE takes any web server error (40x, 50x, host not found, connection timed out, etc...) and puts up the same uninformative dumbed down error message up. I really want to know the details, and it hides them.
I don't like their pushing of various fad programming models in their development tools. I remember when I upgraded from Visual C++ 5 to VC6 they had taken the raw win32 calls out of the table of contents, so if you looked things up that way, you'd see the MFC way first, unless you knew the calls already, in which case the index could turn them up. When I upgraded again, they had taken the calls out of the index too, but a full text search of the help turned up some examples... There is NO EXCUSE to EVER hide documentation from users, much less DEVELOPERS. I recognize that they are trying to wean people off of win32 so they can go to a more hardware independent
So, yeah, basicly I have largely negative feelings about Microsoft because they don't do a terribly good job of meeting my needs, which wouldn't be such a big deal, except that as a near-monopoly they try very hard to stamp out competing systems that may actually meet my needs quite well. They aren't stamping them out to keep my dollar, they're just doing it in case any of those competing solutions actually turns out better than Windows and draws mainstream users away. As such, they are definitely pissing on my [figurative] corn flakes.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
I was veryu pro-MS when they were the little guys trying to make computing more accessable to Joe Blow (and the big *nix companies were the bastards). But once they got to be top dog they just got very nasty.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist.
Microsoft was let off the legal hook by a fortunate change in administrations - more like a fortunate failure to honor the democratic will of the people.
Microsoft spends billions of dollars around the world lobbying for initiatives that restrict and suppress open standards and free software, guaranteeing expansion of its monopoly worldwide and into emerging and developing markets.
Bill Gates may be attempting to use his money to make a positive impact in this world in order to whitewash his legacy in his old age, but had governments and businesses and people invested in open standards and free software instead of the monopolist's products, we would still have Bill's money in our collective pockets, developing our economies, educating our children, and feeding our families.
The insecurities of an aging robber baron are little consolation for the great human and natural resources he has squandered through ruthless malice, contempt for law, personal aggrandizement, and cronyism.
How'd I do?
It is simply reinforcing groupthink and generating ad impessions. Nothing more, nothing less. I will be shocked if this article doesn't hit 1000 comments.
It's a simple question to answer.
...I think it smells better in here too ;)
Every encounter I have with anything related to Windows or Microsoft makes my life harder.
Our entire office switch to Macs a few months ago & now I never hear the dull thud of someone beating their head against the desk.
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
But, I've never really had an issue with microsoft. I've used Win95 when it's been a dog, and Win98 when it's been a dog and hasn't. XP has cleaned up all of the issues and works like a dream. No nonsense mucking about for a bloody MP3 codec because some ideological twat doesn't like it. And it works! No mucking about configuring soundcards for a bloody game, no messing about with TSR's... At most upgrading DirectX. Rarely. And the upshot of the monopoly is that nigh on EVERYTHING with support some iteration of Windows. No need for a grandiose "Graaaaaaaaargh how dare Company X not release a client for Software Y".
There is a difference. Microsoft embodies the worst of capitalism: Untruthful, and using those lies to undermine the market, destroy rivals through deception, unfair competition and other nasty FUDDY ways. Think Word Perfect - undermined by low-ball pricing, then when the product began to fade jacking up the price for Office. Think Netscape, undermined by a free product to eliminate the market altogether. Then lies about IE as an 'integral' part of the OS that can't be eliminated- somehow Unix, Linux, and MacOS didn't have that problem. Think of all the great ideas that other people had that microsoft undermined by announcing that the next version of Windows would include that feature. Only it never appeared in a later release - it was a strategic announcement designed to scare away the money men. Think about the efforts that Steve Ballmer is making to cast doubt on the legal status of Linux - everything he says about patents applies equally to Windows - it probably violates the same number of patents. Basically, the company is dishonest to a degree that undermines the market. I am contemptuous of them for this. Then the product itself. Very weak in the OS department, they were OK at the NT 4 stage, not up to Unix, but ahead of Mac and Linux. That was the high point - they have stagnated and Linux and Mac OS have literally blown past them, yet they maintain an inertial lock on the desktop. This is changing, but it won't be really evident for 2 years. Office is a good product, but they charge a premium for yesterday - and Office is so yesterday. I am contemptuous of them for that. Security was a non-thought with them. They had a hobbyist view of the world of computing and adapted it to an internet world on the fly - remember they were reacting to events that they were powerless to define. They were late to the game and they had a toy OS (windows 95) in the pipe and they just put it out and prayed. Their prayers were not answered. Windows is unsecurable. I have contempt for them for that. But I don't hate them, they are pathetic - very rich, but still not worthy of envy or hate. They are just guys ( and women) in over their heads.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
if several other OS's didn't exist which run perfectly fine on tons of hardware (*BSD and Linux). And the sad part is, M$ has all the vendors producing drivers SPECIFICALLY for their operating system. All they have to do is provide a stable kernel and easy/efficient module system for these drivers, and they'd be golden -- every advantage is on their side there. This opposed to Linux and *BSD, who are still more or less reverse engineering many of their drivers.
...in less than a minute!?
That's basically what got my goat in the end: knowing that the OS I was using was a piece of insecure crap that was buggy as hell and yet I was basically forced to use because everyone else was using it. And knowing that this would just keep on continuing because Microsoft is basically too damn lazy and too damn incompetent to just Make It Work. And that I'd have to keep shelling out and shelling out for upgrades and anti-virus crap and downtime losses and on and endlessly on.
It isn't difficult to feel considerable antipathy toward Microsoft when one becomes aware what's going on.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
because they try to aggressively limit competition in any way possible???????
and then they have the gall to deliver inferior products, and provide poor support for their crappy buggy, bloatware.
and also the fact that the man behind the company is the richest man in the world, and hes only giving his children a million bucks out of his 50 billion or whatever, and whenever he donates to charity its in windows product!!!!!! i mean how is it possible to not hate this company?
1) A company that charges $150 per phone call for problems with its software, has no incentive to create decent software. In fact, they get paid to write poor software. .net as a "Business Solution" as if we are all just stupid and don't recognize it for what it is: A bloated Framework designed to sell more Microsoft servers and software and a feeble attempt to kill java. NOT a software framework to solve your business problems.
2) Standards in Web Design cost the industry Billions just to write specific Mikeysoft Explorer Code.
3) The free Virus/Malware kit features since 1998 that this company just can't seem to fix with all the PhD's it hires and fundamentally, doesn't understand why LINUX, SELinux are going to become the defacto standard in CIA and Corporate computing security.
4) The Endless nights of pages way back when I was a Mikeysoft dork admin, just to reboot a computer at 3AM, EVERY night for 2 years. Some things never change.
5) The balls this company has to push the industry
6)The whole Microsoft Office thing. Gad where do I start? How about Incompatible with Itself, specifically designed so that Excel 97 Macro's don't quite import perfectly into 2000.
7) DICTATING to everyone that Windows 2000 is no longer supported, we refuse to fix bugs in our software unless you upgrade. If you don't we do not care if 2000 meets your business needs, our shareholders demand you buy licenses for all your stuff AGAIN.
8) Reboot the OS everytime you make a friggin change. Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot!
9) Trying to Kill Linux with the whole trusted computing thing and working on proprietary BIOS'es. How SAD.
10) And last but not least....creating legions of Idiot Admins that can't do anything unless they are lead around by a OK or CANCEL button. God help them if they don't have a setup Icon someplace! One company who single handedly has put the US back into the Dark ages while the rest of the world MOVES ON without us.
-Hack
Thanks Mikeysoft for all the fun and thank god I left that fun to everyone else 12 years ago when I switched to Linux.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I don't hate Microsoft. I think their products are often very good, given that software from any vendor tends to suck in various ways.
I *oppose* Microsoft because they have a monopoly position in markets with high barriers to entry. In this situation, competition suffers, and without competition we get stagnation. It is a good thing for me to spend my efforts towards increasing competition rather than decreasing it, which generally requires opposing Microsoft.
How we arrived at this situation is not very relevant. It's partly Microsoft's doing, partly not. The computer industry suffers from structural network effects that drive the marketplace towards monopolies; that's not Microsoft's fault. But Microsoft certainly did (and does) many ethical and unethical things to reach and maintain its position.
People tend to think that if you oppose Microsoft, you must also hate them, but it's not so.
I was working in Japan, near Tokyo, for a company that manufactured medical imaging equipment - MRI, CT etc. At one point I had to create a small team to work on technical documentation, which found us setting up several PC's with Windows. One of the people I had on the team was a Chinese gentleman, who had left China where he was a college professor.
One day, his computer had a typical Windows lock-up & bluescreen and he asked me for help. As the box rebooted, I held down the keys that let you bypass the initial splash screens and go right to the desktop. He was surprised and I asked why? He said he didn't imagine you could avoid the splash screens if you wished and I told him, sure, why not...they don't do anything but advertise MS Windows. He thought for a moment and then smiled and said "Ah...brainwashing!"
I had to laugh, of course. After all, who better to cut to the truth of why those screens were there, than someone who had left his homeland in an effort to avoid a lifetime of such treatment.
MS is for MS...never customers. This has always been the situation and one many of us are not comfortable accepting.
Other reasons:
- MS makes a habit of rewriting history (Gates did not write DOS, etc).
- Investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
"if it wasn't for Microsoft, we would probably still be using IBM PC's." You meant to say the Amiga, right? But in that case, Linux and BSD would also have had no competition.
I don't hate Microsoft. I think that most of the people who "hate" Microsoft honestly don't care much either way and they just bash MS because everyone else does.
Their products suck. For any given MSFT product, they have entered the market late, and behind the leading (and most of the trailing competitors). At version 3 or 4, they finally catch up, kill off the other guy, and then slow down to about one tenth of their speed of development, or half the speed of innovation as the market was moving before them. If that fast. Look at IE.
Their products, once achieving superficial comparability to others, continue to lack depth. By depth, I mean both features and security. Compare NT/Server and AD vs Netware and NDS. 90% of the time, MSFT stuff is good enough. But ask it to do something slightly non-obvious and it frequently just cant be done.
But even more to the point of having half-assed products, is that they a) take a very arrogant attitude to... defending their virtue. "Security flaw? How dare those hackers!" and b) that they get them in production not just via aggressive marketing methods (as does everyone), but through the strength of their monopoly, through aggressive partnerships ("Going to a meeting with Microsoft is like going on a date with Mike Tyson: you should expect to get raped").
Basically, my "hatred" (*hate* is such a strong word... i would prefer disgust) stems from several different things:
-stagnation: Microsoft is responsible for a stagnation of innovation on the pc. Ranging from the _very_ late adoption of technologies (example: USB) to the complete ignorance of standards(html, css), they have hurt innovation
-interoperability/lock-in: the small changes in the SMB-protocol from version to version are jsut there to block interoperability. same goes for NTFS.
-sucky products: none of their releases are good. Almost every single product they have released begins to get useful a year after the release, when the most annoying bugs have been fixed. I could tolerate that with a small software-hut which _needs_ the money NOW, but Microsoft as enough money to wait till the product is really ready for the market.
-sucky products/bloat: I don't think that luna should eat away 140Mb of my RAM. I don't think that Word 2004 offers enough new features to warrant a tenfold increase of RAM-usage compared to Word 97
-lies: Microsoft lies. See their FUD about linux. See what the "great business deals" and "alliances" have gotten the companies Microsoft partnered with: every single company that worked with Microsoft lost.
-Content industry's bitch: DRM in every format, downscaling of videos, etc. _I_ am the customer, not the MPAA.
-arrogant CEO: Balmer must go.
-arrogant company: A company that want's to crush and kill everybody else is mad. Competition yes, killing for the killing's sake: NO.
At first, IBM tried to put the screws to a GUI on the desktop because it took away sales from their mainframe division. At that time everyone hated IBM. Why? for the same reason we hate Microsoft today. THEY KEEP TRYING TO RAM PROPRIETARY CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS I didn't help that Gates called everyone who coppies a thief either. Computers and the internet are the greatest copying tools ever made, it is pratically the whole meaning of their existence.
Lets see...
Refusal to work with public standards/insistence on being the "creator" of everything:
OpenXML vs. OpenDocument (an already established standard)
Direct3D vs. OpenGL (once again, already established standard)
Digital "Rights" Management support
Windows Activation
Support of Software Patents
Security Problems
The "Reformat and Reinstall" cycle
Platform Lock-in - A single powerful platform equates to a single platform that the majority of applications are developed for, which results in an even more powerful single platform. (PC Games are a great example of this). Not that a single powerful platform is a bad thing; it is just that the single power platform shouldn't be controlled by a single company! (*cough* GNU/Linux *cough*)
The EULA
Granted, Microsoft has been trying to play a bit "nicer" lately (opening up a free version of Visual Studio, for example).
Really, if this was a serious request (of course you don't mention your grade/age..) there are lots of better ways to do this. Opening a (hopefully?) ridiculous flame-war on everyones favorite *tech* (note: not anti-Microsoft) blog seems pretty juvenile.
Microsoft is what it is. There are bound to be lots of opinions about anything as ubiquitous but if your actually trying to accomplish something interesting or insightful your opening pretty much killed it.
Quack, quack.
I hate Microsoft because they try to buy instead of creating and fixing. They do not exhibit any innovation and have not for a very long time. Their products are buggy, restrictive and expensive. All of these are important, but restrictive is probably the most crucial. Have you ever read their EULA? It's ridiculous. On the contrary, a community developed system and packages are much better as they do not exhibit nearly the same amount of problems.
.NET are terrible.
Plus, VB and
I don't hate "Microsoft", I hate ideology of Microsoft. This article is the capstone for me http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 27/2232244 ..on to the question at hand...
Being a Sr. Software Architect I have a professional understanding for what people want in a final product; MS doesn't deliver it. I dislike that they want to "best guess" what I want and how I want it done. I have a strong dislike that I can't kill process whenever I want. I dislike that I can't control what is and is not started at boot time. I find it frustrating that if WinAmp crashes..so does IE or Word or 19 other products that don't have anything related to them. I disagree with how MS treats the "lesser" entities. The small people that just want to get something out and make some money and roll in the great American concept of Capitalism...they can't becuase MS owns the patent on Capitalism.
If I were to continue..I'd lose what dignity I have with the ./ community :) so I'm going to leave on that note.
[yes, I did overuse the word dislike .. but it's late and I'm sssleeppy]
io
Fixed:
So yes I will admit that I hate MS. I don't hate the people who work there, have known some and got along quite well with them, I don't even hate Gates and company. Gates seems like a well-intentioned man who is doing much good in the world. I even acknowledge the many useful products microsoft makes and the contributions of microsoft research to the CS world. Given that Gates is donating so much of his loot to charity I'm not even willing to say that MS on the whole causes harm.
.net technologies to make sure write once run anywhere never succeeds.
However, I do resent and dislike the company. Primarily I dislike them because of their constant success in scuttling real competition on product merits. We can go back to the DiskDoubler stuff back in dos (or early windows I don't remember) where the company with the superior product was pushed out of the market by IP infringement on MS's part and while I believe they did ultimatly win the lawsuit it was too late for them to grab mindshare. This practice continued with the netscape bundling dispute not to mention their relationship with the mac. Most recently we see it with their opposition to ODF and the political manipulations in both the UK and here to stop municipalities from using FOSS.
In short I hate MS for the same reason anyone hates a monopoly. I think their domination of the OS market has been used to stifle free competition that might have brought better technology to the desktop. Even now as virtual machines become more popular and we should see an age of OS agnosticism MS is trying to prevent that outcome by controlling just enough of
More personally I resent them for forcing me to make a choice between compatibility and access to windows documents and programs and running an OS I prefer. Admittedly if their own OS was a bit less clunky, a bit more elegant and most importantly had less of a sharp divide between developer and user (as OS X manages) I probably would be happy.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Of course MS can't do that with Open Source. So now the world is filling to the brim with all the "innovation" and "growth", all under the benevolent leadership of RMS and his GPLv3.
...It's contempt. 8^)
Okay, I jest. There are number of very good reasons the like Microsoft - their office automation products do make life easier - but it's just not enough for me. The fundamental problems are threefold:
There's no way to guarantee my work. (This is actually a complaint about proprietary software in general, but Microsoft is the worst about this.) On two or three significant occasions, I have been completely burned after commitments that I made to a client based on technical assurances I'd received that proved to be false. I've been forced into unsustainable situations because there was a huge gap between what the product promised to do and what it actually did. Dealing with the last 20% of any task is difficult at the best of times, but the number of times on Windows that I've been forced to accept that things are never going to run as designed because of shortcomings in the technology... they're too many to count.
Ultimately, the only way I could maintain my professional reputation (and my pride) was to walk away from the Microsoft Windows platform completely and to live with Linux and FOSS. It's not that it's better, per se, but at least I can make things work exactly as they're designed, without being completely at the mercy of someone else's market research and development cycle. In the worst case scenario, I can always keep a client happy by paying someone to provide a patch expressly for them. I may lose my shirt on that contract, but I'll never have a pissed-off client, and in my business, that's golden.
They're holding us back. I did a back-of-the-napkin calculation the other day, to see how much time I'd spent that week dealing with Windows' shortcomings instead of actually improving our systems. It was a fairly direct equation, because I was working on developing a really cool network monitoring toolkit that week. Every hour I spent at someone else's desk cleaning up crap delayed the arrival of this very useful tool by an hour. I calculated that I work 30% slower than I could do if I didn't have to deal with spyware, trojans, spambots etc.
That's insane. Seriously. People who don't know anything besides Microsoft will tell you that exploits happen to everyone, that if it wasn't MS, it would be someone else. But it just ain't so. Today's Word exploit is stunning evidence that Microsoft practices... whatever the opposite of security is. No I don't mean 'insecure'; they're apps are that, but their design is more like 'anti-secure'. I mean, who in their right mind stores pointers for memory move operations in a word processing file?
They are trying to break the Internet. The first points disappointed me, as a geek. But this point makes me angry. For Microsoft, dominance is not sufficient. They don't play to win; they play to destroy. And the tactics they use are bad for everyone. They oppose open systems, protocols - anything that makes it easier for people to share. This selfishness of spirit is manifest in every aspect of their business, and it impacts directly on my ability to do my job.
I don't mind having to explain the relative merits of a FOSS solution to an MS-only one. But when I have to respond to lies that are spread about my stock in trade, I get upset. When I spend more time countering FUD than actually talking tech, I get upset.
This is not competition. This is the opposite. It's playing dirty. It's cheating, and I'm tired of it.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
... you haven't done your homework.
http://outcampaign.org/
As a computer professional, I tend not to like companies that go out of their way to damage the industry as a whole. Microsoft has singlehandedly done probably more damage to the industry than any ten other companies combined. By crushing BeOS (illegally), they destroyed an up-and-coming example of what can be done with an OS that takes advantage of great amounts of threading and a proper C++ API (yeah, I'm biased...). Be was one of the most fun and pleasant OSs I've ever worked with, despite its pathetic networking capabilities. Had they been spared another year, Bone could have stabilized and been released, and Be could be been even more incredible.
Other examples of forward-looking companies crushed by MS can be easily found. Ten years ago Netscape tried to create a browser with enough capabilities to provide a consistent environment to any computer running on any OS. Web 2.0 was attempted over a decade ago, but the threat to MS was too great, and the company was destroyed.
Basically, any entity acting as a destructive bully will be hated. It's pretty simple...
It's that they have too much control. It's actually hard to buy a PC without giving Microsoft money. And they can pretty much charge whatever they want because they have such a strangle hold on everything to do with computers. It's like asking "Why do people hate the gas companies?" It pisses people off when they're so addicted to gasoline that they feel forced to pay the $3.00/gallon while they realize they're getting screwed.
And to make things worse, there is a whole software market that runs on top of their system. This gives them even more control and the ability to take over and force out any software running on their system. This leads to more control and forced addictions in certain software markets.
I think this is the basic reason the casual consumer hates Microsoft. Most of the other reasons people hate Microsoft only matter to geeks.
The also want to be compensate for low quality software. They love to nickel and dime customers to death. They think they are very slick with their IBM like marketing techniques. Basically, the egos are not justified. They compensate their employees (generally) below or at best average compared to most companies (with health benefits being the exception). I've personally turned them down at least a hand full of times over the last ten years.
People like me like to think there is something wrong with every company that cares more about money & future prospects of making money instead of focusing on the advancement of technology & betterment of human lives. I could be wrong in thinking all Microsoft wants to do is stay in monopoly. But when I see a Microsoft logo on every keyboard & CPU because the manufacturers get "bribed" (a.k.a payed for advertising MS logos); I get this gut feeling that Microsoft is an evil empire.
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
Because something is progressive, doesn't mean it's hateful, it just means that the world is changing and it's not changing in favor of your team (in this case Microsoft). Progressive thinkers should be looked at as visionaries, not "haters of bad technology".
Anyone who has visited slashdot from the earlier days has seen tech. trends come and go. The fact that Windows is being called "crap" doesn't make slashdot an anti-MSFT site; if anything it lends it more credibility (as Windows becomes exposed for what it is).
But as usual, you pro-Windows types will argue and promote it blindly (much like the "Faithful" do). Don't blame slashdot for bringing attention [positive AND negative] to your [insert favorite leprechaun/operating system/icon here] failures.
Slashdot "is what it is": a very respected/trusted technology website - nothing more.
Here's the root of the controversy. Microsoft will charge as much as they can get away with for their products. Software resources are viewed as a commodity that can be built upon, embedded, and before long damn near invaluable. After awhile, it can become very expensive and/or very time consuming to move away from that embedded technology you are now dependent upon. Microsoft's hyper-aggressive pricing model for their software, combined w/ this nature of software resources is a very dangerous combination. I will use Microsoft products as long as there isn't a better open source alternative. As an example, I've never installed anything but a Microsoft OS on a client machine in my home, but I'll always use Linux for servers at home.....chalk up the math however you want; I'm not going to argue the reasons...just an example of my point. So what is the point? Many developers hate Microsoft b/c they will screw you when they know they have a hit product, many people say that's just making a buck. I say buy Microsoft products when they have a better product, but support open source projects, built for developers by developers (FDBD?) whenever possible. With open source you know you won't be screwed by some sudden change in features or astronomical change in licensing fees (remember charging for windows server 2003 for every client that connected!!?) b/c Microsoft realizes they have a home run product. Cheers.
The reason that I hate microsoft is because they where the ones that started the whole "we don't stand behind our software in any legal way" license agreements. They began a culture in software that if its shit, its not our fault (even though it really is). While simultaneously spouting rhetoric that states the opposite. If there's no way to litigate for damages due to losses due to problems in their software, then there is absolutely no economic incentive for them to fix their software. Thus the software isn't fixed. The culture took hold, and every software license agreement since has had this kind of denial of responsibility, and thus software engineering has failed to become a true engineering discipline. I just thank God that microsoft didn't make its business in civil engineering, or people would be dying left, right and centre.
...as they have the power to change the way things are done, they have the market as a virtually captive audience, and they consciously decide to foist underwhelming mediocrity on the computing world.
They can do anything they want and they choose to sit back and let the world innovate and they simply assimilate.
And have the stones to call themselves innovative.
If most of MS's products were the handiwork of a small band of noobs, you'd think it was respectable. Realizing that it's the work of thousands of seasoned veterans is just sad.
They are the Napoleon Dynamite of the sofware industry.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Because, relative to the great innovators, like Apple, Lotus, BeOS, Amiga/Commodore, Unix, IBM with OS/2 - they've never done anything but a bad rehash of outside work. Anytime you can say they "innovated", they killed a much more technologically advanced competitor because they leveraged the position that IBM foolishly gave them with the original PC - the provider of the OS preloaded with nearly every computer bought for years now, complete with agreements that locked all the computer manufacturers out of providing any affordable alternative. Many important innovations have reached the average computer user five to ten years after they should have, because Microsoft isn't about technology - it's about market control. That's exactly the kind of thing that will get most enthusiast's goats.
I'm a sysadmin... in a previous lifetime I had to run Windows.... why do I hate windows?
* The six days in a row in 1997/1998 I had to battle hackers that had figured out how to reboot our windows nt 5.1 server from the net (firewalls weren't what they are today).
* The countless weeks I lost because of Exchange server disk becoming full;
* For exchange sucking such major ass ( before version 6.0) and failing when a disk filled up
* The countless hours I lost when SSL suddenly stopped working in NT one day,
* The unbearable and unthinkable number of times I've had to re-install windows when it became corrupt,
* The countless hours at christmas, thanksgiving and every other trip home I had to spend on the number of spyware and viri I've had to remove on my parent's computers (Because they have an app they need that needs activex)
And while I'm at it...
* Because of ActiveX and other closed systems,
* Because every OS upgrade requires new hardware, unlike Mac OS where ever OS Upgrade runs FASTER on older hardware than the old OS
And speaking of OS...
* Because of the registry, fuck the registry and fuck all the fucking registry hacks I've ever had to do,
* Because of the way they code their apps assembly line style in Redmond,
* Because of Bill Gates, and his hate of everything open and open source.
Thank you, you bastard troll for making me type this.
1)I liked Netscape, but it wouldn't work on a certain version of Windows because they took a DLL out.
2) M$ did everything in its power to obfuscate winsock through the 90's. I wanted to make the first MMORPG, but couldn't because there was no way for me to learn winsock.
3) By the time I could figure stuff out with winsock, they go to XP, and now my DOS based game can't be played except on DOS emulators.
4) If another company makes a good application. M$ will release its code monkeys to make a duplicate application so the original author never gets a foothold in application creation.
M$ competes with every software company with claw, tooth, and nail even though M$ was already the leader in software.
God spoke to me.
the subject was the quote of the day when i read this article. that said, i don't hate microsoft, nor am i a mac fan-boy, far from it. i hate apple.
the last apple os i used was 7.11. there was no sense in switching to 7.5. at about the same time i started using windows nt 3.5 (not 3.51, that came later). the switch took nothing. i was tired of one app bringing down the whole os.
*anyone* who tells you differently is wrong. try developing web applications in the early 90's on mac; you're toast.
however history since then is another ball of wax. in a parallel universe i would have worked at spyglass before MS licensed the code, and would have made mad cheddar. but no.
ever since that period in time MS's arrogance has made me their eternal antagonist. they don't own their own IP stack, they stole it from BSD. i used BeOS, until such time as it was no longer a viable option, mostly for reasons of drivers.
in short, they say 'innovation', they mean ' IP theft from those not willing to sue us'. they say 'interoperability', they mean 'vendor lock-in'. no matter, and here's why...
in 6-12 months they will be largely irelevant. (oops, am i not supposed to say that?). for at least the past year now, and probably more, the simple truth is that i can live w/o MS, but i can't live w/o google.
sooner, rather than later, the simple fact of that statement will be evident. and at that time i will have a gBox. a device with enough built-in solid-state storage to download the latest google kernel, and then torrent the rest. how much is the rest? a browser and a bunch of codecs. how big is it? no bigger than a large hardcover. what about screen and keyboard, you say? flexible keyboard and ePaper, i say. when you ask? before vista is even a serious consideration.
and thats why its over: don't believe the hype. frankly, don't even listen to it.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
I hate Microsoft because it's trendy. All the cool kids are doing it.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
1. You can't "steal an idea"
2. In its current form Defender is just another after-market anti-spyware product; they should make Windows more secure in the first place. How is what they are doing with Defender different than what they did with Media Player or Internet Explorer?
3. They develop IE to stay competitive (now that there is competition again). They don't want people going to FireFox or whatever else so they try to improve IE.
Think back to the 80's when Microsoft wasn't the 8000 pound gorilla they are now. Computing was making giant steps, hell, giant leaps forward as the Macintosh and the Amiga started to gain ground and entirely new paradigms of computing were created. There was hope that the future would be as envisioned in Apple's "Magilla" project, where you would talk to your computer and it would talk back using an "Agent" that essentially interpreted what you wanted and all was seamlessly integrated into the way you wanted to do things.
Now enter Microsoft, who decided that computing wasn't about what you wanted to do, but the way they wanted you to do it. Windows, to this day, makes you jump through one hoop after the next to even get the simplest tasks done.
Even John Dvorak has pointed out that in simply copying a file from one place to the next, you, the user, have NO IDEA what Windows is doing, and why it does it that way. For a company that supposedly hires the best and the brightest programmers, they have a backwards way of looking at the world and don't understand their user base at all.
Why, for example, when copying multiple large files over a network does it prompt you in the middle of the copy when one file has the same name in the target destination? Couldn't it check for duplicate names before starting the copy process? If you've started this file copy and it takes hours and you walk away, you come back to find the computer has done NOTHING in that time because it's waiting for you to answer a question that should have been asked before the copy process started. This isn't rocket science. It's a very simple programming fix and yet, Microsoft gets it horribly, horribly wrong.
Instead of computing your way, you are forced to use your computer the Microsoft way, which is counter-intuitive to the way people would like to work. Windows is still a application-oriented OS instead of a document oriented OS, and it's still a hodge-podge of DLL-hell and a file-system that isn't much better than FAT-16, and yet, here it is, 2006 and we still don't have those Agents we can talk to.
Hell, the Amiga did things in 1986 Windows still can't do, and you wonder why we hate Microsoft? Microsoft essentially killed the forward-moving trend I saw in the late-80's/early 90's, and sent computing back into the dark ages. Almost 20 years later, and MS is still playing catch-up to what was happening in R&D back then. And, if Vista is any indication, it's clear they have no plan for the future. The next version of Windows will contain the same basic flaws as Version 1.0 did -- I'm sure the file-copy bug will still be there as will many other basic miscalculations regarding how people use computers.
That's why I hate Microsoft -- because they lack a basic understanding of they how and why of people interacting with machines. Instead, we're forced to deal with how they want us to use it. People have to train themselves to think backwards in order to use a computer -- which is probably why businesses that depend upon computers now do less then they did before the PC invaded the workspace.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Some homework:
Read Atlas Shrugged
Read The Fountainhead
Rent (or buy) and watch A Sense of Life. Twice.
Then you will understand.
Just go http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page= 2005010107100653 do the math. Despite what some say MS does not invent much, they just acquire what they want. If they can't acquire it they take it, one way or another, but not necessarily in that order. They are business, men with a vengeance.
Microsoft has always been a corporate-interests first, users-interests second company. They have so much reliance on (and dedication to) their giant customers (Fidelity, Boeing, Ford, etc.) that they do whatever they need to to please them: .vbs script attached. It'll run automatically and install your new updates."
"You've got an IT staff of two hundred, and a employee base of a hundred thousand, so it's tough to maintain? How about we turn on Remote Administration and ActiveX by default so that you don't have to visit those hundred-thousand desktops to maintain them?"
Or, "Updates via email? Sure, we can do that! Just have everyone run Outlook, then you send an email to them with a
Anyone with half a brain would say "uh, the average joe doesn't want or need these things", and I'm sure many MS programmers do... but their marketing people overrule them. That's why I hate MS. They don't care about me - they install tons of CPU-cycle wasting crap (running Messenger on a default install?) because their corporate customers want it. Their corporate customers, incidentally, are behind firewalls and are maintained by dedicated staffs. We wouldn't have the number of worms and viruses that we do if they hadn't written code that specifically allowed such exploits - not because they're malicious or stupid, but because they wrote it for use solely behind corporate firewalls and then sold the same product to Joe User.
Other examples of this are their past illegal actions stifling competition and their willingness to allow root-level scripting to run by default. Heck, we only got a Firewall being on by default in an XP service pack. That's not only insane, it's just a stupid patch for a problem that shouldn't have been there: home users don't need ports open unless they specifically want them to be. If you're running a webserver or mailserver at home, you're probably savvy enough to open a port for them. If you're not, you have no business having open ports. Unless you're a corporate IT guy who wants all of his machines to be instantly accessible from his desk, no matter where they are in the world, as soon as they're plugged in.
And that's what's wrong with MS.
The day windows becomes open source or at least free ,I will embrace Microsoft but until then i hate Microsoft(for no reason of course!). ;)
As an occasional MS Office user, I have a rare opportunity to examine MS Word with an objective eye when (rarely) I have to use it to open or edit someone's files. I must say it's a really crappy piece of software. Very confusing, noisy, unintuitive, just plain buggy in places (even in the latest version). Well, by itself it's nothing new; there's plenty of software out there which is worse than that. But what's different with MS Word is that it is something that MILLIONS of people use intensively *every day*. It boggles my mind when I think of the megatons of wasted mental effort that went into getting used to all of its quirks, and all the lost sanity in this world that enables so many people to "feel at home" in this program. That alone is reason enough for me to hate Microsoft, and I'm pretty sure the MS Word experience is one reason why so many users hate Microsoft too, even if they don't know any better. 20+ years in development and still ugly as hell - it's really inexcusable.
I'm ambivalent toward Microsoft products. For the most part they get the job done, which is fine with me. I'm much more comfortable in a Unix environment, but Windows isn't horrible.
I like the fact that Windows has become a standard and that Microsoft has a huge market share. Most people here see this as a negative, but what they probably don't realize is that without a company like Microsoft having a huge majority of the market share, PC's would be substantially more expensive and less powerful than they are today.
Imagine if we had never standardized on an Intel platform. I seriously doubt that home computing would have taken off to the extent that it did, because so many people buying the same computer drive the price way down due to economy of scale.
Windows and Microsoft, by being the standard, help drive down the cost of PC's because people who would otherwise never consider purchasing a PC will now do so because Windows exists.
This isn't due to anything that Microsoft did in particular, other than protect their market share. But it had to happen, and I'm glad that it did, and that the personal computing world isn't split into eight different, incompatible standards. (Like it was in the early 80's.)
Do I wish that Unix or Amiga had become the PC standard instead? Sure. But no company was actually willing to get behind those platforms and push them until they were dominant. This is the value that Microsoft provided, and why they can continue to charge for Windows today.
You'll see a similar thing happen with Blue-ray / HD-DVD. One might be a much better standard than the other, but until either one dominates, neither is particularly valuable to me, or the average consumer.
So before hating Microsoft, ask yourself if you're better off with that nice, fast $400 Linux PC built from parts from several competing manufacturers, or whether you'd rather that no company had a "monopoly" and that your same Linux PC were half as powerful, half as reliable, and cost twice as much.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I hate Microsoft because I find it insulting that they expect damn near everyone to buy into their scam: release problem software, get you hooked, and then charge you for "fixes" which just create more problems that lead to more updates.
When I move to a new version of Mac OS, it's for cool new features I actually want. When I move to a new version of Windows, it's because of some lame issue with the previous version that Microsoft never fixed. This is why I haven't dumped any more money into PC hardware in two years, and boot my PC about once a month, and in a good month, not at all.
I like my freedom, but you can't have freedom without choice, and Microsoft is dedicated to eliminating our choices. I really think the only thing that limits Microsoft is the lack of an army, so they can't actually ignore the various governments. A very harmful secondary effect is that they are greatly limiting the rate at which software evolves and develops. In the absence of meaningful competition, they have no sincere reason to change or improve anything. Increasing shareholder value is not the ultimate goal of mankind.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
- Some people might "hate" MS the way they hate Hitler or Stalin.
- Some people might "hate" MS in the sense that they wish them harm. They'd get a little thrill of pleasure if they saw MS's stock take a nose-dive.
- Some people might "hate" MS in the sense that they hate getting spam from 0wned Windows boxes, or they hate it when their bank's web site only works in IE, or they hate it when people send them Word documents that could just as well have been sent as plain text, or they hate it when they're required to provide a resume in Word format.
- Some people might "hate" MS in the sense that they don't like Windows, but it's the one they have to use at work.
- Some people might "hate" MS in the sense that Windows would be their third or fourth choice of operating system, but they're perfectly happy running their first choice. (That would describe me.)
If the OP had bothered to tell us what this project was about, we might be able to help him more. Is it a school project? A business project? Is the vagueness because the OP didn't bother thinking carefully about the definition of the project, or because he has thought it through carefully, but didn't bother telling us? Are we interested in negative attitudes towards MS from the point of view of someone in the advertising business? Someone in the software business? Someone doing a case study for business school?Find free books.
Mainly its their uncanning ability to always pick the technically inferior solution, and we all then suffer the pain for years to come.
The abuse of monopoly power doesn't help either. Neither does copying every bodies good ideas while never having a genuine innovation yourself, and then have your CEO not shut up how any sanctions by the government would limit your ability to innovate.
M$, speaking on Business level, has had great ideas. What company doesn't want to Dominate thier Market?
M$'s Products are the real reason why most people hate them. I have never heard someone say, "Boy that Office XP is the best thing since beer in a can". Most of thier software is NOT geared tomorrow simplicity. There is an ever-growing Senior demographic to consider as well.
If they would spend the extra 2 months to work out all of the bugs instead of beefing up thier "Automatic Update".
Here's a concept, lets test it til it breaks, fix it / improve it, retest, repeat as necessary, until the bugs are worked out.
Bill Gates has something like $98 Billion and he can't get the code to work fork for his applications?
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
I have three substantive objections, in decreasing order:
1) Leveraging of monopoly power, to the deterement of the tech community as a whole. Embrace-extend-extinguish is one example of this.
2) Hideous security. Way back in ~1995 all the security people were warning them about the nightmare they were building with many of their "features". A gazillion exploits later, they woke up to the problem, and have spent the last ~5 years trying (and largely failing) to undo the damage.
3) FUD.
The other reasons are pretty superficial, and wouldn't go very far without the above:
4) Hooked on Linux (I needed a real multitasking OS in the early 90s - Windows couldn't do that then.)
5) I like the free software model. (Sharing information is large part of how science has been so succesfull, and I'm a scientist.)
6) David vs Goliath syndrome. (I make a point of buying AMD rather than Intel, but I don't dislike Intel. This isn't enough by itself.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Help fight continental drift.
I'll admit Microsoft products aren't perfect, hell they have a lot of problems. But I mean, claiming that every alternative you've used is better? I think that's complete bullshit.
I know a lot of people on here look at Linux with adoring eyes, but come on, it's not ready for the desktop. I want to install an OS, and have it work. My printer. My camera. My weird NIC. My DVDRW burner. My 2 month old Video Card. Maybe I should go Mac then? That really doesn't solve the problem because it's hardware controlled (though I do have a Mac and love it). But Mac's office suite is - surprise! - Microsoft Office. Open Office sucks, period. Make it fast on OSX and maybe i'd say otherwise.
Anyways, the whole point of this is that claiming that all alternatives available are better is a pretty broad and stupid statement. I would say I even enjoy Office 2007 quite a bit.
Generally speaking, if you want it simple, go with a Mac. If you want it complicated, go with Linux. I'm pretty happy with the in-between. And how is everyone so sure that the lack of competition has stifled innovation? It is possible that the opposite is true, as they face no pressure to add a bunch of crap that isn't needed. Look at intel vs. AMD. Didn't AMD's competition actually slow technological advancement by forcing, and I use that term loosely, intel into a gigahertz race - producing really high clock speeds, but unacceptable performance? Recently, MS has spent a lot of time and effort promoting their pretty worthless AERO UI - why? because they started feeling the heat from Apple, obviously. I just control-f'ed "innovation" and it came up quite a few times. WTF are all of you looking for? Are you thinking to yourselves, "Man, if Bill Gates wasn't so damn greedy, there would have been innovation everywhere. I cannot believe how innovative things would be right now if it wasn't for him?" I'm not well versed on their supposed shoddy business practices. If they were really so unethical, then they can go to hell for that. It is possible, though, that they're just trying to provide the best possible product.
Since 1991, I've spent about 80% of my time at work fixing problems with Microsoft software. I have the timesheets! So far this week I've had to reinstall seven printer drivers just because they quit working. I've had to drive to four different remote offices because Windows 2003 because in two locations Windows simply locked-up and in the two other Windows wouldn't restart after a power failure. We have seven remote offices each with a single Windows 2003 server, and I'm averaging having to drive to one each week. We also have a Linux server in each office running on the same HP hardware, but I haven't had to drive to an office to fix one of them in almost two years! Some days half my day is spent restoring Outlook Express files from backups because OE will often lose them. And so on.
If it wasn't for Microsoft I would have a lot more free time and make more money since I would be free to do productive things for my employer rather than simply fixing Microsoft-created problems.
Everyone who reads /. hates Google now, not Microsoft.
Windows 3.0 had these things called UAEs or Unrecoverable Application Errors that crashed Windows. You know how they fixed them? In Windows 3.1, they became GPFs or General Protection Faults. They happened just as often, so it seems that only the name changed.
In Windows 95 & Windows NT, the GPFs became access violations (recoverable), but we were introduced to something new: The BSOD (blue screen of death). With Windows XP, I no longer get BSODs. Now, my entire machine simply reboots itself for no apparent reason. No, there's no adware or viruses. This is just what Windows does and has done for years. It's gotta crash, the question is how?
I've been a reluctant Windows user for 16 years. In all of those years, they have failed to make their product leaner, more stable, easier to use, or less expensive. The cost of Windows increases and the same old problems never get fixed. Often, they get worse.
Microsoft is the Ford Motor Company of the software world. Obsolescence is definitely built-in. Their software guzzles computing resources like an Excursion swallows gasoline. Then there's the spontaneous crashing, not unlike Ford's little problem with cars spontaneously combusting (due to faulty cruise control switches).
They should merge together and form MicroFord. Would you trust your life to a car powered by the technological expertise of Microsoft and Ford? I know I would. My car's gone far too long without a service pack.
So this is all to try to figgure out how to convert the hate into love eh? I have one thing to say and one thing only: "...faint oinking sounds will be heard..."
No matter what Microsoft tries to do. No matter what kind of candy it tries to promulgate. No matter how good Microsoft employers are after the fact.
Its simple as this: I am not turning the other cheak regarding Microsoft, No matter what!
You may find this blind BUT I am not willing to give Microsoft any ideas no matter what.
Well, I've been using Microsoft products for the last 15 years, and for the last three years I've been working for a company that does support for small- to medium-sized businesses that use Microsoft products. At my office we use a mix of Windows and Linux and at home there are Windows, Mac, and Linux boxes under my desk. I have issues with all of them, to be sure, but here's my Microsoft litany:
Now, a list of what I like about Microsoft products:
I could probably go on all night but I've had a few drinks and need to crash.
Welcome to my world.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
That's silly. Nobody has forced me to upgrade my 98 machine or my mainstay, which runs NT4. The only thing that would force me to upgrade is if I want to run a new software package, which is MY choice, no one elses.
You could make exactly the same comment about Apple, for example. At least I can run DOS games on XP by and large, try running Hypercard from system 7 on OSX.
Because Microsoft has trained the world (or at least, the computer-using part of it) that software is inherently buggy, insecure, untrustworthy, problematic, painful to use, and unreliable.
And it doesn't have to be.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
OK, Microsoft products are most certainly not without their problems; anyone who has ever spent any meaningful time working on computers has certainly cursed the corporate name on numerous occasions.
But, objectively speaking, Microsoft products have all improved dramatically in the last, say, ten to twelve years. I've run Windows 2000 and XP systems for months without any crashes, and any Windows computers with which I've dealt in recent years have generally just done what they were supposed to do. The products aren't perfect to any degree, but they're no less so than any other platform.
The hatred, I believe, comes from Microsoft's sheer size. Hatred of the biggest and baddest has endless precedent over the years, and this is just the most recent example. IBM, GM, AT&T, Motorola... even legendary sports teams like the New York Yankees, the Edmonton Eskimos, the Dallas Cowboys, the USC Trojans, etc, etc.
And, in most of those cases, it's the same core collection of arguments -- "bought their success," "unfairly crushing the opposition," "biases in governing bodies." The fact is that nobody really LIKES a dynasty because they're boring. Sports are boring when it's the same team in the championship game every year, politics are boring when the same party wins every election, and computers are boring when they all run Windows.
When an entity is so pervasive in a field that fuels one's passions, it's just a matter of time before one gets sick of seeing the same products/figureheads/athletes in the viewing frame day after day after day. Maybe it's jealousy, maybe not, but I can't think of any examples of entities that are perennially at the top of their heap AND are loved. Google? Give it time... the effect is beginning already if you look closely.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's no secret at all why people hate Microsoft... because they're very, very good, and they've been good for a long time.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
Why I hate Microsoft?
It's their bully tactics. They beat Netscape by employing their monopoly to crush the competition. They violated Stac Inc.'s intellectual property with DblSpace and used their vast reserves to cash to keep from having to make it right. They bought Bungie and delayed the release of Halo for the Mac and Windows platforms just to have an XBox only app at launch. WGA. Software "activation".
What really burns me up is that after 20 years of Microsoft's horrible behavior, we actually have stupid assholes talking about making Bill Gates President of the USA.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
For my generation in particular, it was the way we were raised. For both my boyfriend and I, it was our family life too. We both have dads who are computer programmers. They both talk about the good ole days before there was Microsoft. We both also remember the days of Lemmings. We weren't taught to hate Microsoft. We were taught that there's more to life than just Microsoft. However, I have to say, I personally respect Microsoft. Their goal was to provide an operating system and set of software for the average customer. I think they hit the nail on the head.
I don't *hate* Microsoft, but do find it extremely disheartening.
The thing that really bothers me is the lack of choice they *impose* and profit on.
They have come up with tons of products that you may or may not find attractive, that is up to you. The problem is, in the past, even if you didn't like what they came up with you have HAD to pay for them and get their products. Case in point, Windows of course. During the 90s and part of the 2000's I required to use a PC and genuinely didn't like the Microsoft OS. I wanted to run specialty 3D software (i.e. Alias Maya) on a laptop at the time and was locked up on using Wintel platform. I literally had no choice.
I paid for a new laptop and the price included probably around $100 or more on a OS that provided questionable security and a lame user interface. I would gladly have paid more to use an alternative OS. Now, I do have a choice, and switched to OS X and Linux, and while not perfect, it is my choice.
You could argue that the *damage* to myself was really only a $100 or so charge for what the OS cost me (probably more). But what pisses me off is that they didn't give me a chance to say Yes, I do like your product or No, I don't. In this day and age, we have come a long way to just let an entity tell you what to do, specially with such a nice a hobby such as computers. One time that a company tells you what is good for you when you know otherwise is one too many.
I think the zune and the xbox are not attractive products. Since I don't have to buy them, their launch is fine with me. I actually would encourage Microsoft to come up with new things, more choices to us customers is a good thing. But Windows.... limiting my choices... that is just plain wrong.
Many people who understand computers hate Microsoft because Microsoft's approach poisons the well. Humans have been able to beat the crap out of all other species because of our enhanced abilities to communicate and cooperate (take a look at Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution for a detailed analysis of this concept). Computer geeks are intimately familiar with the utmost importance of clear communication and cooperation in computer work which is why they are much more likely to hate Microsoft than J. Random User.
I also suspect that Microsoft's overarching strategy of restricting information flow infects the psychology of many of the folks who work there, which would explain why, despite hoards of talent and money, Microsoft manages to make product after product that suck. I suspect that on some subconscious psychological level, Microsoft makes sucky products on purpose.
Geeks notice.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
People love underdogs... I remember 2 decades or so ago people in IT also hated IBM and embraced the then newcomer Microsoft even though Windows at the time might have been technically inferior to IBM's OS2.
The quality of any product is directly proportional to the product's "traditional" popularity, lack of compatibility with competing products and price.
So, it makes sense that once Microsoft has you locked into using their products without any easy way out and can offer them to you for practically little-to-no cost so long as every machine in your company is Microsoft controlled by contract (under penalty of the "Microsoft Tax" for non-compliance), that people both use microsoft products and hate them at the same time.
Money talks, and no one (short of Walmart) speaks the language any better than Microsoft.
8==8 Bones 8==8
If Wellington were alive today and was working for Microsoft, when looking at the Novell deal he would be heard stating again, "They came on in the same old way and we stopped them in the same old way."
Daddy, why is there a sky?
Microsoft is the classic definition of an evil corporation. I don't think they have produced a single solitary thing on their own. They have either purchased a small company that has good ideas (then takes their ideas and guts the company), or (more often than not) just steals their ideas and runs them out of business with predatory pricing (ala Netscape). Adding things to the OS (like IE) that don't belong there is just another form of predatory pricing and for the most part is an ILLEGAL practive.
Microsoft uses their monopolistic leverage to maintain a stranglehold on the market. I've asked several professional developers why they don't cross compile their programs for alternate OSes (Linux, Mac, OS2Warp, etc) and the answers are always the same, "We are forbidden by Microsoft from developing for alternate OSes or we will lose our Microsoft developer license". This is the one thing that the anti-trust trials always overlook.
And then there is the quality (or rather lack therof) of Microsoft's products. To quote an old Disney movie "They have more bugs then a bait store" and since Microsoft is the only game in town (that monolopy part) they don't give a rats ass about fixing any bugs that appear.
This is turning into a rant so I will stop here.
1) Monopolistic behavior, its treatment towards other company 2) Inability or unwillingness to innovate without competition i.e. IE reponse prior to firefox 3) They're greedy 4) Security problems 5) Lack of chocies 6) PR - Arrogance toward Linux and other competitor (not necessary limited to OS)
I don't hate the company, but rather their business practices. Although, at times it is difficult to separate one form the other. I dislike most of their products. I detest their licensing and find administering their products to be mostly annoying.
Why do people "hate" Microsoft? The true answer is a simple question--what is there to love?
I first started using MS operating systems in the early 90's (around 91).
After a while of working with MS and other software, I became aware of the embrace, extend, and extinguish practice MS was using. At the moment, I can't recall any specific instances of this. I do recall MS software almost working with other software, or working with something for awhile and then mysteriously stop working (aka the extend and extinguish part). This was well before the phenonemen became more generally known.
(As a side note, McDonalds uses a similar strategy. They introduce a new sandwich of some sort. It is good, has good quality and volume. Then over the course of many months, the quality and volume of the sandwich decreases to the minimum point. Why? First, you get people to like the sandwich, then you start nickel and diming the quality and quantity of it's parts to save some money and make a few more pennies. People, having memory of the initial quality continue to purchase the cheaper version. Etc. and so forth. Go back to 1, and introduce a new sandwich... Not quite the same as MS, but using a similarly subtle and deceptive strategy.)
Realizing that MS wasn't quite playing fair has gone a long way to making me wary of them, as well as engendering a certain amount of ill will.
Then we have the various instances of MS outright eating the competition. Netscape is the primary example.
In particular, with Internet Explorer, we have a web browser that didn't quite follow the specs, added its own extensions, and made creating web sites that supported more then one browser a pain in the ass. Just a little difference in how CSS was interpreted, a bug here or there, and you have a whole lot of people who throw up their hands, say 'F*** this' and just develop for MS, since they gained the majority of the market.
The next obvious example was the almost laughable attempt to subvert the Java platform. Like everything else, add a few incompatible extensions and you would have people throwing up their hands again (since MS had the majority of the market).
Next, we have the abomination that is product activation. So I legally purchase and use your software, but if I tweak my hardware there is a good chance I'll have to come begging back to MS for the right to continue using it. That isn't a good feeling. Intuit apparently saw MS's activation and liked the idea, tried it, and didn't do as good a job. After all the complaint's, they backed off, but not before loosing a lot of good will (from people like me, who would avoid them like the plague unless there is not other good alternative).
What else? Oh, things like licensing based on the number of connections. At some point in the mid to late nineties, as I recall, MS had the brilliant idea that each TCP connection would require a license. So they said that you were only licensed for something like 10 connections, otherwise you needed to purchase additional licenses. Hahah. Yea. That makes customer feel real good, considering the alternatives (linux...). They seemed to have backed off on that one.
We also have the various attempts to make it difficult for projects like samba to interoperate with MS. Not wanting to share documentation, hiding protocol specs, etc...
Lately, we have the trusted computing platform initiative. In this case, we have the OS manufacturer conspiring with hardware manufactures and content providers to take control of the computing system out of the hands of the consumer. That's just lovely. While I like the idea that there could be a secure path via the hardware, such that it might make a system truly secure and difficult to hijack, taking the control away from me (the consumer) is completely unacceptable. If they ever actually go that far, it will be the last straw. (Interestingly, after the Intel CPUID fiasco and such, the trusted platform seems to have lost a little steam. Vista doesn't seem to have it and hardware doesn't seem to be out there. Maybe even the people at M
Microsoft software has long built on the "suite" of products. The culmination of this is really going to show in Vista more than it ever did for XP or any other OS they released. It's the core of the company, and it's why people hate them.
First, let's point out their strong points. Microsoft has taken administration of domains, web sites, mail servers almost to the point where they are trivial to support. Their extensive API allows developers to write plugins and third party software EASILY and as such, there's a lot of Windows support.
But why do people hate Microsoft? Simply put, they are the best, and people tend to hate the guy on top.
Let's elaborate. I think a great time to start is WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft's Office suite was a very immature product, and Word paled in comparison to WordPerfect, Excel paled to 1-2-3. However, each successive version Microsoft made strides, and blew out the doors of WordPerfect with ease of use, quality of software, and a host of features. The same is true of Excel and 1-2-3. The Office suite at this point became a cash cow for Microsoft, and will continue to until another company can release a decent product.
Let's go off to the server side. Windows server could be compared to Novell in the early days. And let's be honest, Novell back in "the day" had some really cool features, NDS being one of them that is now emulated entirely by Active Directory. However, Active Directory FAR surpasses anything on the market like it. Now see it's one thing to introduce a way to manage a domain using Active Directory, but Microsoft didn't stop -- they implemented a Remote Installation Server, that automatically created Business Based Images for a corporate rollout of an operating system, using a common file library. Along also came Sharepoint, a document repository which in the 2007 version will be quite nice (as I'm reading). And of course, there's Exchange.
I will say this much about Exchange, that Notes was ahead of it when Exchange was first launched. And now, Notes pales in comparison. Of course this is Slashdot, so I'm sure we will have our Notes fans here, but when you're talking ease of use, clusterability, and such beautiful integration with active directory, AND the MS Office suite... it's simply great.
And with all the MS products on the market, and how they tie into one another so well, is why Microsoft is hated. Because nobody can create a Windows based email server better than Microsoft, FOR WINDOWS. Notes runs under Windows, but it doesn't run as well as Exchange. Tivoli runs under Windows, but it doesn't run as well as SMS. OpenOffice runs under Windows, but it's not as good as Office. Oracle runs under Windows, but not as well as SQL Server.
And therein lies the rub -- people hate Microsoft because indirectly, they can't get all the products they want from other companies. There's a very high cost of entry to be totally integrated with Microsoft and it has shown that the market doesn't compete as quickly as we all would like. Of course, Microsoft has had its fair share of security problems, and we as consumers have been very quick to point that out. Slashdotters here will in great number say how "bad windows is" compared to linux or unix, or even OS X. And to a great number of them, I can nod in agreement with certain things. Linux is more stable than Windows -- but it has no applications like Office, Sharepoint, and SMS that tie in all together. OS X is easier to use, but again, hasn't near the suite of products to make it viable on a corporate level.
Simply put, it's always easy to find the flaws of the biggest software company in the world. But the key to Microsoft has always been to cater to the developers -- this is their strength. Their API and documentation, and even their support and development TOOLS are great. And the ability to be able to code for Office, Windows, SQL server and Sharepoint in a single application (.net) gives developers a lot of room for creativity.
I'll leave you with this...
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
There is a large amount of stupid people in this world. And stupid people FOLLOW THE HERD. There are a few people out there who hate microsoft for likely reasonable opinions, many of them are super computer geniuses who tell computer illiterate people how to think and thus these opinions trickle down to the stupid people.
And then there are the Mac users. Most of which fall under this category. Especially the meatheads who were told Macs are better for "graphics stuff" because in 1995 Photoshop was only available for the Mac and it took all the way til 1996 to be available for the PC. You people are regurgitating an argument that started and ended over 10 years ago. It's just been trickling through the dull minds of failed graphic designers for the last decade and you sheep are buying into it.
So sadly folks, that is your answer. People are stupid and unwilling to formulate an opinion of their own. Even if they tell you it's their opinion, it really isn't. They just heard some other nerd say it.
I hate Microsoft for some very simple reasons
In short, due to their poor products they've trained three generations of computer users to think that computing is inherently mysterious, and computers are inherently unstable.
I know of operations and management people that think it's normal to reboot UNIX systems and J2EE servers on a nightly basis. When you inform them that a little bit of effort could solve the problem, they calmly look at you and say, "What problem?"
It is much easier to hate a corporation that has been convicted of a monopoly than it is to hate something that affects human lives far more. In the case of the former, all you need to do is say the right things on this website and you'll get plenty of affirmation. However, with the latter, you'd be faced with some very uncomfortable options that involve sacrificing parts of your own cozy life in order to work against it. You might have to give some money, or some time. I'm talking about serious social problems, such as poverty, children made to fight in wars, or other seriously messed up things.
Certainly mark Microsoft as evil, but I find it comic how incensed people become discussing them. And quite sad, considering if that sort of passion were put toward something besides spewing vitriolic comments on anonymous message boards, perhaps we'd be a lot better off. What I learn from Microsoft is that no corporation is to be trusted. I should question motives of an entity that exists solely to make profits, in everything they do. I also learn that corporations tend to converge on suckiness, almost without fail. My opinion stops there, however. I reserve the farther reaches of the emotional spectrum for people, not things, because people are what really matter.
I'll try to be polite here.... I try my hardest *not* to hate MS, but they just make it too darned difficult. Here we have a company who have, between the entire workforce, never had a single original idea. The entire business plan involves watching what other people do, copying it Really Fucking Badly then abusing a monopoly position to force every PC buying person on the planet to pay for their shit even if they don't want it, while shafting the opposition as badly as their lawyers can get them away with. it amuses me greatly that MS are now panicking because their 'you HAVE to use our stuff because everyone else does' is failing due to their being so many far friendlier and cheaper alternatives now. there is also the [relatively minor] point that they clearly could not give a stuff about their customers. The total mess surrounding IE 6 and DRM are perfect examples of a company being focused entirely on corporate partners whilst absolutely ignoring the needs of the folks who have to use the damned software. I used to take considerable pride in the fact that I use absolutely no MS software or hardware, ever. Now I find it vaguely sad that it's no longer a matter of personal taste or ethics, but that I will not risk having my computer hamstrung by some of the dodgiest software ever written. I eagerly await the day when the world wakes up and finds itself using a decent OS instead.
Having to use their stuff and had to try to use their shitty support was what started me down the road of hatred for Microsoft. Their ongoing anti-competitive practices that make it difficult to avoid using their products make me really hate them. The large number of people who love Microsoft for the sheer reason that it's all they know just makes me loath the whole bunch.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
You're UID is over a million. Your opinion doesn't count.
--
RumorsDaily
"Why does everybody hate Microsoft?"
You first, why did you kill your wife? It's obvious to me that you've already made up your mind about what we think of Microsoft. So what would be the point in trying to answer your question? So that you can take our words and twist them to make them fit your current thesis?
No, thank you. I'll leave this task to other slashdoters.
American productivity in business is what it is all about.
Microsoft singlehandedly has trashed American productivity
with its buggy, insecure, reprehensible software for decades.
Think about your own company where you work.
How many man-hours or man-years have been lost through
lost data, system crashes, failed presentations, and re-installs
because of Microsoft Office substandard and bloated software?
More than that, how much corporate production time has been
lost to down computer time because of Windows?
Even if Microsoft reembursed every user for what they spent
on Microsoft software and operating systems, it would never
begin to repay lost time and productivity that it has cost
American businesses. And in the world of competition with
other businesses and governments, we have fallen far behind
because of Microsoft.
Do we even mention Microsoft generated corporate insecurity?
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
To use /. as a representation of society for its views on MS is about as poorly researched as you can possibly get and to me reeks of incredibly poor research on your part. while I love /. it represents a minority of people and generally extremely biased and anti MS minority at that. To use them /. in this method would be like going to talk to Hitler to get the communities views of jews.
Because when you ask Ms. Dewey a question about Linux Downloads she gives you crap about pirating MP3's.
However, the bulk of the population does not have the same perspective - they don't care much about innovation, and are not aware of how much Microsoft has exploited others. but the majority of the population still doesn't like Microsoft.
Why? I'd say the main reason is that their shit doesn't work properly, and it's really expensive. Many are forced into using Microsoft products by their workplace, other believe that there is no alternative. They see glossy Microsoft ads promising freedom, but then they have to use microsoft products every day, and the experience is the opposite of freedom and happiness. It's difficult to use interfaces, and stuff that just breaks. It's losing their work to some inexplicable error. Even if the error is the fault of a third-party application, the whole computer is branded "Microsoft Windows." Literally, even hardware is sold with Windows stickers on it! They know that microsoft is a huge corporation, and can't understand why they make such a shitty thing. After all, the other things they buy - cars, TVs, stereos - mostly work well and fulfill the desired tasks. but there you have Microsoft promising the world, but it's just a pain in the ass, and doesn't make anything easier.
I think that people now just have lowered expectations of Microsoft, to avoid disappointment. It's a survival mechanism. Around the Windows 95 days, people probably thought that Microsoft could bring some small happiness into their lives - far fewer people used computers back then. But now nearly everybody has to use them every day, so they can't be optimistic - they know it's going to be a shitty experience. And they can't do anything about it. If you got a lemon of a car, you could get furious, maybe file a lawsuit, or contact Consumer Reports complaining about shoddy merchandise. But with Windows, that is pointless. Start screaming about microsoft's shoddy merchandise, and people are like "Yeah, that's what Windows is like. Didn't you know?"
Put simply, if Microsoft were a car company, they would have been run out of business years ago.
... and then they built the supercollider.
next question?
I hate Microsoft because I had to pay for their product, when I had no intention of using it. I was buying an approved computer to use OpenStep for the x86 and had to pay for Microsoft Windows despite not wanting it.
Until it is required for manufactures to refund the cost of Microsoft Windows from machines that are not bought with Windows, I will continue to hate Microsoft.
Monopolistic behavior in crushing competition unfairly, crappy poor products, consistently bloated and inelegant software (just watch Word documents collapse under a couple of edits), closed standards, overpriced software.
Basically the same flaws that most evil large corporations in america are guilty of, and just like GM, I can only hope they fall soon.
Think of it this way: they make one good product, the Xbox 360. Everything else they produce is absolutely terrible: the Zune, Windows XP, Windows Mobile, Outlook, Enterprise stuff, Office.
Geeks love technology; that's a given. Microsoft is a technology company. And yet, Microsoft doesn't give a damn about having the best technology, or about doing the most technologically impressive things -- they care about market share and revenue.
No matter what people say, the general dislike for MS is not about their history of anti-competitive and unethical business practices; if a company with demonstrably superior technology did the same stuff, the geek crowd would line up behind them. What pisses people off is that all of that underhanded and dodgy behavior is in the service of foisting off second-rate (or at least late-to-market) technology on consumers.
And yet, to the layman, Microsoft and Gates are as gods. They get credit for everything from the light bulb to the discovery of Pi, when dyed-in-the-wool geeks can cite verse and scripture about how most of their "innovations" were merely aggressive marketing (and theft, sometimes) of someone else's ideas.
It's a bunch of classic battles of idealism versus pragmatism, sincerity versus scheming, and entrepreneurship versus embrace-extend-extinguish. Why *wouldn't* geeks hate Microsoft?
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Ha, I wrote 'you're' instead of 'your' - how embarrassingly. I'll turn in my low UID now.
--
RumorsDaily
Everybody here keeps talking about how Microsoft is a monopoly and how that stifles competition. But, I couldn't disagree with that more. Monopolies do stifle competition in markets with high barriers to entry. Not everyone can create an airline or telephone company in their garage, for instance.
On the other hand, in the technology world, because of its low barriers to entry and quick changing situations, the tiniest of companies can challenge the largest of companies. Think about it, IBM was accused of being a monopoly. In fact, the DOJ initiated anti-trust proceedings against it, but eventually dropped it. Why? Because in time, IBM and its model of mainframe computing was unseated by more nimble competitors, such as Microsoft. Microsoft was pretty much started in a garage. Let's also not forget companies like HP as well.
And, let's take a look at some of Microsoft's largest current competitors. Linux? Started by some nerd with virtually no funds and no support. Google? Ditto! How is it possible that these products and companies can arise from virtually nothing and become some of the biggest threats to Microsoft's dominance? Easy, because in the world of technology and the Internet, things move so quickly that if a company doesn't innovate, somebody working on some website or other software product does and steals the market away. Google and Linux are phenomenal examples of that.
That Microsoft has managed to maintain its dominant position is in part due to strong handed tactics and perhaps some abuse of its position. But, for christ's sake, this is the business world. I guarantee you that virtually all of Microsoft's competitors (for instance Apple) would be just as vicious, if not more so, were they in Microsoft's place. I mean, come on, we all know how Apple treats their own fanboys and fanboy websites (remember the endless lawsuits and hardball legal tactics they used on some bloggers that only wanted to bring news to their fellow Apple fans of some of the latest and greatest Apple products?). If that's how they treat friends, think of how they would treat enemies. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft did the same thing? I've spent some time with Steve Jobs, and I can tell you he's a meglomaniac, and is far more Machiavellian than Bill Gates.
Microsoft remains dominant because they are relatively quick to react to changing markets. When smaller companies innovate and create a new market, Microsoft jumps in when the market becomes profitable enough. When they jump, obviously their first iteration is a pretty crappy product. The Zune? The Xbox? Pretty lousy. But what Microsoft does is continually improve to eventually, I would argue, create a product that is superior to the original market leader. Wordperfect? Lotus 1-2-3? Playstation? Netscape Navigator? I think Microsoft eventually created products that, overall, exceeded them, and the market listened.
Furthermore, I would also argue that a monopoly in the technology world can be of benefit to consumers. Monopolies can set standards that would otherwise not exist. What if Apple had 50% of the PC market? Remember when Wordperfect and Word were duking things out? I would have documents that were totally incompatible with someone else! If Apple had 50% of the market, they would make their products incompatible with PC's! The only reason that Apple software and products work relatively well with PC's now is because PC's dominate the market. If Apple had 50% of the market, I assure you that iPods would only work with Macs. And, thank God Intel is building 802.11n standards into their new laptops instead of waiting for those idiots at the standards body to debate for another two years what the actual specifications should be. I just want faster Wi-Fi now! What the hell is the delay?
In the end, we must ask ourselves if Microsoft is a monopoly. Perhaps, but I don't think in the traditional sense. Remember the main reason why monopolies should not exist... They are bad for the consume
For those of us old enough to remember writing VxD's in C in Windows 3.1, the only 32-bit flat compiler available was Watcom, which suited us just fine as it was far superior to the uSoft compilers if its day. When Win32 came out (mandatory in Win95), Microsoft wanted that market and had their own barely operable 32-bit compiler. They required "Dynamically loadable" VxDs for all 32-bit apps. The new Microsoft linker (required to build VxDs from already-compiled object files) accepted the same COFF object files as the old linker as well as the new proprietary object file format produced by Microsoft's compiler.
"Somehow," the new linker had all sorts of bugs in its handling of COFF but handled the proprietary format just fine. EVERYONE writing windows drivers had to switch. Don't forget that writing drivers usually requires a lot of compiler pragmas that have to be redone to port from one compiler to another.
Now, perhaps this was a mistake rather than an abuse...
1. Up to that date, even Microsoft had been using the Watcom compiler. (You don't really think they wrote all their drivers in assembly)
2. The choice to make the old VxD format inoperable in the new systems was totally elective and synchronized to their theft of the compiler market. In fact, for a few product releases, we actually had a Watcom-based driver with 90% of the code and a "proxy" built with the Microsoft compiler just to trick the system into allowing it to work.
This is one of many many stories where Microsoft has used their dominance to bully their way into a business, notwithstanding the competitors who were cleaning their clocks on a previously level playing field. They did this to the detriment of their customers for sure as well as to the people that had built a legitimate business with a superior product.
It is possible, though, that they're just trying to provide the best possible product.
Look at the charter for ANY company, it's to make as much money as possible. Occasionally (or perhaps rarely) the company does that by making the best possible product, but as Gates has admitted, Microsoft may not make "the best possible products" but makes products that are "good enough," and that, supposedly, is what microcomputer users want.
I maintain that Microsoft products are NOT good enough. Others here are certainly detailing many of Microsoft's sins, but one I recall is how new versions of products generally have "new and improved" features, but not fixes of well-known and widely reported bugs from earlier versions. Bug fixes don't sell newer versions, but new features do.
Tag lost or not installed.
I hate Microsoft because they make my job more difficult. It has a lot to do with standards, and Microsoft leveraging their market share to create de facto standards. Take the browser wars for example. While Firefox, Opera and Safari continue to chip away at IE's browser share, IE could be considered the standard to develop for since it it used by the most people. What's ironic about this, is that IE is the least standards compliant. This makes it a challenge to create websites that render consistently across browsers. Microsoft has more than enough man power and resources to make IE standards compliant, but they *want* developers to cater to their browser, they want websites to render correctly in their browser first and foremost and other browsers to be an after thought. Fortunately, IE's many other shortcomings are taking care of this problem for us, but it will still be a very long time before there is more parity in the browser market share.
This is only one reason of course. Others include MS's attempt to shutout anti-malware vendors from Vista... this and the countless other antitrust claims against them.
I will finish this off on a positive note. While MS seems to do just about everything wrong, there is one place where they seem to be doing everything right, and in the least likely of all places. The Xbox360 is a great console, has a huge lead against the competition which will continue to grow throughout the Christmas season and into '07. Xbox live works great, and they just added a video-on-demand service to it, supporting HD no less. They are getting rights to previously PS3 exclusive titles, and have countered PS3's blue-ray with an optional HD-DVD drive, which coincidentally (or not), costs the same as a premium PS3 if bought as a bundle.
Similes are like metaphors
1. Unix was written by really smart people, for really smart people. MS-DOS was written by really smart people, for the average Joe. Clearly, if you want to be impressive, you must be a part of the Unix crowd, cause the intended target was really cool, smart people.
2. Microsoft called thieves thieves.
3. Everyone else hates microsoft, and original thinking is disturbingly rare.
linux and windows are both just operating systems. That's really all they are.
just why do you hate Microsoft?
I don't hate them. I just feel better when they're not around.
I've been hating micro$oft for quite some time. For being too damn unstable and crappy. Giving me super a lot of security problems while i was mantaining a small 20 computer lab. any 15 year old boy in my lab could easily break the security and install games on the lab computers... Another major issue is most of the games only support windows, which makes my machine from windows-free impossible. When you have some thing you do not like but couldn't get rid of them, you will start to hate them. However, taking a different view, if microsoft never existed, would all the open source people fight so hard? Will the linux desktop be as easy to use as today? Microsoft did not use very disgusting way in fighting the OS war, (at least not like SCO), instead, they do focus on how to improve their stuff and lower the price (though not much). This is a good situation, a positive competition which benefits all of us, no matter if you use Windows or Open-source, the quality of the software did indeed improved a lot.
Please write my essay for me. :p
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Yeah, all is good with the corporate world. Maybe MS should be compared to other monopolies, like the fruit company monopolies. There are also other entities which should deserve much more hatred; and why not: SHEER ENVY. Yes, many comments here made me wonder how many companies launch bug free applications, why Safari is not an option on Mac OS X (just uninstall it), why there are so many OS X versions, and thousands of Linux versions. Why is OpenOffice buggy and distorted? And why OS X is not called NeXT? I don't hate Microsoft, don't love them either. I recognize the fact that they have created a market that feeds millions and have increased the productivity of our country, even with their buggy software. I truly hate those who hide the reality of the other side, trying to make a case of a mediocre product, just because it runs on a fruit, or is "free" or is "open source". Yes, there are bugs on both sides, there are release delays, there are so many similarities on both sides of the ocean. In the middle, many of us swim on Microsoft boats that dont sink that easily. Be honest, don't you think it will be better if our righteous government just seizes MS, breaks it up to many thousand divisions, takes the money, bans the use of all MS applications in corporate America, declares a Linux Day and puts Bill Gates in prision just to make you happy! Why not, maybe the next target should be Britannica and the Wikipedia case; who knows. I fear Wikipedia will become another Red Hat, maybe someone somewhere should make another wiki just to compete! Ha!
If their head pops up, chop it off.
The Top Dog is usually the Top Dog because that person or organization is the biggest asshole currently known to mankind. It's because they're such fucking jerks that they succeed, but it's also why they're so hated.
When using any operating system, even a careful admin routinely running as administrator/root is stupid. I practice what I enforce. I run as a limited user in Windows and exercise my special privileges only when needed. I wish my Windows user account was as functional as my Linux user account. Anytime I can not easily deploy software because I refuse to have a building full of admins, I get mad. Anytime I waste 45 minutes activating trendy software I am angry. Somehow, even after 2 days of wanting to piss on cupsd.conf, I will take the Linux philosophy over Windows any day.
their CEO, Messrs Steve Ballmer
As a company Microsoft is strangely unconscious of the effect of its behavior on the customer. I think this comes from Bill, who telegraphs his contempt for users repeatedly and endlessly. It's wellspring is 'ubernerd' intellectual superiority. This gets played out in the market cynicism and naked hypocrisy present in so many acts.
Take those 'we see' tv ads, with cloying sentimentality and smarmy 'we're your best friend' crap. Customers are supposed to be grateful in MS's world view.
What to do?
I doubt there's much MS can do to improve its PR until/unless it experiences some of the pain experienced by its customers. Can a corporation have a heart? Be empathic? Probably not. MS, like everyone else in business is appropriately out to 'make a buck'. Nothing wrong with that, but think about doing it sustainably. Oh, and don't pretend to be my best friend and then stab me in the eye.
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!
but it's how they got there that is the kicker. Pretty shameful.
The Gate foundation support abortion. It's against my religion.
Damn, I thought that number was a score, and I was winning.
... and then they built the supercollider.
...because they always practice "me too" development. It's silly. I like a good company that can innovate, not one that looks around, sticks a saliva-slavered finger in the wind, and then spends billions on R&D expressly to steal some hard worker's good ideas! Or, they just buy the hard worker and be done with it. Also, they're anti-competitive. They run a monopoly. And they're nasty little bastards.
The popularity of a product has a lot to do with how long it has been in the market. When the IBM PCs came out, the layman saw something he could understand and work on. SO MS-DOS became popular. Also, it could be copied on a fdd and easily pirated. So, the usage spread. Apple Macs had the software already stored (OS,etc.). For MS products you could easily pirate them. How many Open-Sorce products would be in use nowadays if they were not free? How many end-users are bothered about the source code being available to them?
So, now we are stuck with Microsoft. Microsoft comes out with new OS so we buy new hardware. Intel comes out with more advanced hardware, so we buy the latest MS software to use the new hardware.
The more MS makes copying hard to do, the more you shall see their marketshare going down!
I like Microsoft because they employ millions of people around the world and treat their employees well. I can't believe that all of you programmers can overlook this fact!
Think of the biggest companies in the world. Now trim off anyone on that list that employs foreign labor at a wage below what we would call a "living wage". Who is left?
There certainly aren't many companies left, but Microsoft is one of them.
Forget about their products (Yes, their products are imperfect)! Many companies that get as big as microsoft have to rely on cheap foreign labor to see Microsoft-esque profits, but Microsoft doesn't. Microsoft treats their employees fairly, and for that reason alone, they are a good company.
I wish some of you would spend less time thinking about the inferiority of ActiveX controls and focus more on some of the world's more important issues.
burrocrisy
and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
In the early days of personal computing, there was a great deal of promise, and the entire industry could have gone in any direction. The Amiga failed, the Mac floundered for a decade, OS/2 was stillborn, Be never got off the ground, and Microsoft Windows flourished. Most every day computer users have never, ever used anything but Windows (or if they're old enough, DOS). This annoys those of us who know that several technically advanced operating systems never got to the top of the heap, while Microsoft made billions from Windows.
The computing world is plagued by malware, viruses, trojan horses, and other security weaknesses because of the poor design of Windows. Millions of users simply accept as a fact of life that their computing experience is going to be crappy. They've become so used to it that they dismiss other platforms out of hand, disbelieving that there might be better options. Following Microsoft's lead, Windows developers have created thousands of software titles that are oriented around market segments and feature checklists, rather than elegant design.
If Be or the Mac or some other OS had risen to the top, we might still have this disgusting paraside economy of malware writers and black hat hackers. But I don't buy the notion that all operating systems are created equal any more than Paul Graham believes that all programming languages are created equal. Yes, I understand that Microsoft's competitors shot themselves in the foot, and yes I know that Microsoft is not composed of moustache-twirling villains. But the fact that a marketing-driven, bloatware-producing bureaucracy became the most powerful technology company on the planet still bothers me. I take solace in the fact that business empires never last forever, and that the sun is setting for the Goliath from Redmond.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think one strong reason to like Microsoft (for Americans at least) is that Microsoft helps to maintain the dominant economic position of the US in the world. It is the undisputed leader, for now, of a number of important fields of software. This includes OS, office productivity software, and internet browser. While a number of industries traditionally dominated by the US have slipped away to foreign countries, including in many hi-tech fields, Microsoft's strong position in the marketplace (i.e. monopoly position) has enabled it to prevent any overseas competitors from developing. It's still largely implausible for a foreign developed operating system to be used instead of Windows in the mass market even in foreign countries. As long as Microsoft can maintain its monopoly position in these segments of the software marketplace, the US can maintain its monopoly position.
Basically, I like Microsoft because I like my country.
Looking through many competitive software products was too much effort for those in all companies needing to make an IT decision. So .. just choose whatever is from Microsoft! If your company is smaller than [threshold], you will not be bothered by BSA, ..., -- our software is [effectively] free!
So now we have a huge number of small businesses running "Small Business Server" [pathetic] with pirated XP Pro installs. All of them are barely working, with server/workstations "virused up".
But try to talk to any decision makers at such companies "we like it the way it is -- we are in control!". [Even though we know everything about IT] we can't fix it -- you fix it [for free]. We will get our revenge against Bill G. for his crappy product (against you, the IT person).
The only answer is to let the businesses who have made the "Microsoft decisions" crash and burn, as they deserve.
Now with the WGA, "our recommended Linux solution [that is even worse than MSFT products] is from our great partners IBM, Novell, and Suse". It makes our [garbage] stuff look good!
Check it out for yourself:
http://orange-papers.org/
I recall an NPR All Things Considered story circa 2000-2001 (ISTR around the time of the big tire recall story) with interviews with Microsoft employees who had monotonous voices, except when asked why they liked working at Microsoft and they said how "Microsoft is such an innovative company...", you could hear their excitement... geez, it was scary. Something like the Moonies and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Apologies to members of the Sun Myung Moon Church and Jehovah's Witnesses for the comparison.
I am overly strident in my hatred of Microsoft. They do have some good qualities, like an excellent hardware department. They dont force you into a particular piece of hardware for their OS. Ummm...they make a great flight sim...
On the other hand many of their business practices have been ethically questionable. Buying companies only after they've stolen code (way back in the days of windows 3.1,3.11,3.2,3.21. 3.1 was regular, 3.11 had disk compression, 3.2 removed disk compression when MS was sued, and 3.21 replaced disk compression after MS bought the company. This all happened in under 45 days. See what I mean?) They suffer from all the flaws of a company that must rely on selling the next big thing so we never see them refine something. Instead we always get the next diamond in the rough, full of bugs and flaws.
Most troubling for me is their continued unwillingness to release a complete spec for windows. I can respect their desire to sell their code, and I respect their right to keep the actual code a secret. How you get things done in a program is what defines the efficency of the software. It's what actually makes one piece of software superior to another. It's why people download winamp instead of sticking to WMP. So there is value in code and you have a right to not share your code if you dont choose to.
What I find most daunting is that no one else has a chance to build a competing, compatible product. There are no competing windows-compatible kernels or distros on the market from the private or FOSS communities. If MS would make a complete specification for windows available then we would see competing, compatible OS'es. And, frankly, I dont care if they restrict access to purely commercial projects, any level of compatible competition would be nice.
And that's why I hate Microsoft.
The Windows operating system is like a skyscraper built on a weak and swampy foundation. It sways and it creaks, and it requires massive amounts of labor to make it stable. Windows is overly complicated spaghetti code built on ancient legacy structures (eg. the registry in XP). The amount of money spent on maintaining this monstrosity of an operating system is a drag on the high tech economy. Microsoft employs a huge number of brilliant programmers, who labor to hack windows into a usable structure. The effort of those programmers would be better spent working on other more elegant and technically sound projects.
The only way Microsoft will end up with a truly modern operating system will be if they nuke the old system and start from scratch, the way that Apple did with OS X. They could then support legacy applications using some form of emulation or virtualization. If they did this, they would decrease the crippling complexity of windows, and would likely dramatically decrease their development costs, while at the same time increasing security and stability.
Also, I don't entirely agree with the argument that Windows is complicated because it has to support such a wide variety of hardware. If an operating system has a clear and open way of interacting with hardware, then hardware companies will write their drivers to that clear and open interface, and the operating system will easily be compatible with a wide variety of hardware. In some sense, a clear and open hardware and software interface will bring simplicity rather than complexity.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
OpenOffice.org isn't the best alternative to MS Office. It's the most similar alternative.
The alternative to MS Office is a whole bunch of different programs, depending on what you want to do. Scientific papers? LaTeX. Newsletters? Scribus, PageMaker, etc. Ordinary business documents? Wordperfect. Photo editing? Photoshop. The list goes on.
As for this statement:
I want to install an OS, and have it work.I'm totally amazed that you have the audacity to say that, in reference to Windows, here. One of people's biggest complaints about Windows has been that you can never be sure that it'll work, even if it did before.
http://outcampaign.org/
Microsoft's entire business is built on upgrading existing products that don't need to be upgraded. As a techie, it rubs me as completely unnatural - a word processor might have add-in features over time, or even be re-architectured to support web collaboration, etc., but the entire focus of the Office suite and the OS should be on STABILITY and SPEED. Everything else is fluff, and it's the fluff that MS is trying to shove down everyone's throats using every trick in the book as leverage.
If Microsoft wanted to make an appealing product, they would release some "Windows Core OS" that is built solely for speed and stability - yank out all the backward compatability (or allow it only as modular driver add-ons when needed), strip all the bloat, and test the bloody hell out of it. In other words, build Windows the Linux way - then they'd have a pleasing product that people could rally around. It is ridiculous for an OS to require GIGS of RAM, and still take 30 seconds to boot up.
March 12, 1986 Oracle IPO
March 13, 1986 Microsoft IPO
and I didn't buy any!
Oh, I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't done any good. Hell, I'm sure Gates even thinks he's doing something about malaria even though the world's foremost authority on evolutionary medicine says the approach he's taking is tragically ill-advised. The problem is Gates had a chance to exploit a bug in the system and then correct it with intimate knowledge of it -- the way a white hat cracker would. Instead, he exploited it and has convinced himself (with the help of many toadies I'm sure) that he deserved to be the world's richest man. He's a black hat who deludes himself he's a white hat so he can hang out with other rich folks in denial about their fundamentally evil ways and have a whole lot of sycophants with them at all times to ensure they luxuriate in the opiated haze of self-righteousness.
Microsoft? Its the expression of Gate's delusions writ as large as Moore's Law can support -- which is really impressive.
Seastead this.
Here we were, helping Windows get to critical mass by investing our development dollars in Win ap development, splashing their logo across the landscape in our ads and packaging and they wanted us to pay for the privilege by licensing the Windows logo? Wow. If there was a Nobel Prize for chutzpa...
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!
Most Microsoft software sucks. I don't know where they went wrong, but some time between "Olympic Decathlon" and Microsoft Windows v1, they got on the wrong track and never found it again.
The problem is that little to no thought gets put into architecture or the long-term consequences of making a particular design decision. The result is public catch-phrases like "Microsoft LookOut" and "Internet Exploder", and of course the untold millions of man-hours lost due to systems being Pwnz0red. I believe this is a result of creating a horrifically complex big ball of mud and then treating the UI as a sort of afterthought, a glossy sheen. The resulting product looks nice from a distance but in fact is is just a dorodango - a highly polished ball of mud.
The problem with that architecture model is that nothing is ever stable. There's too much complexity to test properly, so only the most common pathways are tested and/or optimized -- but anything out of the ordinary is extremely difficult to do.
Why is it that Microsoft Windows has so many "assistants" and "helpers" and "wizards" -- active agents to guide you through basic tasks? They are a symptom that the UI is deeply flawed. There are effectively no wizards in MacOS X or in Ubuntu -- the UI is designed well enough not to need them.
Some units within Microsoft seem to do well. The Word group used to turn out first rate stuff, and the group editing tools in 21st century versions of Word are very good. But that is an exception -- most of the stuff just sucks.
Microsoft products as a rule aren't stable, are expensive, Aren't secure inspite of draconian security, often aren't compatible with other Microsoft products, are often hard to configure(couldn't get the new machine I built on line, did I mention I hate XP?), and they always love to harass you constantly about how important and how much it's to your benefit to update which is a pain if the machine is off line. I can go on but you can get the picture. Compared to Microsoft I find Macs a joy to use. The downsides are they aren't nessaccarily stable with Windows ported software, although they tend to be rock solid with native software. Limited software availible, it's what keeps me using Windows. And limited options for upgrading, can't build your own. Granted their stock machines tend to be pretty sweet so it's not that painful. They used to be expensive but for prebuilts they have gotten quite reasonable. Did I mention they are actually fun to use?
Am I dumping Windows? Wish I could. They are threatening again to go totally internet based after Vista. That may be the final straw to get me to dump Windows. Gee we can't make it secure on the internet so lets go internet only! That's a trainwreck I'd prefer to avoid. The real reason to go internet and subscription based is profit. Already people have been questioning for years why upgrade when the current version does what I need? Hey I'm using a three year old version of Open Office and I'm happy. Other than graphics and security there aren't many reasons for most to upgrade. They'd like to lock everyone into a pay as you go model. Look at it this way. Say $80 of your computer purchase is OS, Vista is more but I don't know the numbers on it. Okay that's a one time $80 you make off a customer who if you are lucky will upgrade on average every two years. Let's change that to a flat $20 a month. Well within that same upgrade cycle they just paid you $480. You don't have to be an accountant to see why Bill Gates is so desperate to switch to pay as you go. Even at $10 a month they'd tripple their revenue on new systems. Add Office and other products into the mix and the average user could find themselves paying $50+ a month to uncle Bill instead of say a average of a couple of hundred a year. If they pull it off make sure you own Microsoft stock. Personally I hope people revolt and refuse to accept the pay for life model they want. Personally why I switched from Office is there's too much garbage I don't need so why do I need constant upgrades?. Everytime I slipped, I'm a lousy typist, and hit the wrong set of keys it would do something I didn't want. Open Office just plain works and no stupid paperclip or the godawful red type showing me every "mistake" I made including proper names. Drove me nuts. I think the latest version of Open Office has the red type but it's easy to turn off. Some people love Microsoft products but most of us see a lack of options. They have an army of programmers and they still can't write a stable secure OS? I have no sympathy.
Why MS sucks:
* They try to make managers happy over developers
* They try every trick in the book to kill open standards
* They kill competition by using near monopolies in one are to subsidize other areas.
Big companies are evil. Japan's car companies become competitive dispite no foreign competition (protection) because there were dozens of them. 3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) is not enough to encourage competition.
The US lets companies grow too big because they have too much lobbying power.
Table-ized A.I.
For me, it's been the realization over the years that Microsoft has a dysfunctional corporate attitude. Dysfunctional? More like utterly sociopathic and psychotic. They believe there's only one acceptable state of affairs: Microsoft has 100% total control over any software market they want, and no competitors are permitted to exist.
Probably the clearest case is back when MS had just done IBM over on OS/2. Microsoft released the Win32S subsystem so that 16-bit Windows 3.1 could run newer 32-bit Windows NT binaries. IBM of course had their own Win32S subsystem in OS/2 as part of the Windows 3.1 compatibility. But Microsoft didn't want OS/2 to be compatible, so they kept changing the library link indexes in the Win32S libraries. They didn't change the API, they didn't change any functionality, they just changed the order the routines appeared in in the library link headers. From a technical standpoint there's absolutely no reason to do this, in fact there's good reason not to (for one thing, it's a fair amount of work for absolutely no technical gain). But doing it broke OS/2's Win32S compatibility. Programs compiled against the newest version of MS's Win32S libraries wouldn't run on OS/2 until IBM reverse-engineered the new index order and released an updated library of their own. And about a week after they did, MS would release another reordered Win32S library. This went on over the course of 6 months and 7-8 library releases, until IBM finally threw up their hands and gave up. Microsoft caused a lot of pain and annoyance to a lot of people to one and only one end: to insure that customers would not be able to choose OS/2 without unacceptable costs.
Microsoft hasn't changed in all the years since then. Their current OOXML deal is yet another Win32S game. They seem to believe that the only toys in the sandbox should be theirs, that all the other kids shouldn't be allowed to bring their own toys, and that the other kids shouldn't be allowed to go to any other sandbox to play. They're the worst kind of bully, and I've never liked bullies at all.
I bought a laser printer for my linux box. The box said "Optimized for Windows". When I got it home and installed, I found out that it was a GDI printer, an accursed WIN-PRINTER! Optimized for Windows... Yeah, right! How about ENSLAVED to Windows? How about printing the blatant truth on the box: "Only For Windows". I almost wound up with a $2000 paperweight because some schmuck thought win-printers were a good idea. I'm sure others have been burned by win-modems, and other soulless win-devices. Zombie hardware, courtesy Microsoft.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Cheaters and scumbags from way back.
Drove a lot of good people out of business.
Their work was actually fairly shoddy compared to other products they drove out of business or bought up.
Unethical as hell but they won the short term battle.
I think long term they are toast tho.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
All of my grevances with Microsoft:
1) Past Wrongs. This includes things like the multiple time I had to install Windows95 off floppy discs because the installer screwed up or the OS fried. It includes all the times Microsoft has made me work more than I felt I had to, if only they had built products better - and this continues to this day, like me typing along and suddenly realize my last few words are in the dialogue box reminding me I have a meeting coming up soon. Thanks, Focus Master!
2) The Killer of my Friend is my Enemy. This topic would include all of the companies that Microsoft has killed, because they might have done something better than Microsoft. Note that a lot of companies didn't help themselves much, but Microsoft used/uses some very shady tactics.
3) The Ivory Dungeon. Microsoft is great at hiring really amazing people, putting them to work on R&D, and then we only see mediocrity come forth from the company as output. In my view Microsoft has essentially locked up a lot of really smart people in an ivory tower solely so that no-one else can make use of them! We are starting to see a little bit of a thaw in some areas - but it is very little. I had some hope when WinFS was announced but look where that went.
4) Duplication Stagnation. Microsoft, more than any other company, is willing to duplicate a whole technology simply so they can make it exactly the way they want it. Java is of course the most clear-cut example, but there are others like the recent OpenXML/OpenDoc deal. Rather than working with other companies to hammer out a unified standard, Microsoft is willing to waste literally millions of man hours on duplicating whole systems just to reach the same point as other people. Think instead of what could have been, if Microsoft were willing to improve upon and build on top of the works of others - we are taking DECADES of advancement in the whole computer industry, that has been thrown away and retarded my Microsoft! In the end, this is the greatest crime of all I feel, and even though I like some divisions of Microsoft now I would never trust anything they do without extensive experience that a particular division means well. Even now, I like Live but will buy a Wii and a PS3 but not a 360.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or perhaps better put:
Buy, Resell, and Disenfranchise.
My sad tale....
In the 1990's there was a company called Resnova Software which made the NovaLink Professional Information Server. It was a fantastic product, where an experienced tech could fashion an AOL-like experience thus producing a mini-online service.
Well, my business was built around this technology, and having designed school networks for some time I invested a lot of time and money (Along with other people) in creating a nice safe little internet service for kiddies in school. They had a pretty user interface, access to Gopher, the k12 newsgroups, teacher assignments, class materials- all accessible from either in the school, through a standard ppp dialup account, or a local dial-in number to our NOC- same pretty GUI.
My customers loved it. So did the kids.
And along comes Microsoft. As I understand it, they wanted another technology ResNova created called "Personal Web Sharing". They made Res Nova an offer they couldn't refuse, the purchase was approved by the FTC, and Microsoft walked away with the whole company.
But what the FTC didn't consider, or didn't know enough to consider was this:
Microsoft walked away with the tech it wanted, killed the Nova Link Professional Information Server, and sold the rights to use personal web sharing to at least one other company- and that would be Apple Computer Inc.
So we lost our shirt.
http://www.businessweek.com/1997/02/b3509221.htm
It's not just customers that lose when the FTC doesn't do it's job.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
the only way anyone can attempt to compete against Microsoft is for thousands of developers all over the world to spend billions dollars worth of man hours developing an operating system and then give it away for free.
Microsoft is a company driven by marketing to the "lowest common denominator", and it shows. The same can be said of all commercial software companies to some extent, microsoft is just the biggest and one of the most painful to deal with because of their monopoly unfortunately.
Most of the reasons Linux is as hard to live with as it is, these days, are to do with Microsoft's monopoly. If they didn't have an 85-95% market share, hardware developers would need to include drivers for other platforms to survive (like they used to). Likewise for software developers - if Linux for example had a 30% market share, we wouldn't be seeing the vast majority of games targeted at Win32/DirectX - but SDL/OpenGL, which is cross platform.
This "it's too hard to use" stuff is crap - people managed to live with Dos and Windows 3.1 (and even then, only running windows when they needed to for Windows apps, as PCs back then couldn't run games, etc in Windows).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Microsoft does not need everybody to love it.
They need people to pay money for products Microsoft produce.
Price is set at such a way that people dislike it - but not really much to avoid buying it.
I think if Microsoft products will be free for everybody - then people will love Microsoft. But this is not going to happen anytime soon (unless China will invade USA and make it communist state).
The primary cause Microsoft came this big is because of stupid managers in the beginning of the .com boom seeing fancy screens and nice frontends on technically bad solutions in Windows 3.11 (for Workgroups - you know the one with PostOffice (before Exchange)) and Windows 95 as well as some dumb moves on the side of IBM and others that sold their software for peanuts to Bill Gates and co.
Back then and in the following years, Microsoft start doing certain practices like stealing technology, code and designs from other companies which they can get away with because judges and offices don't have a single idea what a personal computer looks like, let alone see any valuable future for that or the intarweb. By the time most cases got handled (later '90's), they had bought out most of the companies they stole the products off.
Once they had the mainstream market in hand, they started breaking other vendor's products by design (like breaking WordPerfect when you installed Word - 1997) or closing up whatever they had 'developed' and only give access if you paid big sums for it (DirectX which gives direct access to hardware through the kernel comes to mind) and they also broke most of the competitors (like DOS4GW in Windows 98) under the disnomer of 'protection'. The only way you could use your own hardware was if you were a geek and replaced HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE with the versions from DR-DOS - for some or another reason this also sped up Windows a lot - and tweaking autoexec.bat and config.sys so that you could use most of the 640k that was reserved for the beginning portion (I came as close as 605k).
Currently, they use their big humping weight to coerce companies, clients and vendors to do whatever they want. I have been working in one of the largest hosting companies that mainly do Windows. If we were to keep our status as Microsoft Gold Partner, the total of our servers had to have a majority of Windows running and our sales people had to promote Windows primarily and keep people from having Linux servers. Unless a client really stood by it's decision to have Linux, were they getting that. That way we also got the weirdest combinations and most of the clients had Apache, MySQL and PHP on Windows - a hell. We also had to have >60% of our staff trained as Windows Certified Whatever, all sales persons had to be Windows Certified Professionals and I almost got fired two times over recommending a Linux server (as a technical observation towards the customers' needs - Apache and MySQL) over a planned Windows server, the director of Microsoft Europe himselve demanded my resignation, I got sick and quit a few months later. Since I am not under a NDA, I can tell you all this, all of it is true, but since Microsoft has NDA's and clauses in their contracts that if someone sues, they lose their Partner status and have to pay x-amount of $, few can actually come out but I've seen it in a lot of Microsoft 'Partner' companies.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
microsoft is a top dog weather we like it or not. And humans tend to expect an unreasonable level of perfection from the guy on top, or that top guy isnt worththy of it. If you were Great Britain a few hundred years ago... you hated them. The US now? hate them too. IBM in the 70s? ohnoes, Big Brother EVIL!
If every common household in the world somehow managed the education to properly operate a unix machine, and UNIX swept the world to be top dog, we would all be bitching about how its GUI sucked, its video game technology lags, and only a few items of hardware install smoothly. And we would all be talking about how much Windows is superior to Unix.
We argue that unix is more secure, or linux is more stable, or apple looks prettier... but why is everyone so afraid to give microsoft a little credit for changing our entire world. Its a tall order to expect ultra perfection from a product that does what all the other guys do, and 10million other things they dont.
MS has standardized much of our technology.. something the other guys seem to never get (dont even try to say Apple is standard anything with their proprietary DVI in past years, and a new completely different OS every year you have to buy along with a new computer cause its all a single unit with proprietary chassis)
MS has given us the ability to weed out the bloated IT depts with 40 guys supporting 300 users, cause the company has to support a flurry of non standard unrelated platforms. It is now possible to run the same 300 users in a strong (enough) secured environment with just 3 people.
I run a multi-location 350 user base with 2 others, and we support everything technology. infrastructure, desktop support, phone systems, firewalls... everything. And i owe alot to MS for making much of this possible.
I know *NIX is typically more secure, I know Apple is prettier. But seriously, i dont care about what OSs 'can' do, I care about what OSs 'do' do. And MS does it all, faster and easier, with lots of options to choose from.
Throw MS a frikkin bone here people!
1) Take out potential business threats by any means possible.
2) Use proceeds gained to give aid and charity to people who could not be any possible threat to show world what a swell guy your are.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I won't say I hate Micros~1, I'm just very much aware of how much more difficult they've made my life.
I've worked in tech support for an ISP doing both Windows and Mac support (and *nix too, though this was early 90's, so the number of end users using those OSs was small). With how much more clueless Mac users were than PC users, supporting Windows was still, by far, the more difficult. Whereas Mac problems were usually a matter of getting the user to understand how to click the right things and type in the right places, Windows users seemed to be constantly having bizarre issues that would only go away after a reboot (something we weren't supposed to advise until we had tried everything else, since that meant 2-3 minutes of dead time that we could've used helping someone else).
It was just before I left the ISP that I discovered BeOS. I had never realized how pleasant using a computer could be until that time. Micros~1 did everything they could via their (what has now been determined to be illegal) OEM licensing practices to kill BeOS. After that, it took until OS X that I found something that truly replaced BeOS in terms of ease of use.
After working tech support, I moved on and became a web developer. And supporting their array of crappy browsers made my job miserable. This was back in the Netscape 4 days, so I had to make my pages render correctly in Netscape and IE 3, 4, 5 (PC) and 5 (Mac). Their array of browsers, each with their own set of annoying bugs and quirks basically multiplied my workload by 5 (ok...there was a lot of overlap, but it would still take hours to make a simple page render correctly on all platforms).
Then I moved on to web backends, mostly in Java. I thought I had finally ventured beyond their ability to make my life hell. Then came spyware and the constant requests from friends with infected Windows installs. It's taken me a number of years, but I've finally got nearly all of my friends and relatives (happily) running OS X.
Also during this last period, an online vendor that I had purchased an event ticket from (only available from that source) got hacked due to one of the many IIS vulnerabilities that they failed to release patches for in time. It took me almost a month to convince my CC company that all the charges run up by the hacker were fraudulent...granted this had a lot to do with my (now ex-) credit card company, but their software still contributed to one of the worst months of my life.
So now again, I'm hoping against all hope that I've escaped their ability to make my life significantly harder. I still live with the annoyances that are Entourage (please, please, please...use native widgets! there's no valid reason for insisting on using custom-drawn widgets other than becuase you feel the need to slow down my Mac for no reason) and the rest of Office 2004, but that's relatively minor.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Speak no evil of anyone.
even IF the love of money is the root of all evil.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
microsoft steals your ideas
http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9609& L=dccs&T=0&P=1886 /2816.html
http://www.oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/2816
text from first link
For those of you interested in Windows NT, I've got some
interesting news for you. Andrew Schulman, Senior Editor at O'Reilly &
Associates, wrote this interesting article recently:
Differences Between NT Server and Workstation are Minimal
Registry Settings Used to Force Use of Microsoft Web Server
Andrew Schulman
Senior Editor, O'Reilly & Associates
[log in to unmask]
Microsoft recently introduced version 4.0 of NT Workstation (NTW) and NT
Server (NTS), and claims that there are substantial technical differences
between the Workstation and Server products. Microsoft uses this claim to
justify an $800 price difference between NTW and NTS, as well as legal
limits on web server usage in NTW, both of which have enormous impact on
existing NTW users. But what if the supposed technical differences at the
heart of NTW and NTS are mythical?
We have found that NTS and NTW have identical kernels; in fact, NT is a
single operating system with two modes. Only two registry settings are
needed to switch between these two modes in NT 4.0, and only one setting in
NT 3.51. This is extremely significant, and calls into question the related
legal limitations and costly upgrades that currently face NTW users.
Introduction
In the course of the ongoing controversy over its restriction of only ten
web connections in NT Workstation 4.0, Microsoft representatives
have asserted that there are substantial technical differences between
NT Server and NT Workstation. From this, Microsoft draws these
conclusions:
1.that these differences justify the large price difference between
the two products (street prices: NT 4.0 Workstation $260,
Server 4.0 w/ 5 client $730, Server 4.0 w/ 10 client $1080)
2.that third-party web servers such as O'Reilly WebSite or
Netscape Enterprise Server should not be run on top of the
cheaper NT Workstation product, and
3.that customers should instead buy Microsoft's more expensive
NT Server product, which comes already bundled with a "free"
web server, Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS). IIS
competes with web servers from third-party vendors such as
O'Reilly and Netscape.
For example, Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray was quoted by
Reuters:
"The crux of this issue is that NT Workstation and NT
Server are two very different products intended for two
very different functions."
In fact, the recent fight between Microsoft and Netscape, including
Netscape's open letter to U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust
Division, was touched off when Microsoft sent email to Netscape,
complaining about a price comparison chart at Netscape's web site.
According to Microsoft's letter (July 30):
If the user wishes to utilize more than the ten [web]
connections, the user must license Windows NT
server.... Microsoft is also concerned
I hate Microsoft for the same reason I hated IBM when they dominated the computing landscape. Through marketing muscle, they force me to use their products. What makes this particularly onerous is that those products are frequently inferior to competitors' products that I would have chosen if the competitive landscape were even. What makes those products inferior is that I spend far more time managing the product rather than doing the work (or play) that I want to accomplish with the product.
For years now that company has gotten away with some of the most slapped together, rushed and verbose code on the planet. (Some VERY good code too, it's not all bad) They flat out abuse us, and take advantage of an uneducated market.
What really started it for me was back in 1996. I was building a website for my company at the time. I was "instructed" to put 3 features on the site that was ONLY supported by IE and not by Netscape. Else risk our M$ relationship, which was critical to us (video cards company).
I was so upset. Not, "only use features support by both" but they must NOT work in Netscape. I was beside myself.
Still bothers me
The problem is that in many respects what is good for Microsoft is not good for consumers. This does not happen in most healthy industries, where firms want to delight consumers. In this case, Microsoft can coerce all us in order to make a profit. Let me point to some examples, it would be nice if we all together could collect a longer list:
But Microsoft is not evil, it does what companies do: maximize shareholder value. The problem is that their profit maximization, imposes a tremendous social cost on the rest of us. It is difficult to put a value to the social cost of Microsoft because it means speculating about innovations that have not happened, but could have occurred without a player like Microsoft out there. My gut feeling is that all the money that the Gates foundation can donate will not match the cost that Microsoft will have imposed on society.
We are the technology leaders of this world, we can stop Microsoft if we want.
It's kind of hard to explain, but all the Microsoft products I've used just have an "attitude" that the user is an idiot (dancing paperclips?) and therefore the program needs to make a lot of decisions for them. They seem to want to read the user's mind and then automatically do what they think would be best instead of what the user wants. I realize that the people who developed these programs probably feel that this is helping the user, but most of the time it's just plain irritating.
Mac software, on the other hand, seems to treat the user with more respect, I guess you'd say. It give you the tools to do what you need to do in a straightforward way, then stays out of your way while you do it. Using their products, you get a sense that a lot of thought has gone into making the product as easy to use as possible.
There's a very subtle difference between the two approaches, but it's there. I think this difference kind of mirrors both companies general attitudes toward their customers. Microsoft appears to be kind of arrogant and not really all that responsive to helping make customers more productive. Apple, I believe, is more oriented to what customers need to get their job done, and it shows in their products.
All this doesn't make me hate Microsoft, but it does make me dislike their products. And it does kind of grind me that the near monopoly and inertia they have in the computer market means that a lot of people have to use mediocre, frustrating tools to do their jobs.
Product activation.
Some people suggest that you always hate the top dog. I developed my dislike for Microsoft in the early days, around 1986-87. What made MS dislikeable at that time is still valid today. MS has a track record of ripping other people's ideas off and making it look like it's their own idea. All this while keeping their products mediocre. Look at the Basic interpreter. While Borland had Turbo Pascal, a complete IDE with sophisticated error reporting, editing and incredibly fast compiler (TP 3.0), MS Basic was this command line based sluggish tool with not even half the sophistication of Turbo Pascal. It remained in that way for years. Their C++ compliace took a long time to develop. Their sloppines in coding has kept absurd ideas like the drive letters alive for a long time. They could have just copied the Unix concept of one single root but no, they had to try their own way and today we are still labelling drives and partitions with single letters. In 1995 they woke up and realized that the Internet/Web was going to be huge. If it was left to MS they would never adopted it. They were forced by the competition. MS never invents anything and systematically drives much smarter componies out of business. There's nothing to like.
Windows, still today, doesn't have a scripting language. Why? Notbody is going to pay for it so MS has no incentive. Their command line interpreter, command.com or cmd.exe, is pretty much the same that it was in the DOS days. Apple has added Terminal to Mac OS and keeps updating and improving it.
MS is really a sorry company with no creativity and a piss-poor atitude. That's why it's so easy to hate.
Militant and willful incompetence. Botnets exist today because Microsoft never really cared about security. Most of the spam we've seen in the last decade has come about primarily through exploits in Microsoft products.
Try to understand: For years, the notion of "an email virus" that would infect your system if you even read it was a joke. It was funny because it was technically impossible, and only an utter moron would design a program to randomly execute incoming email as code without asking the user.
That utter moron is Microsoft's default install.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
they give out a feeling to others that they are the only people that should write your software!! Run on their OS or pay the price of being dominated and forgoten..
They also seem to patent everything you could imagine from configuartion configurations to well the little key on your PC keyboard with the windows logo.. Its a "PC" keyboard not a fooking Windows device. Then they make deals with vendors to support only their own OS so any compitition gets squished.
Lets be honest, I do still use windows from time to time but only cause of the above mentioned.
IE.
Follow the standards butt holes!
They told me that the state had made routines and systems to make it easier to read the peoples mail and listening to their phone calls. This was in Soviet, China, East Germany, and so on during the cold war.
At that time I learned that it was wrong and dangerous to have systems that sentralized the communication and made it easy for a group to watch the others.
Cisco and Microsoft together is controlling a large part of the global infrastructure. Cisco is used in most of the major hubs the Internet is build up of. This gives Cisco a unique oppertuinity to monitor the global trafic. How? Their custommers rapport major problems with their software to Cisco centraly. This gives cisco a updated lists of open doors into their own products running around the world without their custommers knowledge. Only the custommer that repports the problem and the people that custommer talked to abuout this issue knows. Cisco can also put in a software problem to make it look like a normal issue, but use it as backdoor until a custommer finds the issue and asks for a fix.
Microsoft have a controlling majority of the desktop systems in the world. They also have a relatively large part of the server market. Microsoft software get updates from Microsoft. This updates can be used to plant new hidden software bugs that can be used as a backdoor. This would not likely be back door as in form as a added functionality, but a complex bug that is put there for a reason. Something that looks like a normal programmer error.
Microsoft was under a major preasure from the former Clinton administration. They had huge problems and was close to have to split up their company because of a court rulling. United States v. Microsoft (87 F. Supp. 2d 30) was a court case filed in 1998. That was before USA got noia after september eleventh. Microsoft had major law problems during 2001. This gave the government a huge possibility to get access to the global base of Microsoft users. Did Microsoft cooperate? Would you? Their country was under attac, the people demanded acction, people was affraid and Mirosoft needed some friends in high positions to fight the court cases.
There are many storries about how Xerox was working with US Gov during the cold war. How they build in equipment for a extra copy of documents in their xeroxing machines. Could it happen again? Specialy when the firm was under huge global court preasure?
This is just one aspect of the unhealthines of a centralized monopoly.
The grown ups and my teachers also toled me about the postive sides of a working market and how bad the monopolies was. How the monopolies stopped new ideas and new development. But that is another bad aspect of a global monopoly.
The software it self is not good, but the security and the market situation is the major issues. That is issues with a monopoly in it self.
"Bill Gates is is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
Microsoft steals from smaller companies every chance they get.
Just ask the folks at STAC electronics. If the smaller company
can afford to sue. then they often end up winning. But that process
makes lawyers and executives rich while these smaller companies
have to float (laying off developers, etc). And no criminal charges are
ever filed against them. Bill Gates should be in jail.
If I could have afforded to sue them years ago I would have.
They just take and take and shove into nice little packages like
control 3d dll.
Their poor behavior over the past decades is now taken as a business
model by companies like Verizon. Steal from developers every chance you get.
You'll never be prosecuted, and by the time you are sued successfully you will
be so rich it won't matter.
Burn in hell Bill.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I hate Microsoft because they aren't innovators. They piggyback off of others' great ideas and then employ their own special brand of legal/political/economic strongarming/weaseling/nepotism/FUD to gain advantage. Combine that with an incredibly arrogant marketing machine and you the recipe for odiousness.
I mean, can you name a single idea that originated within Redmond (i.e. was not acquired) that went on to become as successful as Microsoft claimed it would be? The Zune is a great example. All indications are it's a laughable piece of shit, and yet here you had that asshole Ballmer popping off for a year beforehand about what a kickass iPod crusher it's going to be. Let's see, more failures: WinFS, MS Bob, UltimateTV... oh damn, there's even a WikiPedia category for this, so I'll save my breath.
Such arrogance leads to complacency, and product quality suffers. All indications are Windows Vista is perhaps the largest clusterfuck ever to grace the commercial software industry. I'll bet a lot of people around here hate Microsoft in advance for the man-years of our lives we're going to lose fixing, deleting, and/or otherwise dealing with that piece of shit in situations where we have no choice: at work, at home, on Mom's computer, wherever. Just like we've been doing since Win 3.1. Cross-apply everything I just said to Internet Explorer, if you've ever designed web sites for a living.
I will give Microsoft credit for one thing: Office is pretty damn good. Whoever runs that division, props. There are some ludicrously half-baked features in there, like master/subdocuments in Word, the whole Word styling engine, all of Frontpage and Infopath, but the core apps are pretty good.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DYhiK5rJfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fheJQ2OmISQ
Table-ized A.I.
Other people have other reasons. Mine begin with and revolve around their EULA. I tend to take agreements seriously, so I read the bloody things (unless they purport to be standard, e.g. I always assume that something which claims to be GPL v.2 actually IS GNU General Public License version 2 as released by the FSF).
... the application doesn't work properly with MSWind98.])
As a result of reading the EULAs, and a bit of thought, around 1999 I started looking for alternatives. Around 2000 I decided that Linux was the best available option, and began moving. Now I have one MSWind95 computer. It's about to die a slow death, due to lack of support for more recent peripherals. If it's replaced by a computer, that computer will run Linux. It may become a free desk space (which would be, perhaps, more valuable at this time). It WON'T be upgraded to a more abusive license. I don't think I need another Mac. Another Linux is plausible...but un-allocated flat surfaces are also quite valuable.
This is going to cause me considerable hassle, even though I've known this day was coming for quite awhile. One never seems to prepare sufficiently. Their are still captive files, created by some application that didn't document it's file format, and which aren't readily exportable in more than a minimally usable manner. Perhaps I'll get through this bottleneck (i.e., finding a color ink-jet printer that will print to MSWind95 via a centronics port). If I do though, this is just a warning signpost. Obsolescence nears. (The computer isn't obsolete yet...but MSWind95 doesn't handle USB connections. And doesn't handle the CD drive created by VMWare. I can't even re-install the OS in an emulator. [It's GOT to be MSWind95
GPL software goes obsolete just as rapidly...but you can figure out the file formats.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I hate Microsoft because they have turned computer science into a cargo cult.
...but thanks to free software, I think there will finally be some checks and balances on not just one of the most duplicitous corporations of all time, but on many corporations that depend on controlling the media. Indeed, if, in a distant future, Microsoft eventually changes away from the proprietary software business, perhaps they would be a better company. However, until that time, they seem to continue being dangerous liars and equivocators bent on total control. I am afraid that a good bit of even their lower-level people are also acting badly. Many other posts have detailed their bad effects, but one effect is in the widespread cynicism of users about technology. Free software will have to help undo that damage.
:)
For me, mere disgust, distruct, and dislike for Microsoft has replaced hatred.
The very first Microsoft product ever was Altair BASIC. I think the article speaks for itself:
Right -- as if "common practice" excuses what is a blatant lie. Honest people didn't have a chance -- MITS had already decided to meet with Microsoft, and it seemed obvious that Microsoft would have their product done in time. Who would be crazy enough to start one?
Microsoft was founded on a lie.
(This is going to be a long rant, so you can stop reading now -- let me just assure you that if anything, they've gotten worse since that little stunt.)
But hey, at least they actually wrote that themselves. It might've even been a good product. But remember DOS? They bought that from its single programmer. It was originally called QDOS, which stands for "Quick and Dirty Operating System". IBM had to fix over 300 bugs in DOS, which is why it was copyrighted both Microsoft and IBM.
So, basically, through some pretty smooth marketing, Microsoft managed to sell what has got to be the crappiest OS ever. You could say it was a good thing -- all kinds of computers could be DOS compatible, and run DOS and all the same DOS software, without having to pay a dime to IBM. Too bad DOS sucked so much, and MS didn't seem to do any work at all on it.
In fact, if you look at most of their products, you have a hard time remembering when they ever came up with an original idea. Excel was obviously a ripoff of Lotus 1-2-3, and even had instructions on switching from Lotus 1-2-3. Word? WordPerfect. And Windows was enough of a ripoff of the Macintosh that Apple should've sued Microsoft into the ground.
The only advantage Microsoft had during these early years was that Macs were just that much worse.
But, recently, Apple has come out with OS X, and Linux has improved, so we have other options. Microsoft has kept and maintained a monopoly, often at the expense of their users. Office documents were not and still are not in any kind of open standard -- the 7000 page "standard" for Microsoft's XML format makes it incredibly difficult to implement any kind of competitor to Office, and Microsoft refused to accept the existing OpenDocument standard.
This has generally been their approach to standards. POSIX was released in 1988, and Microsoft has never supported POSIX, X-Windows, or any similar platform. Instead, they declare their own platform (and software) as standard simply because it is the most popular -- a habit from the days of DOS, when such practice was actually helpful to users. When DOS came out, there weren't really any standards, so the most popular platform -- and one that could run on any hardware -- was a really good thing. Now, we have all kinds of hardware standards, so this is no longer useful.
They quite frequently attempt to squeeze more out of their monopoly. You see this kind of thing all over the place. The Xbox headset, for no good reason, uses a jack which is shaped ever so slightly differently, for no good reason -- but the reason is obvious; if you want to use a headset with your Xbox, you have to buy one from Microsoft or from somebody who is paying Microsoft for the privilege. They encourage DirectX, rather than OpenGL, meaning people can either develop for OpenGL (and have a game work on Windows, Mac, or Linux), or for DirectX (and have a game work on Windows and Xbox). And recently, they've been actively participating in many aspects of Trusted Computing and DRM, which actively hurts the consumer, and is only really wanted by the RIAA/MPAA.
They've implemented a scheme called "Windows Genuine Advan
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It doesn't matter if their products are "inferior." If they can slowly kill off all the competitors, they get all the money. Business isn't about making a good product. That's incidental, and contingent on the priorities set by the board of directors. What matters is money, market share, stock price, and so on. In that light, their actions aren't really inexplicable. They aren't evil, only sociopathic. I'm a little surprized that people expect some modicum of morality or common human decency from a legal entity that is specifically designed to make money while allowing the stockholders to avoid responsibility. It's not sociopathic by accident, but by design. If kidnapping orphans and harvesting their organs were profitable, some corporation would do it, and you'd see sepia-toned PR ads showing that people's lives were improved by the organ transplants. What else do you expect?
Where the ugly, fücking weasel's money should go:
(1) TO COMPENSATE WELL EVERY U.S.-BORN, U.S.-RESIDENT, FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE of Microsh!t and ELIMINATE ALL OUTSOURCING.
(2) TO SLASH PRICES of his BUG-RIDDEN, INSECURE CRAPWARE.
(3) TO DIRECT A NEW PROGRAMMING DIVISION PROHIBITED FROM RELEASING ANYTHING UNTIL THE BUG-RIDDEN CRAP IS FIXED.
(4) TO POWER ELECTRODES THAT SHOCK ZOO-CAGED, RAG-GAGGED BALLMER'S BALLS every five minutes WHILE HE LISTENS TO A NEVERENDING LOOP OF HOWARD DEAN'S INFAMOUS SCREAM.
(5) TO DIVORCE AND LEAVE PENNILESS HIS GOLDDIGGING WHÖRE, AND EUTHANIZE THEIR SPAWN.
ALLOWING CRIMINAL GATES TO BOOST HIS EGO BY THROWING HIS STOLEN FORTUNE AWAY ON BACKWARD, IMPOVERISHED, EVER-FÜCKING VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE IS A WASTE OF TIME AND A GROSS MISUSE OF THE MONEY GATES HAS RIPPED OFF FROM EVERY ONE OF HIS COMPETITORS AND CUSTOMERS.
THROW GATES INTO THE SAME CAGE AS BALLMER, ALONG WITH EVERY ONE OF HIS CRIMINAL, ASS-KISSING STAFF.
It's not Microsoft per se that is the root of the dislike they gather.
If one company dominates a field completely, using its size to crush their enemies, and defends its acts by referring to capitalistic market philosophies that basically says that might makes right, then they are bound to gather glowing coals upon their head. It doesn't help if their products are kinda crummy and they treat their customers like enemies either.
Every company is flavoured by the attitudes of their leadership. Judging by that theory, the leadership of Microsoft are socially inept bullies. Kinda rings a bell when you look at Bill and Monkeyboy. It could change though, given a change of leadership.
You'll get lots of comments here from technically savvy, Linux-aware, OSX-aware, BSD-aware, OO.Org-aware types, I won't repeat all the good stuff here already. Personally, I use OS/X, Ubuntu Linux, XP, Vista, XP64-AMD, and XP64-IA64 at home and fall into that crowd.
Now let's talk about the other 95% of at least the US.
They do *not* hate Microsoft. For them, Windows *is* the computer. They don't say "Windows crashed", they say "my computer crashed". They don't say "open a spreadsheet", they say "open Excel". Here's the kind of comments I hear every day:
Linux is just some weird thing that my kid in college does, it probably has something to do with illegal music downloads, I'm not sure.
The very idea of a non-Office productivity suite like OO is just a nonsensical statement. Why settle for less than the best? Wouldn't it be incompatible with Office anyway? Office is loaded onto every single computer at work, and we'd get in trouble for loading anything else. Plus, the weird guy from Support would probably yell at me if I did, no one understands what the heck he says anyway. No reason to make it worse.
Everyone's home computer has Office, everyone has a cousin/friend/brother-in-law who installed it. Or it came on the computer.
People who REALLY understand computers are those who can use Access. I'm not sure what for, but they know more than me.
I bring these things up because I'd hate for anyone to get the Slashdot attitudes confused with anything like what most of the world thinks. FUD works both ways, and there's a lot of it here. Every article about MS is tagged itsatrap, FUD if pro-MS, notfud if anti-MS. Saying M$ is leet. Get the pulse of regular people, too - not your 85 year old grandmother, but regular people who don't work in IT-related fields.
Remember, Office came before Windows - my 1985 Mac Plus ran Word. And Windows rose to dominance primarily for one reason: MS solved the worst problem in PC's at the time, printer drivers. Back then, every app had to write its own printer drivers. (dBase, 1-2-3, etc.) It was common for one app to be able to print to your daisy wheel printer, and not another app on the same machine. MS moved printer drivers to the OS and the app vendors lined right up.
Greedy? Yep, convicted monopolists. Rude? Heck yeah. Evil? In the eye of the beholder. But universally hated? Don't give the public so much credit that they are even aware of the issue.
Don't forget how they changed the EULA for NT Workstation so that you were not allowed to run a web server on it. Netscape was underselling Microsoft( Windows NT Server + IIS ) by much $$$ because their Netscape web server ran just fine on MS Windows NT Workstation.
And since Microsoft is willing to do ANYTHING to prevent competiton, they changed how people could legally use the OS in regards to who they were threatened by at the time.
That crap you keep hearing spewing from Microsoft Executives regarding "Customers are asking for X,Y,Z" is and easly lie. And they can easily pay off one or two 'partners' to publicly say they want what shit Microsoft is pushing. but usually, it's all bull and used primarily to push an agenda which protects the MS Windows monopoly.
think MS OpenXML vs ODF...
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Their software is shit, plain and simple. It horrifies me that such an abortion of an operating system runs most of the computers on this planet. Think of how much human productivity is wasted every day because Windows is a miserable, unsecure, high-maintenance piece of shit. What could humanity have accomplished in the past 20 years if all those man-hours spent fixing Windows could have been used elsewhere?
They didn't get where they are on the merits of their products, they saw a market they wanted, cobbled together something passable and killed off or marginalized their (often superior) competitors by any means they could.
They blather on about "choice," but strive to make you miserable if you elect to use non-Microsoft products. Constantly-changing file formats, bastardization of open standards, etc. To Microsoft, interoperability isn't a goal, it's a weapon--they yank the rug out from under you every so often in the hopes you'll get frustrated enough to give up and just go with the herd.
They claim to innovate, but most of the time just badly copy other companies' successful products and add some useless extra features as points of differentiation.
I hate them because I can see the detriment they've caused over the field of computing from using their market position to hold others back. Early lucky breaks and skillful business practices have kept them on top, not a superior product and not innovation. The examples are everywhere in the comments to the story, vendor lock-in, embrace & extend, deals with PC sellers to auto-bundle it (difficult to not buy it sometimes), patent hoarding and leverage and FUD against open source, forced online authentication or OS-to-PC lock, explaining yourself when you upgrade your machine, hidden API issues, serious artificial limitations on their OS, secrecy of what their OS is actually doing to your machine, drivers produced explicitly toward MS products due to high market share target giving them tremendous benefit over other OS's, their fight against open source (it's a cancer right?), deals to provide discounts as long as competitors detriment, inspections of installations to check compliance to ensure those discounts continue, lack of freedom, EULAs, in deals with media industry to support various DRM schemes, and whatever heinous thing TC with DRM in combination with DMCA will lead to. The restriction of freedoms and rights and essentially the loss of control over your PC leading to people answering to them instead of the other way around. Again, they provide the weaker OS product and use their monopoly to hold everybody else back. I hate 'em, we simply need more people exposed to the freeing wonderment of open source to understand why these things must be fought.
We hate M$ because they are the opitome of what we aspire to be. They're the greatest capitalists in America.
A person can only 'hate' when there is something similar between them and what they hate. We aspire to be the great money accumulators/world dominators that M$ is, but, fail horribly, hence the hate and jealousy.
I HATE M$ because Bill Gates rules the world. I should be the one ruling the world.
Ask anyone fluent in CSS what's wrong with Internet Exploder and you'll hear these two words (most likely along with some other invectives): Box model. It's the 'C' for consortium in W3C that makes it a good thing.
- i'm forced to use their broken software
- word won't put pictures where i tell it to
- word barfs on my cross references
- equation editor is an exercise in masochism
- powerpoint won't past graphics into a drawing area in word
- turning track changes on now means that word wants to print my document with annotated edits by default instead of the document itself
- unless i intervene every 45 minutes my machine will automatically reboot itself without regard for any work that i have open after windows does an update
- their compilers were broken to the point of being basically unusable (this may have changed)
- i.e. by default turns a machine into a $2 calcutta whore
- their apis are numerous, belligerent, and frequently incomplete
- relying on their documentation is like relying on the rhythm method for contraception
- bitrot
- systems hungarian notation
- COM nee ActiveX nee OLE
- windows "genuine advantage"
- evil business practices
- unethical business practices
- illegal business practices
- subtly breaking shortcuts and hiding menus from me with successive releases of their software
- gates, ballmer, et al's colossal arrogance
ultimately, my beef with ms is that they sucked the joy out of computing for me. then i bought a mac and remembered that there is still good software out there that does what i want how i want and is actually pleasant to use.
Citizen Microsoft details how Microsoft has dodged taxes by operating out of Reno, Nv. and abused its clout in Washington state in many of the same ways other corporations do in their hometowns.
Ask Slashdot: Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?
Posted by Cliff on Thursday December 14, @10:42PM
Literally 3 posts down...
IT: Third Microsoft Word Code Execution Exploit Posted
Posted by CowboyNeal on Thursday December 14, @07:26PM
You have your answer.
I don't hate them. My first experience with a computer was actually with programmable calculators in college. Between college and the first couple of years afterward, I had used an IBM 360 via terminal, Apple II/II+/IIe's, early IBM clones (remember when they were clones?), and some form of Unix via dialup.
Take MS-Word for a thread. I had to use DOS 3.x for work and I thought Word for DOS 3.0 was the coolest thing ever. Way better than WordStar (remember Ctrl-K Ctrl-B?) and early WordPerfect (remember .codes?). Anyway, the shine started to tarnish when Word for Windows 1.0 was a complete dud, but WfW 2.0 was pretty cool and I wrote lots of macros in WordBasic when I was a tech writer. But the next upgrade, oddly to WfW 6.0, not only shuffled all the menus around so I couldn't find anything, but also switched to Visual Basic for Applications, which was not compatible with the old WordBasic. Because my whole company upgraded, a couple of years worth of macros suddenly became useless until I could figure out how to rewrite them. They did the same thing with Office 95 -- only slight changes to VBA, but in moving all the menus around, the macros no longer worked until I could edit them to find the menu items in their new locations. By that time I had started to use other products to get things done.
So, in a nutshell, they have some great stuff...that they mess with constantly. They seem to focus on the newbie, clueless user, and have often forgotten their best users when they make *improvements* to their products. Maybe it's the constant pressure to create something worth upgrading to that drives them, but instead of perfecting something, they end up turning it inside out and calling it a major improvement. Take the XP interface. I have to use Windows for work and I just do my best to master it and bring tools to it that will make my day as productive as possible. I tried to get used to the new XP interface, but after a week of not being able to find anything, I changed it to the Classic interface, played with TweakUI, installed Cygwin so I could do as much as possible from the shell window, and added a virtual desktop.
At this point in my increasing age, I think it's a waste of time to hate anything. I just change it until I like it.
Cheers!
marmot
Without a dominant OS, issues of compatibility would be a thing of the past. Even different versions of Word have incompatibilities. If different OSes ran different software, they would all have to decide on a common format, like ODF, and the documents would be interchangeable. As it is now, MS changes things around in it's proprietary Word format and doesn't let anyone else in. MS stifled web development over the past 5 years because they stopped developing Internet Explorer. They beat the competition (Netscape) and then had nothing to push them (or copy from). Now that Firefox has revitalized the browser wars and Google is fighting on the internet front, we are suddenly coming upon Web 2.0. Applications online are the beginning of an OS agnostic web, which is should be.
MS has been declared an abusive monopoly by the US government. Yet, they are still continuing the same business practices pushing their way into markets based on power, not good products. This is the main reason I stay clear of all MS products. I will not give my money to a declared abusive monopoly. I try to push alternatives in every case I can in the hopes that one day, MS will not be able to abuse it's monopoly because it will no longer be one.
Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers Developers.....
Yup, that about covers it.
#4 isn't an issue with Microsoft though. Its simply human nature. That issue totally PLAGUES OSS too.
Yes, stealing and not caring for others feelings are also human nature - yet people. and companies, rise above these things.
OSS sufferes from this and is what has prevented greater adoption. Yet on some issues, like OpenDoc, groups have come together.
Similarily companies will do this but sometimes true consesus comes forth - like so many people standardizing around the Eclipse platform for IDE stuff, or the Java JCP which has a lot of involvemnet from caompanies and people outside Sun.
Microsoft has done little but hamper those efforts when they arise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Antitrust trial, they were caught in perjury; trying to lie under oath how IE cannot be removed from Windows.
Unethical business practices to crush competition: Purposely patching windows to break quicktime compatibility, trying to kill competition instead of compete with it (ie, in AOL meeting "How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?")
Stealing ideas and technology from Apple. Apple sued for having parts of their GUI patents stolen, but lost the case.
Lobbying tantamount to outright bribery: Under Clinton, the Federal judge ordered Microsoft split for its antitrust violations. When Bush was elected (who publicly opposed the measure in his campaign), the appeals judge in a surprise move threw out the verdict.
I think those three words pretty much sum up why I dislike Microsoft. Here is what I mean by each:
Cultural Conflict: I wrote an article about this at one point. Basically, I'm the type of person who always admired revolutionaries, free-thinkers, oddballs, non-conformists -- you get the picture. At the same time I also appreciate a certain amount of conservativeness (not in the political sense really) as well. MS traditionally hasn't been the one to make those big, outside of the box, risk-taking steps, and a result of that is the user ends up with half-assed delayed implementations of things other folks did previously, and usually better.
When I sit in front of a Windows machine I'm presented with this attitude that I'm a moron, that I need my hand held with pop-ups, wizards, notifications. The whole OS is a dreadful distraction, right down to its Toys R Us color scheme. Let me give you one example. Look at how wireless networks are handled in XP vs. OS X. In OS X it's an elegant, non-obtrusive drop down menu; in Windows it's a mid-sized box I need to click through. In Windows I'm distracted with a barrage of virus definition update notices, anti-spyware update notices, Windows update notices, notices that my copy of Windows "isn't genuine" (even though it is).
Windows makes using my computer feel like prison, where everything is dictated to the user. Using a Windows PC is like being the boss of a company, but having to go unclog the toilet every couple hours. When I'm using my computer I don't want to think about these low level issues; I want to write, edit my video, read my RSS feeds. MS has consistently made the dream of PCs as a tool for open exchange of information a total nightmare that people fear.
History: I grew up in the 80s. I grew up when I used a C64 at home, an Apple ][e at school, and my friend down the block might have had an Amiga or Atari. You called BBS's running on Macs, PCs, Color Computers. You had this insanely diverse environment where every platform had something cool that you admired (or hated). But in the end it was all really cool, and it was that environment of friendly (or unfriendly) competition that led to the birth of some the most interesting machines, such as the Mac, Amiga, even the NeXT.
But most importantly, this environment required individuals to understand the basic mechanics of how a computer operated. You learned about computers in a universal sense so that if you sat in front of your friend's Atari 800, you'd feel relatively comfortable even as a C64 user; whether using an Amiga or Mac, you'd figure things out with a bit of toying pretty quickly. Since you learned how systems worked from a fundamental standpoint, you developed a kind of universal logic. Fast forward to the Windows era. Fast forward to how kids learn about computers now. They learn that if you go to the start menu and click X, Y happens. They don't learn about computers or systems, but they learn about Microsoft, and view the world from that vision. That's scary to me. It's scary that people actually have trouble with an OS X or Linux GUI because they've been brainwashed into believing Microsoft is synonymous with computing.
And then you see MS obliterate its competition in an unfair manner. You see the death of OS/2 and BeOS. You get frustrated that really cool stuff gets stomped on and innovation stifled for a few more years. You realize how empowering computers can be, and you witness first hand how they really are. However, you have a firm enough grip on reality to understand that one corporation dictating the standards of computing, and possibly even how Internet protocols function can have an insane effect on the future free flow of information. That's the scariest thing of all. Computers will, and are a fundamental part of individuals gaining power in ways never before possible, and one corporation should never even remotely be in a position to effect that.
Frustration: If you're a ge
In case the ad changes, I've posted an archive visual here. Pretty funny that Microsoft is paying to show ads to Slashdot readers reading about hating Microsoft.
I hate them because they continue to develop a sub-standard browser which holds a large percentage of the market, forcing me and all the other web developers to cater to their piece of shit product.
Not everyone, surely ?? Statistics could be used to prove that at least fifty percent of M$ employees don't hate M$.... couldn't they ?? Perhaps M$ could commission 'an independent survey' to prove that M$ is not hated by everyone....
I prefer Classic Slashdot.
Basically, claiming there's a bias means that you don't understand nor trust what others think or feel about Microsoft. Your project seems far to naive. Why do I say that? Well, you have to understand more about what they have done for themselves than what you are trying to understand what they do for society.
If it wasn't Microsoft I think most believe the wealth would have been spread out and that the innovation that created the industry would still be thriving. Instead of innovation and revolutionary progress we have lawsuits about patents. Microsoft hasn't ever really created anything. They are good adopters of technology but they are a far cry from creators.
They siphon off funds that could/would go to a much larger group of companies/people that would do much more for society.
Think of this as a science fiction novel placed 200 years in the future. We in the past needed a single company, a single standard, to force standardization and connectivity. In a science fiction novel of the future you might have a large uber mega corporation which controls the standards and connectivity. That way anyone can get any information they want. We were thinking in that mode when we let Microsoft become that mega entity.
There's a lot wrong with doing that and we didn't realize it soon enough. Now we have a mega corporation trying to make everyone think that we should be willing to continue down those same paths. In doing so they are able to control the interface, the standards, the connectivity and thus our privacy and our other rights.
Think now about DRM. Microsoft is a big proponent of DRM and the reason isn't because they want to protect the creator's rights, they want to control more of the standards and thus the future.
The DRM is to data as the OS is to programs. The more you control of the DRM the more you can control data/content, almost to the point that you control what people see, hear, and can do with that knowledge. This is not something we want to happen. We want less involvement into what we do our computers and the content on them not more. But you have the likes of Microsoft (and others), Microsoft being the biggest player attempting to control what we do and how we do it.
Bill Gates recognized that the computer is used more today to consume content than to create it. This means a shift. If you watch content control over the next 5 years you will seem Microsoft trying to spearhead that control of that content. They want their DRM so they can determine how much and when you can use it. Take the Zune as an example. It has serious limits on how you can consume your content. You go with Microsoft and their DRM and the Zune and you will pay for it in the long run.
It is that sort of example that ensures that people will have a negative perspective of Microsoft. Microsoft is becoming a negative influence instead of a positive one. They want control instead of standardization and evolution (or even revolution). We can only have a great distrust for companies that have drifted so far off the mark from what we wanted of our computers years ago when we birthed them into the homes of the average citizen.
Guaranteed Microsoft is going to be a serious negative influence on everyone and that is what has people upset with Microsoft. A prime example of this is in their Windows Genuine Advantage program. They implemented technology they stole from an individual that had patented it. Autodesk did the same thing. But Microsoft new they had stolen this guys IP and when sued they buried the court in paperwork in hopes of hiding it. When the Judge discovered this after a judgement in favor of the plaintiff (not Microsoft) he added a punitive fine of over $20 million because Microsoft had buried the court and the plaintiff with the purposeful intent of hiding the evidence that proved their case.
Do you really think we should be trusting a company that steals the technology to keep others from stealing their products and then abuses the court system in order to hide the fact that they stole it?
That's why there's a seeming bias toward Microsoft. You figure out the rest.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Back in the early 90's, I was working on a Windows application for my company. I was unable to implement a feature in the ideal way because the Win16 API on Windows 3.1 did not give me the necessary support.
Not to long afterwards, I was reading Undocumented Windows by Andrew Schulman and lo and behold, I found that Windows 3.1 actually did support the functionality I had needed.
Most of the functionality in Windows 3.1 was found by reverse engineering various applications, mostly from Microsoft itself. Microsoft application developers were able to access APIs that were not publicly documented.
Microsoft has often claimed that people prefer their applications because they are better. But at least one of the reasons they are better is they gave themselves functionality that non-Microsoft application developers did not know about.
No, we did not lose any business because of the feature I was unable to develop. But it proved to me that Microsoft did not play fair.
It's not about hate, it's tragedy:
Imagine the difference growing up as a kid with the OLPC laptop vs MS monopoly and other non-free software and hardware.
Computer literacy suffers when software and hardware isn't free (as in freedom). The less literate a society, the easier they are to oppress and control. Microsoft traded our freedom for their profit. You can argue that it was a smart business decision, but ultimately it was a greater loss for everyone.
Obviously, there are a lot of smart people doing good things at MS, but putting a computer into every home only reaches it's true potential when that computer is running free software on free hardware.
Complexity Happens
Everyone hates Microsoft, because they could have invest $10,000 in Microsoft in 1983 and would be worth more than $100 millions now
!flamebait, !troll, !fud, thetruth
I have mixed feelings towards Microsoft. Here's my opinion as to why they will remain dominant for the forseeable future in two words: VISUAL STUDIO
Throughout college I tried various programming environments; during my internships I would use Microsoft Visual Studio. It was always signifcantly better then anything else. When Visual Studio .Net with C# came out, I hopped on the bandwagon. My entire professional career, starting in the summer of 2003, has been with projects that are 100% .Net, and primarily C#. Microsoft Visual Studio, while imperfect, has Intellisense and auto-completion; two vital features that allow me to jump into unfamilar APIs and learn them in minutes.
Recently, with the whole Vista debacle, I decided to jump ship and buy a top-of-the-line 17" MacBook pro. This week I decided to teach myself how to create a Mac GUI program. It's a nightmare! XCode, Apple's flagship development tool, doesn't have Intellisense or auto-completion. It feels like Apple has completely ignored all of the features that make .Net GUI programming so quick and easy.
For example, I'm trying to create a program that displays a web page. In C#, I simply type WebBrowser.Navigate("http://foo.com"). Visual Studio makes sure that my dependancies for the WebBrowser object are present when I drop it into my window. I still haven't figured out the way to do it on a Mac, but I will state that XCode does not assist me in any way with making sure that my dependancies are present.
My point is that Microsoft will continue to remain dominant while it has the best development environment. I don't see myself becoming a professional Mac programmer anytime soon because the learning curve is so high.
No, I will not work for your startup
We hate Microsoft because many of use are the ones who have to fix it when somone breaks Windows or when Windows breaks on itself. We are the ones who have to explain why users can't receive their mail and receive an obscure error message when their .pst file grows to 1.82GB. We are the ones who have to scratch our heads when Excel dumps 2MB of repeating junk in an .xls file and the user reports an unresponsive worksheet or when the autofilter fails to include entries available in the column without sorting for RNG knows what reason.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Your question evokes emotion where none is needed. There is
t icleID=46913
evidence that Microsoft has, from time-to-time, done things
that has set the industry back in order to protect their interests.
I believe there is also ample evidence that Microsoft used
illegal means to stifle competition and limit consumer choice.
One case, and this is not an isolated case, simply a splendid
example, is the story of Go Computer, a company frozen out
of the market by Microsoft's heavy-handed, and likely illegal
tactics. You can read the book "Start Up" (strongly recommended),
or pick up the story here for a flavor:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Ar
What happened there was a crime, figuratively and literally. I don't
"hate" Microsoft, but as a corporate citizen, they have been shown
to be untrustworthy in the past.
When I was about 11 years old, installing Netscape 3.0 corrupted my computer. Netscape had let me down, so I started using IE. About ten years later IE let me down, so I gave Netscape a try again (well, Firefox). I never hated either, and I was thankful that they gave me a free product that I used frequently.
I was impressed with the quality of Firefox and decided to give other pieces of Open Source a try. Eventually, I decided to try using Linux as my primary operating system (the primary motivation is because the Blaster Worm had hit me two years earlier).
At the same time, I got a cheap mac, and learned more about OS X. I still use it to this day.
This period lasted about 6-8 months, and I would refer to myself as "os agnostic" during it.
Being a computer science student, I had a work term ahead of me. It was my first job primarily in C++. The task assigned to me was to work at the device driver level and above for a wireless software company.
To explain what that job was like, read esr's The Tale of J. Random Newbie. Things were a lot more painful than what they should have been. Consider the current difficulties in the open source world concerning wireless devices. The same problems (no specs or source (MS and manufacturer's)) exist in the Window's world, it's just that the average user isn't faced with it.
I placed the blame primarily on Microsoft. Because they were the only parties capable of writing the glue layers necessary. The DDK they had for the task did most of the job, but never 100%, and edge cases were killers.
But what did this mean for the user? 1. When Windows XP was being developed wireless wasn't as prevalent as it is now. Thus, Microsoft will improve the glue layer and possibly even duplicate the functionality my code created. All meaning that the project I worked on will probably have to be re-written. 2. That I couldn't do as much as I wanted, meaning that the user got less than I wish I could have given. While a portion of this is my fault, I blame poor documentation (that and proof of concept code are the only ways I could research how the system operated) and the difficulties with using an abstraction layer (if the programmer doesn't abstract something you wanted, you don't get it). It is obviously too dangerous (and short-sighted) for me to go under the abstraction layer (the edge cases as is were bad enough). These two points lead me to conclude that developer time and depth are inefficiently used when dealing with closed source. And a well known side effect is the prevalence of bugs (when you can't see the source you can't know what will happen).
So, I determined that my profession has suffered due to closed source. Microsoft could end a huge amount of this pain, but they care more about their bottom dollar than the industry (one example would be to write acceptable documentation, it's the best substitute for code). Which I understand fully, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. What you have just read is why I went from being OS-agnostic to Anything But Microsoft in about two or three months. I only described a fraction of the problems, the ones I witnessed, and some that we've all seen (like Blaster and the trouble with IE). Now people think I'm a zealot when I challenge Microsoft. But I ask, what should an engineer do when they realize the frailty of current critical infrastructure that the economy is dependent on?
In short, I hate what Microsoft has done to my profession, and will do everything in my power to remedy it.
I wasn't going to post in this "discussion", mostly because the original question is blatanly biased, and assumes a particular position is held by the reader, and then asks them to explain it... "So, sir, what would it take to get you to stop eating children?".
However, you're such a blatant appologist that I have to say something.
A corporation is called a "corporation" - and has been "incorporated" - because it has been "given a body" under the law to operate on behalf of a group of persons, and has certain rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES, just as any member of society.
The idea that a company, or its officiers, should put fiduciary responsibility on a pedestal, far above any other responsibilities to the society that permitted its incorporatinon, and on whose sufferance its continued existance depends, is relatively recent. Adherence to a specific duty above all other duties or considerations is the moral equivalent of the "Nuremberg Defense".
If a person can sell their soul, and if a corporation is a person under the law, then surely there are also many recent examples of corporations selling their souls.
-- Terry
1) I was a big OS/2 user and feel personally betrayed by them putting more emphasis on the inferior Windows 3.0. I realize that this was a good business move, but it made it clear that they didn't care about superior products.
2) I don't want to pay for Windows when I buy a computer, however their monopoly makes it almost impossible to avoid.
3) I want vendors to make their applications available on Linux instead of Windows.
So, it is obvious that I will probably never be able to support Microsoft.
While Microsoft claims to be a great innovator, they are in reality a great copier. It's almost humorous that the same company that is so against piracy has stolen/copied almost everything they market. When I think of Microsoft, I think marketing.. not technology or innovation. Products that Microsoft would like to claim are innovative:
Word == Word Perfect was better until MS cloned it (and made it difficult for WP to operate with the OS)
Excel == Lotus " "
IE == Netscape
Windows == Mac/X-Window/Xerox
And on and on and on.. C# (Java), Pocket PC (Palm), DirectX (OpenGL)....
What makes a company great is the ability to contribute new ideas to the world and improve technology. IBM, Google, Netscape, VMware, Sun, Novell, Apple, Cisco and many other tech companies have done this. Microsoft has stifled innovation by creating a monopoly based on stealing ideas from others.
As far as other "innovation" by Microsoft, we have the way that Microsoft has consistently held other true innovators back. The fact that if someone comes up with a great idea, Microsoft will copy it and then put it on their OS (which holds a monopolistic share of the market) discourages many from expending the effort.
For this world to continue to advance in the best way possible, we need to reward the innovators.. not the imitators.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
No wonder and doubt about it. Bill Gates have changed the industry, made people's life better, and he is a brilliant genius, and have always caught attention since his early years. Good to know that by the age of 8 he had already gone through the encyclopedia cover to cover! I wanted to know more why people hate, and how he made his colony. If you like to go through the book, which I really recommend to all "HARD DRIVE: Bill Gates and the making of the Microsoft empire" it takes you through his life since he was 7 years old until he dominated the market.
His arrogant personality, the way he takes everything as a challenge, even in donations when he made the silly comments on the $99 laptops, and how he abuse his domination to enter new markets. For example, Microsoft controlled the OS in the 80's, when they didnt have any to offer IBM. They acquired the whole OS from another company with a deal of 50K ! This is what made them what they are today. Later on, software makers Lotus and their 1-2-3 spreadsheet popular software. He used to say "we're gonna put Lotus out of business" or any other competitor name. This was his way of doing business. Either line them up, or smash them. His multiplan spreadsheet program was no killer to Lotus at all, so then they were preparing for DOS 2.0, according to undisclosed sources, there was a saying "DOS is not done, until Lotus dont run". They would put some hidden bugs here and there, difficult to track that would stop Lotus 1-2-3 from running. And it really happened, Lotus lost control on the market and went out of business after then.
Then comes the famouns Windows in the 80's as well, promoting it as the first GUI system, when in fact the technology was in XEROX and was first adapted by Apple. When Apple wanted a killer app to their OS, they signed with Microsoft to deliver Apple version of the Microsoft Office. Part of that deal ofcourse, was to deliver sample Apple computers to Microsoft to work on. When the release approached, Steve Jobs too late found out that Microsoft have been building their own GUI Operating System, too much similar to what Apple delivered as a sample for Microsoft. When Steve wanted to file a lawsuit against Microsoft, Bill threatened that he won't deliver the Microsoft Apple Office at all, thus keeping the Apple without a killer app. Jobs had to swallow the bullet and stay calm.
Few years later, when Apple was working on their version of BASIC for their OS, Bill found out and twisted their arm with similar threat if they dont seas the development of that project. And again, he wins.
This is a short description of the history, and you can still see it those days if you read more about the suits. Like his desperate attempts to kill Sun's Java technology by removing some of their components in the Windows JRE version, and the introduction of J++.
Ok, most of us here hate M$ but why ? we all dislike the monopoly, poor coding standards, the downfall of our great empire for the computing world to fall to the common folk. Why do we embrace what they do, Direct X, poor coding standards, and the embrace of the common folk. Why because even though people are abused every day on the internet we can produce a website that looks like crap and doesn't conform to any standard but IE ... and get away with it. We can play great games, and love all that is, on our top of the line graphics cards while open gl standards fall behind as SGI falls by the way side. The idiotic business world thinks office is the end all of end all and open office keeps the small guys pulling their puds at M$ door, just hoping they can afford the next Office suite. IE 7 wasn't really an upgrade just another yank my doodle that tries to play ketch-up while, M$ invites FF developers to their front door, to thank them for supplying all of the source code for IE 8. Vista is a god awful hack that will just up my stock investment and even though I hate M$ fucking gimme monnnies.
1) Microsoft overpromises and underdelivers on that promise. Constantly. They can't even get a lot of basic stuff right.
.dll hell kicks in.
.dll hell. An installer shouldn't be able to blithely overwrite a .dll with an older version. On the other side, .dlls should contain all previous versions within them, so there's no need to overwrite them, just add to them.
2) I've lost many hours, days, and weekends, trying to get Microsoft stuff to work properly out of the box. Sometimes it works, mostly. Sometimes it works, but only if you configure it in a way you don't want to. Sometimes the only way to get it to work is to use a third party product.
Nothing is more precious to me than my time. I've read through all the MCSE course books. I read through a few of them a few times, because I was trying to get their server product stood up properly. There are things in the book that are outright lies, and vague promises of the way the product is supposed to work.
I remember back when NT Server and BackOffice was the standard load. Somewhere in the install process there was a check box you were not supposed to check. It was supposed to enable was a desirable feature, but if you checked the check box, you pretty much kissed the stability of the system goodbye. Numerous reinstalls later, I finally didn't check the checkbox, and I had a reliable machine. I really wish I could remember what the option was. But when it would take 3 hours to rebuild a server, and I spent a week doing it repeatedly because I couldn't get it to stay up for more than a few hours, I just lost time. Granted, I was a novice admin at the time, and it was something that an experienced admin would have learned by going through the same nightmare process, but the simple fact is that it shouldn't have been a process that we needed to go through at all. There should be no magic invovled in getting the software installed. The magic is supposed to be in configuring it your way once it's installed.
3) Microsoft assumes wrong on behalf of the user.
Assmption: Windows 95 machines will never be kept up longer than 45 days. So we don't need a kernel-level counter that can handle a number longer than 45 days, and if it rolls over, we'll blue screen.
Assumption: Windows 98 runs slower if you upgrade the memory past a certain point.
Assumption: Windows NT will only be installed on today's software, therefore it only works with SCSI.
Assumption: Windows XP assumes that if you're logging on to a domain, you're using roaming profiles. I'm not saying they're not a good thing, but the majority of people moving to/deploying XP when the product first shipped weren't even thinking of roaming profiles, they were thinking of just getting away from that POS called 95/98/Me. Then, to turn it off, you have to do a fairly basic hack to fix it. And still, even now, there aren't many people out there using them because they're hard to deploy properly. This should be simple.
Their lack of ability to look forward in time leds to some bizarre inexplicable problems that are impossible to troubleshoot. The user's home directory sprays files all over the place, and none of it makes sense. It should be self contained in a nice neat little folder that's not 4 levels deep in the OS.
4) The registry. You can have tons of redundant hardware, and failover systems, and anythign else you want. If the registry gets corrupted, the machine is down. Not part of it. The whole freaking machine. One. Single. Point. Of. Failure. All the MS books tell you to get rid of them, but that one you can't get rid of. It's engineered in. And this is before
4a)
5) Microsoft assumes the user has no idea what the user wants. I want to look in the program files directory. There's a warning saying I can screw stuff up if I go in there.
5a) if you have to put up that level of warning, then it tells me your system is fragile, and can't be trusted.
6) Microsoft
Reeses
non-windows users hate microsoft. non-US citizens hate the US. coincidence? i think it's impossible for a sole superpower to be well-liked. their actions are extra scrutinized and they are held to higher standards. so both microsoft and the US suck, according to best practices. they are doing pretty well according to looser "good" practices.
Motivation for this thought comes from here.
Wow. I'm tired.
Edits. Insert above.
Assumption: People won't upgrade Windows 98 beyond 128 MB of RAM, so we'll design it to run slower if they do. It's not our fault, it's just that we don't understand why you'd want more than that much memory.
Assumption: Windows NT will only be installed on today's hardware, therefore it only works with SCSI.
Sorry folks.
Reeses
This article and many others on Groklaw might give you a clue. Microsoft has:
- Destroyed Netscape and BEoS.
- Bribed government officials in India and other countries to use their operating system.
- Funded SCO's litigation against IBM and Linux in general.
- Bribed Novell into betraying the Linux community.
- Forced entire school systems to audit their computers and pay "non-compliance" fines.
- Profited off of Linux and Mac installations without paying royalties by forcing a per computer "tax" on all Licencing 6 customers.
- Slowed down the Internet with their virus ridden software.
- Made it impossible for me to buy the laptop I choose without paying them, even if I do not use their software. (The guy at the store laughed at me when I asked if I could just get the hardware.)
- Supported software patent legislation in Europe.
- Created the most DRM restricted operating system in existence with plans to extend the DRM to MY hardware and encrypt MY information on MY hard drive and give control of all that to someone else (read: Hollywood).
. . . and those are just what I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure I missed more than half, and no, I do not have time to provide links to all of those. You are on your own.All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Because they draw a line in my Word document when I try to type -------
Because they indent with bullets when I want to move the text 4 spaces to the right.
Because they make it close to impossible to have total control of a document, because suddenly, some intellisense kicks in and overrides it.
Because they encourage lazy web developers to create web content that can be viewed with Internet Exploder only.
Because when I try to save a really simple document as html, they give me a messy html with 85% absolutely unnecessary code, which I have to clean manually before I can do anything useful with it.
Because MSN for Mac can't use a webcam, urging my daughters to use a wintel PC for chats.
Because they give me Windows Media Player, a CPU-sucking mammoth, when all I need is a moth like Win-Amp (or a killer bee, like Itunes)
Because the give me big document processing monster, like Word, when all I need is a typewriter like WordPad.
But I do love Excel, and I applaud Bill Gates' spending habits.
-- somewhat_distant
They use bad business practices, like squeezing the small company. They try to steal software and publish in the hope they can win in court (Stacker/DoubleSpace). They pre-announce waporware to be released a few years before its real release (Windows is a good example. XP was late, Vista is late with only half the promised features).
User interface sucks, Ctrl-F is localized (Fat letters in Denmark, Find in English versions), they move behind on the technology wave, and do not give us anything we have not seen before from Apple, Google etc.
As a company, they should do better research, give us new good new products. They should announce them when they are ready to ship. Apple is better in many ways. They get much more out of their research dollars.
Too much of their software is not good enough - tm, because they use their monopoly. They try to push new versions all the time, even if users not need anything beyond Office95
Dude, be sure to list /. in your footnotes so your professor knows you don't have any independent thought in your term paper. Why don't you do some real research and tell us why we all hate M$?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'll use a different example to illustrate the incompatibility in goals. I used to work in an emergency room, and we ordered a telephone recorder so we could record (obviously) the phone calls that came in. All the calls were compressed, stored on a HD, and you could burn them to CD whenever you wanted. Great. So I burned the calls from a date range to a CD and popped the CD into my computer, whereupon progress came to a screeching halt. The company used a proprietary format to compress and store the audio files. I needed to install the software from their vendor, but they forgot to include the disk, so we had to deal with that. There is no reason, quality-wise, to use a proprietary audio format at this stage. PCM wav files or OGG would have worked fine. Even licensing mp3 for use would've been cheaper than developing an in-house format. But they were more focused on brand lock-in than with selling us a good product. They went to more trouble, and spent more money, just to make sure that our recordings, that we were legally required to keep, were in a proprietary format.
Contrast this to OSS, where the goals are completely different. When private companies are screwing the customer to achieve vendor lock-in, OSS offerings are fanatically open and compatible. So while I don't hate the private companies like Microsoft, I do keep in mind that it's in their best interest to make me dependent on them to be able to access my own data down the road.
The software (applications and OS) released by Microsoft are crappy and buggy. They have security holes, are generally easily exploited by viruses and script kiddies, have bugs, crash, are resource hogs, are intrusive and obtrusive, and are just plain crap.
My biggest complaint is their inability to follow standards.
I'm a web developer. I use Firefox, because I like it and it follows standards. So I create a web page with some nice CSS, and it looks perfect. Then, I look at it in IE, and it's not that it just doesn't look as good, it's broken. Internet Explorer has it's own way of handling margins, padding, horizontal rules, etc. They also assign default values to things that shouldn't have them. It's really irritating. Often, the differences cause things to break and render horribly. Then I have to get creative and hack the CSS so that IE doesn't shit a brick when it renders the page. The worst part is that the only reason I can see for them to not follow standards is because they "want to be different".
The second is lack of options in their software, especially defaults. I'll give you a perfect example. At work, in a corporate environment, we're forced to use Antepo for instant messaging. Besides being a piece of crap that breaks down all the time, it lacks options. If you click on a link, it tries to open Internet Explorer, even if your default browser is Firefox. Better yet, I have IE7 and IE6 installed, so that I can fix the above mentioned rendering problems. IE7 is what's officially installed on the system, but Antepo will open links in IE6. What the fuck is that? And how about a line-break? You hit shift-enter, and you would expect your text to continue on the next line. Not in Antepo. You get three line breaks, and you can't do shit about it. On, and about the links, you can't click on a link someone has sent you unless they place a space behind the link. What the fuck is that?
This is just my list of complaints from THIS WEEK ALONE.
Bottom line: I hate Microsoft because they can't design software worth a shit.
Aero
Some more I just thought of. IE7 breaks Dreamweaver 8. Dreamweaver 8 can no longer store passwords and logins once you install IE7. I don't know if this is the fault of Macromedia(Adobe) or Microsoft, but it's fucking stupid. Also, whoever designed Microsoft Frontpage needs to be burned at the stake. If I ever catch those motherfuckers..
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Different cultures have very different standards for what is acceptable. Reflecting the ecosystem of which they are a part, and their own strategies within it. And companies have a great variety of cultures. From prioritizing public good, employees, company, and stockholders in that order, through organized crime.
For example. In some fields of biology, professors tell their grad students not to discuss their work at conferences. Fields with a "first to arrive wins all, second gets nothing" payoff function. Making them zero-sum. Revealing to a competitor that some approach is unfruitful, saves them time you would rather they squander. In computer science, where good ideas far outnumber peoples' time available to pursue them, such conduct would usually be considered sociopathic. Not because such a strategy is not viable, but because there are similarly viable strategies with very much greater collective benefit.
Bill Gates built a company in his own image. Biographies of Bill Gates suggest his family intensively trained him from a young age to compete well in zero-sum fields. It has been a profound misfortune for our field, and for thus the world, that he ended up in software engineering instead.
I do not "hate" MS, but I will rather not use their software.
1) Proprietary software is not transparent. It is therefore intrinsically less trustworthy than open source.
2) Using MS tends to lead to dependance on MS.
3) MS's business practices suggest they in particular are not trustowrthy, and more likely to exploit dependence on them to my detriment.
4) I resent the fact that their software is bundled by everyone - I want to be able to walk into a shop and have a choice of PCs with different OSes installed.
5) I have found most of their software to suck (with the exception of Excel which is very good) and the OS hard to administer (lack of a single auto update mechanism for all, or almost all, my software in particular).
6) Their security track record, and their other shortcoming, sugggests that their attitude to theis custoers is "the sucks will buy anythings".
I fully agree about using the right tool for the right job. Screwdrivers make lousy hammers, as I have said more than once. You've got to have a good grasp on what it is you want to do and what will produce the best results for that task. So far, I can honestly say that whilst Windows has been the best tool for certain problems, that has almost always been because of political or legal considerations (by the suppliers, by the company I worked for, whatever) and not for technical reasons. Once - and only once - have I met a situation in which Windows outclassed Linux on a technical consideration, and even that was merely a political consideration by the maintainers of the Open Source project I would have needed to use under Linux.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How many times have you heard the word "innovation" from a microsoftie?
4 2218o soft-research.html
a te.htmlh tml
.NET crapfest, but even that is well done, just a personal preference, except that they are trying to win against Java using an interpreted framework, but Visual Basic was completely reengineered and basically thrown away?) (but it uses a third party C/C++ library from Dinkumware, don't think they came up with any of that themselves) (oh and they didn't make the compiler either, they made it worse). But without microsoft we wouldn't need either of these. I believe they don't suck because they were made by developers, for developers.
.NET or buy a C++ library:
(uncountable)
How much money does it spend on research?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/20
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/120606-micr
How many times has it innovated?
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/msinnov
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.s
http://www.mcmillan.cx/innovation.html
This last dude gave up, Last updated 27 June 1999. Basically, it came down to a list of all accepted innovation nominations compared to two accepted: Microsoft Bob (doubtful but accepted) and the fucking talking paper clip. Which is basically Bob redone as a more annoying Help file.
all I did was a google search for "microsoft innovate" without quotes, and I came up with ZERO microsoft sites, and a whole bunch which put "innovate" into the quotes it deserves.
Worthless software company. The only things they did right are SQL server (derived from Sybase, and even though it was apparently recoded it shares similar syntax), which actually has a decent track record on security issues, and of course Visual Studio (IMO until the
Dinkumware info, apparently there is a license dispute so that MS can't package the updates in a visual studio service pack, so Dinkumware tells which lines to edit and how:
http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html
std::string causes corruption. Sorry we can't fix it, upgrade to
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813810
"When you build applications in Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 that use the supplied Standard Template Library (STL), memory corruption may occur, or your computer may stop responding. "
Origins of MSC compiler
http://www.nimh.org/microsoft/
"`This is just a historical note about the C compiler microsoft sells. In the late 80's I was developing C programs under DOS using the Lattice C compiler. One day I got a letter from Lattice saying they were out of the C compiler business, I should contact microsoft for support. I found out that microsoft bought the compiler and exclusive rights to sell it from Lattice. "
O man I just pissed myself off again rehashing all that ineptitude.
MS is making programs that control our life and the way we deal with the computer , when you use MS WINDOWS , you don't feel that you are controlling the computer , instead , the computer is controlling you ! can you tell why the network indicator is always blinking !! even if there was nothing running ! with Linux and OSS , you can make the software works according to your requirement , with Microsoft , your working is going according to their software capabilities ! and you will change that way you work to make use of the software ! it is just like flipping the wall to put a light bulb
I hate Microsoft because of STEVE BALLMER.
I use Windows, I use Word, I use Excel. So why do I despise a company who's products I use every day? Two main ones and a bunch of little ones
1) Bill Gates provided a real world example of the Tragedy of the Commons. He took content created for free by naive idealists and slapped a license on it where the very creators of the software were no longer allowed to use it. MS pretty much invented the EULA as we know it.
2) MS consistently arrives late with a lot of glitz and half a beer. They have not delivered a product since Excel that comes anywhere close to the marketing hype or to the quality of the competing product it is aping. Their entire marketing model is based on selling vapourware. In '82(ish) they got away with selling IBM a product that didn't work. Since it was tiny and the world was what it was, they managed to deliver something close enough through a combination of all-nighters and what Mr. Gates would now call IP theft. Unfortunately, that business model just doesn't scale well to 60M lines of code.
More personally, the history of MS is rife with examples of work that, in a less civilized world, would have had Mr. Gates strung up on the nearest tree. If you want to know why I hate MS find out why
- Bill Gates owns more of MS than Paul Allen.
- DR-DOS took MS to court and won (and consider the impact on MS's own customers)
- Netscape took MS to court and won (and consider the impact on the Internet)
- we have "Patch Tuesday"
- no medium-sized companies partner with MS anymore
- the companies that have partnered with MS in past no longer exist
Bill Gates is the personality of MS. That personality has demonstrated that he will stop at nothing to take home all the marbles including:
- Gradually raising the price of his product from 0.5% of the cost of a PC to 80%.
- Deliberately breaking software his customers have already paid for to create sales
- Deliberately breaking software his customers have already paid for to extend into new markets.
- Flat out stealing technology and claiming it as his own (much more often than he has actually created his own).
- Flat out lying to the customers about the capabilities of the software they are paying for.
- Suing paying customers.
and every nuance of every one of these that you can imagine.
I figure that MS has cost me personally over $100,000 over the past 20 years just in lost time and lost work.
It upsets me that, after seeing MS in action for 20 years, I am (still) dealing with an idiot at work who is fabricating excuses to move a perfectly functional automated process from Linux to Windows. I am livid that this moron is going to get his wish simply because he is willing to yell louder and longer than anyone else in the room.
For all of those reasons, not only do I despise MS, I believe that a company that does actively discourages the use of MS products has a distinct competitive advantage over one that encourages it. The anecdotal evidence is that, over 20 years, the companies that I have worked for that do not depend on MS software are consistently the most successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsof t
MS Products have consistently wasted my time and money unnecessarily.
I used to work as a sysadmin for unix, linux, macos, and windows. I was paid flat salary with no overtime and limited budget.
my time invested in administering windows took over many of the work hours beyond the regular hours, taking over my personal time. My work with other OS's rather improved my computing knowledge and skills, while what I did with windows were pretty silly and repetitive (reboot, press buttons all day long while tied to the PC, etc.). The rest of the OS had superb automation and network services that I only had to submit once and do other things. Not so for windows. Since the company that I worked for couldn't fork out enough money to buy tools for windows that other OS's already included or didn't need, I was basically doing all the menial tasks for computers that were supposed to be doing those menial tasks.
I also got the "PC fragility syndrome", whereby with every step of activity on Windows I consciously prepare for blue-screen-of-death. It was so jarring on my nerves that after I quit, I quit using windows except for games.
Unless the company was enterprise level with enough money to fund MS products and services who doesn't care that they are much more expensive than Linux for the same services, not having enough funds and time was very detrimental.
After that, I started working as a unix developer in a mixed environment and I began to see how bad the windows programmers and users were dealing with problems with windows, and how lucky I was that I didn't have to go through the problems myself again. I even realized that managers for windows development expected overtime work without overtime pay, while managers for unix platforms expected on-time results working normal hours.
Microsoft's main purpose is profit, but the way they gained the profit was so immoral. Make a shabby product but lock-in the users, so that they have to shell more money for upgrades without choice. Basically, they don't seem to really care about users.
I anticipate that an OS is so widespread that it becomes a public utility, of which open source seems to be the best bet, as it's not encumbered by proprietary licenses. OS will become like water, where no one controls water except being regulated by a public body and probably serviced by commercial companies. You still pay for fancy water products, but general water is publically accessible. It will be the same with the OS. Microsoft can still make GUIs and Windows components for public OS (and other standards) if they want.
I don't hate Microsoft. I just hate Microsoft or any commercial organization totally controlling what should be a public utility.
Too many comments to read and see how many times it has already been said, but there is only one reason everyone really hates Microsoft; They are the clear leader. The crowd you have heard likes to root for the underdog, period. They hate the obvious front runner.
All the other arguments are BS.
People complain Microsoft products suck. Total BS. If they sucked they would not be the most used. The fact is you can take any product and argue either for or against it, regardless of its platform. MS products were the first to have UI similarity and became the easiest and most productive for people before anyone else did that. That made them an obvious choice for people just beginning to use computers for non-computer work.
People complain about security problems. This is only partially true. Security issues existed in computerville long before Microsoft entered the scene. One only has to watch War Games again to remember what the Unix world was with its backdoors and lack of security concerns. As Microsoft became the front runner, they became the target. ANY OS that got to the point Microsoft did would have suffered the same consequences. While that does not dismiss the security nativity, you can not put the total blame on Microsoft, its the assholes out there who insist on attacking computers in the first place, many of which hate Microsoft I might point out.
Lastly, people complain about Microsoft business practices. Again BS. MS listens to their customers. They analyze what new functionality will help them increase sales. And the successfully execute, admirably predicting the defect threshold consumers will tolerate. That's not being greedy or abusive, it is good business sense. Something apparently a lot of people can not recognize. In this case, I think it jealousy instead of hate.
Me personally; I have been very happy with Microsoft. I have never had issues with crashing or viruses. Maybe I am smarter about it than most who have all these problems. On the other that can't be it because I have had the opposite experience with Linux. Out of 20-30 distributions I have tried over the last 20 years, the last one that installed and ran without digging into and having to fix something was the one I downloaded to floppies. Every distribution has had problems. God damn simple things like not being able to get the fonts right between a console and an x-term. There were many other problems but that is an example of the kind of carelessness that usually goes into creating a linux release. When people do not get paid for their work they work on things they feel like and ignore issues that others feel are important. There is no accountability. There is no boss saying "you will maintain the documentation." The last 2 release of Fedora, the flagship of the communities, could not partition my hard disk correctly. I sit through a painful 1.5 hour install with everything just fine, reboot and get a geometry error. You don't have that type of problem with Windows, at least I never have.
Why do people hate Microsoft? Because they're morons. Most people do not hate Microsoft, instead they are at worst case jealous and a small minority. Microsoft runs on what, over 80% of all computers? The vast majority embrace Microsoft and thank them for making the computer experience a lot better than it was.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
"forefront leaders" makes no sense (did you mean "foremost"?)
Apart from that, what a dumb question. Are you trolling, or just inexcusably ignorant? Go educate yourself, read Groklaw - you may as well start here.
you had me at #!
Back when Windows 9x was the newest Windows OS available, I would often go to stores that sold software just to see what kind of interesting stuff was available. There were lots of things out there by many different companies and software makers, which was quite a bit of selection. Nowadays however, whenever I go to a store that sells software, the majority of the software I saw had that damned "Microsoft" logo and name on it. I swear, every single section of these stores had something that had the Microsoft logo on it. This is the biggest problem I have with Microsoft. I don't want to see that logo on almost everything I see in a computer store. Why do they feel the need to go into every market possible? From video game consoles to mp3 players, to something like a learning helper program for kids, they seem to have a hand in most things. My second problem with Microsoft, is that in my view they do not listen to constructive crticism very well when it comes to their products. I'll use IE as an example; critics point out the very obviously outdated rendering engine used in it, and compare it to other browsers such as Firefox and Opera. What does Microsoft do? they fix a few problems without making the actual rendering engine any more able to be standards compliant, along with a few niche features like tabs and RSS. Thusly, the original criticism was largely ignored in this case in favour of easier to implement features. (Note: I know there are more things about IE asides from renderring; I just wanted to use this an an example.) I don't hate Microsoft; I just dislike quite a few of their business practices and tactics. (P.S: My grammar in this post probably sucked. That happens when you don't sleep for 2 days in a row...)
I think it's really more a set of points on which I disagree with Microsoft:
Point 1. Computers are primarily business tools
My View: Computers are very flexible machines that can be used for nearly anything including business tools. Since my background is in the electronic music world, I would have to say that it's nearly impossible to make decent electronic music without computers and software. Microsoft didn't seem to think this was important until Windows XP came around. But by that time, users like me had already been using computers to do electronic music for about 20 years with Macs, Amigas, and Ataris.
Point 2. Anyone who doesn't use a computer for "standard" uses is a "hobbiest" which roughly translates to: "loser living in parent's basement who gets on Ballmer's nerves"
My View: Completely false. We don't go around calling professional carpenters, electricians and plumbers "amateurs" when they work on their stuff at home, do we? Then why should people who work in the tech sector who like having SANs, virtual machines, and heavy duty OSes at home have to be relegated to the "hobbiest" moniker? It's kind of insulting, isn't it? If they lose the attitude about people who like to push the technical envelope and let them have access to deeper parts of the Windows OS to do it with, they'll gain new friends.
Point 3. Revenue is more important than, well... anything else that Microsoft does.
My View: That's not the way it should be. Making money should always take a back seat to satisfying the customer first. Screw the stockholders. As long as their stocks aren't going down, they have no right to expect them to continue increasing. There's only so many people who will buy the products and pushing out stuff that really isn't much different than the previous version in terms of actual functionality and stability is not a good approach. Ever. There is such a thing as being reasonably profitable and it doesn't mean pounding your competitors into the ground.
Just a few points of contention for me. In general, I feel that I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want with my computers. No one should be able to limit me in any way as long as I'm not invading other people's systems and causing mischief. If I want to write a software based DVD player (with decryption) then I should be allowed to without worrying about goofy laws that try to make imaginitive thinking illegal.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I don't hate Microsoft for making money. I do dislike Microsoft's corporate climate, however. They make mediocre products, although they could (read: should) make the best products in the world. Bill Gates talks a lot about altruistic projects and has good intenetions, but when it comes to the buildings in Redmond, its all bottom-line. Their mediocrity is sort of a microcosm of American society in general. Like I said, I don't hate them for being successful, I just hate the fact that the consumer doesn't have more discriminant tastes, and that market forces have allowed such mediocrity to prevail. Microsoft perpetuates the error of central tendency. I give Microsoft one pass: Excel. That is the only program I can't find a better more viable option for on my Macs or my PCs. OH yeah, and the Xbox is pretty cool.
A clear monopoly to me. That wouldn't be such a big deal if we could deal with it and handle this sort of thing.
Unfortunately now when I see the Microsoft sign I am reminded of the corruptability of democracy and hopelessness of mankind.
I don't hate Microsoft as much. Like a tiger that kills it's prey they are just doing thier job in a focused way. Unfortunately this way highlights so many problems in life.
Non geeks don't understand why we hate Microsoft because they don't relise it when they are encountering it. They don't recognise the BSOD on thier ATM. They don't recognise the intregrity of a NT kernel flying a plane. They don't care whether the reciepe for their software is secretive - because they are ignorant.
If you don't use a computer it doesn't fly in your face that Microsoft are a pain in the butt. But if yoy're a programmer and you want to actually do something that uses the Microsoft API like making programs run on Linux... you're screwed. This is why the enlightened run with fear whenever Microsoft moves in on a new sector. Microsoft on your mobile phone? By this anyone using a phone you could then have to pay a fee to Microsoft for every 3rd party program on the phone. And like moving into a house you get dependant on this.
Microsoft is the landlord of computers. Microsoft sets the ground rent.
Microsoft leverages weaknesses in our world such as ignorance and capitalism through patents and agreements to it's advantage and our constant disadvantage. In doing so it reminds us in our daily encounters of the hopelessness of life by giving the impression that a balance of reward between consumer and maker by interlectual property (doesn't exist by the way) will never be fair. Since this underpins everything we do this leads to dispair.
This is why we hate Microsoft.
A blog I run for the wealth
1. They haven't built a flying car
2. Steve Ballmer has not done a backflip off the top of a mountain while robots shoot ninjas from outer space
3. Neither Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates have stated their preference of pirates, ninjas or formation kilted scotsmen.
4. Microsoft do not make pencil sharpeners, I have blunt pencils I need to sharpen and there's no solution planned by Microsoft.
5. They don't subsidise my ice cream habit, they should because ice cream is awesome and they have more money than me
6. I fear that in the next 10 years they will invent a new type of particle and insert it into our physical world, called a Microsofton it will place a blue filter on everything.
Task Mangler
From their public and private statements, it appears Gates and Balmer may possibly have really never grasped the impact of Microsoft's size.
Size matters. Qualitatively.
The playful aggressiveness which makes a house kitten adorable, gets an grown tiger shot as a heath menace.
Just because you reasonably fear that some baby will eventually grow up to displace you, doesn't mean its ok to slaughter all the babies in the neighborhood. "We could lose our position at any time, to some garage start-up" is not an excuse to slaughter them. Such is the moral argument. And that you may not leverage monopoly power to do it, the legal one.
Here's the positive thing to say about MS. Their software is the best on the market. ...for certain definitions of "best"...
"Best" in this case means
-the software that most consistently works well (argue with this later)*
-the software that provides a consistent interface
-the software that is consistently localized into your language
-the software that is backed by a company you can find (not "realfines0ftware.com", etc)
MS is the aggregate of many aggravations, but most people (no, really) will agree with the above. Yes, MS screws up. Yes, some of their software has issues. But MS is the big supplier of consistent, functional tools to get the job done. Once your toyota works for you, you might not want to buy a hyundai, a jeep and a fiat to figure out if they could too. Particularly if you've ever purchased a fiat.
You need to pick a best that matters.
*re: the "most consistently works well" line... you can argue specifics, but if you use a PC the best software comes from MS. The rest of the software that the public sees... is crap. It's
-their LOB DOS app that still runs in a command window on XP.
-the chat client that spews adds at them
-the antivirus software that constantly asks them to upgrade their subscription...
All horrible experiences. There are plenty of reasons to bitch about MS, but if you balance it out I think you find:
-the software consistently works better
-the software has consistently improved (win2k -> xp, xp -> sp2, sp2 -> vista...)
my $.02
I hold no hatred for the company, the products or the people who work for Microsoft.
I've dabbled with Linux and my father has about 14 pc's, workstations, servers with various flavours of operating systems and tools, (Windows, Linux, Lindows, Unix, etc) so I'm no stranger to variations of a theme. I've worked with IBM mainframes, Unix shells, and etc. MS-DOS and PCDOS were my introduction to personal computing and the interface was facinating, if not beautiful. My first experiences with a very early Mac were frustrating as the GUI would crash at times. Well, not so much as crash as freeze, because the network was built using daisy-chain protocol and the lady down the hall would frequently power off her workstation bringing the 'network' down. Ugh.
I am in the financial application design area of IT. However I don't know enough to evaluate the articles written by those with enough low-level understanding of the OS to verify if their analysis and attitudes towards Midrosoft's patches and security issues are valid.
I do notice that Microsoft's competitors are getting softer reviews however. It may be my perception but the headlines and frothing-at-the-mouth announcements of Mozilla's Firefox's security issues weren't as prevalent as those I've seen for the larger company, although to be fair, they were reported.
At first I thought it was the idea of a large company that made people (and media outlets) wary and critical of Microsoft but I think I'm wrong about that. I don't see the same animosity in print towards Google, who is in my opinion far more 'evil' than Microsoft. If a single government had as much information as Google has at its disposal, not to mention the power (if your site can't be found in a Google search it must not exist, yah?) the citizens would be throwing a fit. Now THAT would be another interesting paper to write about.
Human nature seems to be to hate success, or perceived "too much" success. People feel they missed out, or it's not fair that they didn't get a piece of that pie. It's the same reason people hate Walmart. It's the same reason people hate the U.S. It's the same reason people hate Intel. It's the same reason guys hate the star quarterback in high school who gets all the "chicks". The list goes on.
Let's say that all the restaurants and supermarkets in your neighborhood are taken over by, not only fast food chains, but McDonalds. That's the only place where you can eat. To you, it tastes bad, it's bad for your health, there is little selection, but you don't have a choice: you gotta eat. But you have actually eaten good food in your life and know that better food exists. Wouldn't you be kind of annoyed? Wouldn't you start cooking for yourself and try to create alternatives?
Well, that, in a nutshell is why many people don't like Microsoft and why they are looking for alternatives. It's also why many other people don't mind Microsoft; they don't know anything else.
Gates is without doubt the root of the bad ethics and dirty business, and likely the technical failures. He believed his own myth.
Philanthrophy with stolen money doesn't change a thing.
you had me at #!
Reasons I dislike Microsoft (incomplete and off the top of my head)
Sixteen system crashes in one week on TWO boxes (not networked or internet connected), with full microsoft "protection" in place.
Having to upload virus and spyware patches on a daily, if not more than daily, basis.
Cross-platform incompatibility with their OWN products! (as in WORD for Windows doesn't necessarily read a WORD for Mac document sent to it!)
Cost intensive tech support for newly purchased products (as opposed to (we'll at LEAST get you up and running with boxware for free on a single system - but NO, that does NOT happen!)
OS versions that have a shelf life shorter than most aphids. (Windows ME is an excellent example)
Repression of development (the Bungie purchase to suppress HALO of other boxen is a superb example) via their buy up and control model...
Outsourcing US jobs overseas (tech support is conveniently located in Bangalore, India, as I recall)
High cost requirements for users to gain product access (see the new Vista product protocols for running Virtual Machines as an example, including the ONLY ONE INSTALL deal on Vista Home before you have to BUY A NEW COPY OF THE OS! as a perfect example)...
Just for starters...
When you purchase a computer for College, or even for at home. The software that you need the most is the most expensive on the market and it runs on Windows. Most Colleges want you to use ONLY MS office software. If you are purchasing all of this software from a list of must have items... You can spend as much for this software as you did for the computer. I added up the cost for all my software I purchased, and it is around $900.00 Others I know, have spent on average of $900.00 to $1200.00 dollars. For a product that is suppose to be cheap to operate, you sure can't convince me of this. BTW schools ask that you use Microsoft Windows. So there is no way around the cost.
I love their hardware, it seems that they make good solid mice. But Windows, it's got all of the features, just not well done, and often the default setting are best for MS and not the user. You would think that with so many people and so much money, they would spend the little bit more time and polish the software, finish it correctly.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
... microsoft is simple.
I hate microsoft because I'm required to use their bugridden craptastic software and I've been forced to use their bugridden craptastic software since the days of dos 5 and windows 3.1... because I'm a gamer.
I've hated them since 95 and I'll hate them until I die, I'm so god damn sick and tired of their broken ass shit its unreal. If its not a direct bug its a security hole if its not a security hole its a memory leak if its not a memory leak its a driver conflict if its not a driver conflict its a... etc.
I use Linux and BSD for just about everything, but they just don't cut it for games because the only system people develop for is windows.
Get fucked Microsoft.
Shadus
He was complaining about ActiveX, which is worthless for anything other than to break websites on non-IE/non-windows browsers.
... in fact I'm not sure that there ever was a version of html that didn't support images, so unless you think the debate is gopher vs. html, STFU.
He wasn't complaining about adding jpeg, gif, flash(urgh) and CSS.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
MS produces buggy products. They can improve a lot. And stop stealing ideas. And stop eating up other good companies. Stop showing monopoly and think that money can do anything. (Well thats what people in all walks of life do when you have money!)
And I truly think Vista could be the start of the end of MS if they don't change.
But to be truthful to the "hate", lets wait till Mac has a bigger, I mean 30%+, market share. Let the non-hi-tech people start using it. Believe me they are the best to find bug than the expert IT guys (remember monkey testing? - No offence meant to non-hi-tech users). We can judge MAC then. Not when its 10% and other standing like a giant with 90% share. Today MS has the most share, why any one care to write exploit to a costly less share OS? So today is MS day to be exploited and hated.
There will be a day, soon, when these hatred will turn to others like Apple and Google.
By the way, when was the last time we wrote an application without bugs?
Why do we have huge IT application support people in each company? I know many who strongly hate MS (due to MS bugs) advocating more people to support the application with less than 200 programs they wrote and is in production for more than 10 years!
I'm not a big MS fan! Believe me!
Neither Apple nor Google fan(I love google web apps). By the way, I still cannot understand why iPod has to waste half of its screen real estate to put a stupid dial! I bet most of us pay premium and bought iPod to see that tiny screen. I'm waiting for a full screen iPod.
So lets wait! I'm in the wait mode too...
...try programming on a large project in VC6. It's enough to drive anyone to hate.
Microsoft tends to release software before it should and works to deliver features in lieu of function and stability. This is great for wiz-bang stuff like office however when you consider from a pure TOC perspective Microsoft is simply a very expensive way to go. I was recently at a MS convention and we were making their engineers sweat when we asked them off-line to match our linux cluster solution over a follow-the-sun architecture giving 99.999% availability. I've also worked with their TAM's who all to often say "why did you buy that version of our software? you need the new version".
2Cents,
Kattfish
I believe that this study is paid (in some way) by Microsoft to have FREE marketing material
Yes, they are smart, having all of us Slashdotter to give them hints on how to start the next marketing campaign
Yes, we hate them because they are good on being in the borderline of all the bad practices they do and yet appease the "normal" user and suck money out of him/her
Gates spend millions on charity (and so please the public), with the money he got from all of us, so he play nice with OUR money. If I want to do charity I decide who gets the money !
They are not constantly bad, unfortunately, they manage to be good enough to continue to be in monopoly condition to abuse developers, resellers, customers, but not too much to have a revolution, just enough to squeeze all possible money out of them
Thanks for giving me a chuckle.
It sounds as though you have no idea what MS has done and just thinks of the company as a big cuddly teddybear that plucks money from the outstretched hands of eager customers and that the only reason that people could possbily dislike MS is that they have collected a lot of money.
Nothing could be further from the truth; I in general don't care if a company makes money, unless I happen to own it, so that's not it.
The problem with MS has nothing to do with money or envy.
The problem with MS is that they:
* Pervert standards (ActiveX, J++, Kerberos, OfficeXML, aso)
* Lie to customers (wait for us, we're the leader)
* Lock in customers with secret protocols and formats.
* Blackmail non-buyers bosses.
* Conduct smear campains against people who'd rather use competing products
* Lobby and threaten politicians who are thinking about open source.
* Do everything they can to limit customer choice to their own product,
illegally if they have to.
MS is generally a drag on the industry and we would all be better off if it was destroyed.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
All versions of Shake 4 were $4999 until just a few months ago when Apple made a *HUGE* price cut down to $499 for Mac. This is *very* recent. More than likely, they just didn't get to the formalities of the linux price cut, or don't see enough potential sales (or competition?) to justify it.
JP
-- JP
Microsoft restricts the concept of user portability. User portability is the idea that the user can retain his data and discontinue use of a specific developer's operating system or application. Microsoft and Apple both violate this freedom through it's distribution of proprietary software.
When using a Windows/OSX application that stores *your* data in a proprietary format, you are then bound to that application. If the application is on a proprietary operating system, you're bound to the operating system as well. (And OSX ties the user to Apple's hardware as well... which means your data is linked to the application-operating system-hardware ... thats alot of dependancy!)
User portability is being attacked on all fronts, and people need to recognize how valuable it is to keep your data (photos, music, documents) unattached to proprietary lock-in schemes. DRM-music is a good example of practices that attack user portability, because you are no longer able to keep your music with you should you discontinue use of the iPod or "PlaysForSure" devices.
I hate Microsoft and Apple for attempting to destroy user portability.
... I just hate them, man...
- Eric C
Because Microsoft takes their ill-gotten gains and uses them to make the world a worse place.
Because they do not deserve to be where they are based on the quality of their products. They got where they are due to bad, likely illegal, business practices.
They are a symbol of greed gone wild.
The stuff they churn out is still generally of poor quality.
Because too much of the computing world just follows them like sheep. Too many people are blind to the costs that they impose.
They _have_ caused real harm to the computing landscape.
If they ever succeed in achieving complete lock-in, then as we saw with Internet Explorer, they'll see no need to develop or innovate or even serve their customers properly. Computing will just go downhill.
That's the company as a whole. On the front-line they have a lot of good dedicated people trying their best to help customers.
They killed dozens of companies. They killed the competition, they killed their own business.
Once upon a time, there was this idea of selling software. You know: people buy a computer and then buy software that do something on this computer. Microsoft distorted so much this paradigm that when a new one comes in, the Google paradigm (I read your mail and keep every detail on you so that I can better stuff you with ads, and you get the webtop software for free) a lot of people thinks : "oh yes, please deliver us from Microsoft" so that I will never have again to buy a software".
Miscrosoft has no customer: only prisoners. And they are sick of it. Or, they just don't remember the world before Microsoft.
Considering when the word processor has been invented and the size of the market, a reasonable price is somewhere around $1 and they sell Word for how much? Only because they own the market!
Delenda est Microsoft.
With so many resources as Microsoft has, they have done a lousy job about going in to futuristic OS what they are is a good money making machine, for share owners this is a golden goose. But for anyone who is interested in making a better or at least more techy future ala GITS or ST or like any other good sf futuristic style they are the worst you can find on earth, and what is more , they employed a lot of talents that could make better things, and now they are only earning a lot of money, but they are in the system and there is nothing that they could do anymore , they are futuristicly dead. Having billions of dolars and making a piss poor job of getting the world in to a better future at least in technical way sucks. They are the reason why I more and more hate capitalism, but then there are google, youtube, linux and I find that there is not everything black, but still they suckk.
Of course, MS also doesn't include all sorts of other pieces of standard OSes, like CD and floppy imagers and image writers and image mounters, or network sniffing utilities.
"Standard OSes"? Come on now. I use Linux and BSD, but I'm not going to call them, nor the aberration that is OS X, "standard." Windows is the standard, not my/our hobbyist your artsy-fartsy OSes.
You know, actual hardware tools that OSes should come with. Even their text editor sucks.
And yet their (free) development tools absolutely blow away anything open-source has ever come up with. I actually do my development in VC++2005 and transfer it over to Linux to compile; the quality of the IDE is infinitely better. l33t h4xx0rz might think that doing it in their HOMGZ-GREAT text editors, like vi or emacs, is cool, but I like actually getting work done.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
They know too much the art of the meaning of the *in between* these two things: what people want out of computer to do - and how you're willing to offer it to them (them == consumers && developers).
They used the way they disposed Windows to be to take advantage off many other companys :(. Google is my witness. Instead of giving the developers of the 90s a fair for EVERYONE to build and earn $$$ out of your buisness *as being a software developer* IF you'd be coding within their platform, they would bump you back if you were getting big (like Corel and Caldera). I am not against the fact that they released Word to compete about WordPerfect - but the way they decided to attack the behavior of competitive software to their own sub-products of Windows (Word,Excel).
They bumped back WordPerfect's stability to make Word looking as a better product. They prevented Calera Dr-Dos from getting in their way by making their platform not usable if you want to have them both on the same partition.. As a developer, I would never have the heart to attack back some other peice of code someone else did just because they did it great and they make a whole load of money with it.
They did what they would never wanted to happen to them.. I don't think they would enjoy better being sucessfully attacked economicly by some hardcode pseudo-code genius. Do they really have the guts to really understood what it feels for someone to be electronicly dispose to loose sales because they are writing app(s) that works against an other peice of software (not created by them)? At least GPLv2 protects everyone from making things like that.
But of course, their new campaign are more about telling to everyone they are trying to change and starting to approch what's the Open Source stuff.. And comparing them to the Open Source alot more, and explaining to the people the good (real) things they build for people. Do they make it to look cool by talking about Open Source? Do they really have the guts to be open to the world - and fair for everyone - as the Open Source REALLY is (simply because the source publicly avaiable, lol.)
The Open Source is not bug free ok.., but it is the beauty of the *free flow* (throught all it's possible meanings) of knowledge and giving back knowledge freely to everyone. IF people (anyone) CAN make LOTS of MONEY $$$ with THIS then IT is GOOD throught ALL of IT'S form. And everyone knows every years it's getting bigger, stronger, and more secure with the time.. (OpenBSD rocks for security.. and the Linux hardened kernels are simply awsome bigtime cuz all the stuff it can do for you).
Open Source will never hurt anyone. Open Source will try never monopolize the control of the future of the computer industry's itself with the latest version of their OSes. Or maybe I should say it this way: it will never attempt to apply pressure of any kind to control the future of the computer industry. GPLv2 gives the chance to protect the future: what people is making a living of.. GPLv2 is giving the proff that we can create better things *all_together on a worldwide scale* (and complementing to eveyone's code), than the other who does not like to share their publications (a patented program IS intrepreted as written publication).. Security is the beauty of and the sexy_ass features of Open Source Linux/Unix. People who's into closed source likes to fight in court with patents. If someone can think hard enought to reprogram the same class object I've used for an application, then I'd be more than happy to know that someone it putting it to good use: even it it would be from my code it would be tooked
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what IF everyone would be using GPLv2 it would protect us all right (as software developers)? I cannot pronounce myself onto other people trying to sue you for patented stuff (cuz I'm not a lawyer). I think it is important that the whole world gets to acknowledge that the more we reunite together as programmers, we can make
I understand that they're doing everything in their power to maintain their monopolistic position. In today's corporate world that's what they should/have to do and they do it and they do it rather well. That includes inventing own proprietary "evolving standards" every chance they have, augmenting and thus breaking existing standards, doing everything they can to sell the new versions every two-three years etc, etc (I could go on for hours ..)
...
It's just that as a software enginer those practices have a negative impact on my work. But that effect is thesedays relatively nonexistans since when I applied to my current job I made it clear in the interview that I will not be seated to a windows box, I will not touch windows and most importantly I will not write software that will be run on windows.
And outside of work, I just don't like what they've done and I do all I can to get by without touching anything M$ related.
Moreover, now a decade with linux I've really stopped caring what they do as long as they keep their hands out of free/open software community.
And I can't really blame M$ what they do, since I do understand them. But since the shite manifests in M$ they do sometimes get their share of hatered from me, too, eventhough I know perfectly well it's not really justifiable.
The thing I do hate is these a tad too big companies in today's corporate world that work for the share holders' benefit and their benefit alone. Nevermind the customers, employees, anti-trust laws
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
To contribute to the original question's purposes, here is a little of my history:
My first PC was a Pentium and ran Windows 95 and Office 97 (I didn't know any better at the time...) I was about 12 at the time, I think. I hated Microsoft then because their stuff just didn't work. Did anyone ever try setting up a LAN with Win95?
I heard about a mystical OS called UNIX from my father, an old hand in the business, but forced into the Windows world by his work.
I then progressed to a 750MHz Duron pc, and win2k and subsequently a processor and memory upgrade and WinXP. The OS got a little better but still annoyed me sometimes. I didn't quite hate microsoft then, I thought they were improving...
I got good marks in my last year of school and my father bought me a new PC (pentium 640 with 1gb RAM) so I decided to try something new on it, I wasn't really gaming anymore, so nothing tied me to Windows. I got hold of a copy of Mandrake 10.1 from a friend and I was hooked. I loved this new Linux OS... It never BSOD'd! I had a few troubles configuring mandrake, being a new environment, but I learned, and progressed through distros such as Fedora Core 5, Slackware 10.2 and finally Gentoo. Throughout this time I learned of the concept of Free Software, And then I hated Microsoft for its anti-competitive business practises and its restrictive EULA's.
Throughout this time I noticed that after almost a year I had gone without having to upgrade my computer (except for the addition or a DVD+RW drive) and then I hated Microsoft for their products being so increasingly resource and upgrade hungry.
Watching the progress of the technological world while using GNU/Linux I hated Microsoft more for its uncompetetive business practises than ever before and I cheered Google at every step for being brave enough to stand up to the giant...
Then I realised that it's a waste of time to hate Microsoft. I don't hate them anymore. They may be a company run by money / power hungry dictators, but it's a far more constructive use of energy to try to build up the F/OSS world than to spend your days hating Microsoft. I simply choose not to use their products (I don't use a computer at work, so I'm lucky enough not to be forced to...)
That's why I used to hate Microsoft, though, I think I went through most of the usual reasons at some stage or other.
Microsoft is the most successful example of the type of company where it's not enough to make a lot of money, but you also have to stop other people from making money. To them life is choking off other people's air supply.
I think the people that do hate Microsoft, do so because Microsoft has become rich and famous doing the things that theese peoples parents taught them were morally wrong & people they knew scolded them for doing.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Then things changed. Many slashdotters attribute Apple for this change. However, I disagree.
Microsoft allowed anyone to build hardware, assemble hardware, write drivers, write software and make money selling windows boxes. Companies like Compaq, HP, Dell, Sony, Toshiba and thousands of others sold these machines at half the price of a similar Apple machine and a tenth of a Sun workstation. Microsoft provided suites of business applications and also provided development tools. Most importantly, Microsoft supported and rewarded game companies.
You will read a litany of complaints against Microsoft on slashdot that stretch back for years. Everyone has a gripe. The common opinion is that Microsoft is full of retarded programmers who win by sheer force of monopoly and marketing. Yet, almost as many will express fear that the long arm of Microsoft will reach out for their lively hood and destroy their future. A few years ago it was routine to include Intel in the hating, but their cool now cause they run Mac OS.
Any discussion of Microsoft would not be complete without mentioning closed source software. Microsoft is and everyone else isn't, unless you're a die hard communist then GPLv5 is the only true open source license. A few years ago it was v2 but someone made some money by selling software that had some closed source meant to stop pirating, that's three stikes.
Another source for the hate is on the server side, where Linux is a better choice, hands down, no question. I even agree on this point. It is painful to hear of a company that chooses Microsoft for their server software, but some companies do. Why? Because no one ever got fired for buying MS.
Finally, and this is the worst part for the haters, it's about to happen all over again with Vista. The first game that will only run on Windows Vista will begin the long and steep road to adoption. I'm guessing Battlefield3. Lots of people will choose that time to buy a new PC, which really irks alot of the haters. That is what makes this situation so ironic. The competition really isn't Microsoft, the competion is Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc and those guys aren't going anywhere.
The answer is so simple: because it's fashionable.
How does a fashion start? That's a tough question. For the first this, you gotta be everywhere, in the face of people every day. Microsoft is.
They are a commercial company and free software is mostly supported by young idealists (yes, I'll completely ignore the commercialization of OSS for this example), which are naturally opposed to a leading commercial company competing with their work.
Around the antitrust cases, the OSS community, the forums, the mishaps: a seed forms that quickly grows into a subculture where it's fashionable to loudly demonstrate how and why you hate Microsoft.
Of course there are legitimate reasons to not like Microsoft, but there are legitimate reasons to not like anything at all.
To end how I started, the verdict why people hate Microsoft: because it's fashionable.
While people complain that microsoft lacks functionality and treats its users like idiots, they miss the fact that they're successful *because* they lack the functionality that will confuse users. We technocrats have a tendency to think that just because we can manually configure network settings everyone else can too. Microsoft makes a product that does what everyone needs it to and they keep the market cornered because of it. The 80% that still use IE use it because they don't have (or don't believe they have) the technical skills to use firefox.
Microsofts busines-practice has made it a PITA to buy a computer without OS. I have two PCs that came with WindowsXP professional pre-installed. Both were imeadeately reformatted, and Linux installed. However, Microsoft still got paid for the licenses.
while my hatred for microsoft is not absolute (for example, i like the xbox/xbox360, windows XP is ok for gaming etc., .NET is interesting)
;-)
i do hate microsoft though for many of their business practices, buggy software, and particularly...HOTMAIL.
At one point, Windows decided to go through my entire address book and upload all contact information to my hotmail contact database. without ANY permission or confirmation whatsoever.
support for hotmail is essentially nonexistent in any browser other than the latest IE 6 or 7 or whatever. even using IE on my Mac gives me warning messages and the pop-up windows to confirm emptying my trashcan never work.
about 3 weeks ago i logged back into hotmail (after supposedly some period of "inactivity"...this is arguable because i log into MSN messenger daily and it uses the same Passport credentials), and all my emails (sent, inbox, drafts, etc) had been deleted. THANK YOU MICROSOFT! i suppose that is some sort of "feature" eh? granted i didnt have anything of high importance in there but some more "sentimental" emails shall we say.
It is this sort of aggravating behaviour that drives me over the limit when it comes to microsoft. but just to reiterate again...the xbox is actually quite a good product.....when the powercable isnt bursting into flames and burning down houses
I think is safe to say that you have never been asked to develop a web-application that actually worked on IE on both windows and mac.
I admit that it is been some years since I did it, but back then IE 5 for Mac used the CSS engine that later came with IE 5.5 (big difference) and DHTML for Mac IE was "due next release".
It was damn near impossible to get our IE specific mess to run on Mac's.
You may scoff and say "develop for standards", but that was just a hell of a lot harder back in the days when you could choose from IE4/5 or crappy NS4.
So IE for Mac is IE by name only. Not the same at all.
I suspect that MS Office is the same story. It is a clean room implementation. Which also explains why VBA support will be dropped from the next version.
MS Doesn't have any crossplatform development tools and I can't belive that they don't use their own tools for something as important as their own office suite.
Whats to hate? If it wasnt for microsoft my parents retired online on the gold coast would have nothing to talk about. Most of there social chitchat involves virus scanning, rebooting and reinstalling windows. Microsoft is great for their social life.
Seriously, lifes just better without them. Linux for me, my company and my customers. We run 6 devs on a single xened 2way opteron with X. We use eclipse, java, postgres, etc etc all free..Try doing that on MS for zero dollars down.. Good luck competing in the long term.
I think big sw companys end up with the usual pack of bastards running the show. When ms dies, they will all move on to the next show in town.
and the day before and the day before that....etc..
I know I have (in XP SP2) and never managed to get one to run.
There's probably things that can be poked here and there but I wasn't really that interested. It was more a quick test of the vaunted "compatibility" than anything else.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
don't hate microsoft. There is no reason to hate a software producer. Unless they made RapeFast-2000, in which case there might be a point. Most people just use software as most use their cars. It's only enthusiasts who find some reason to dislike Microsoft, and those reasons usually fall into the usual clichés of borgness, something about being unfair, or something about bad software. Funnily enough, other corporations who do things just as borgy/unfair/badly don't get the same criticism, most likely as Qui Gon Jinn said, "There's always a bigger fish" - except for Microsoft there IS no bigger fish, so the criticism stops there. yay unobjective criticisms! :)
Don't forget that Microsoft was one of the first OS's to constantly call home. In the beginning there was major uproar on forums as people noted the intermittent and random network usage. This fueled Linux users even more as they delved into ripping the packets apart to see what sort of data Microsoft was receiving. This then sparked an uproar against "calling home" and especially against activation, to no avail. The constant data collection and need for control is what sets Microsoft aside and which has made them such a notably distasteful organization.
There are myriad reasons to hate Microsoft that are merely objective, not subjective reasons.
Stacker. Double your hard drive, at least until the (completely unprotected) memory gets screwed do to CircusWare, and lose everything.
Clippy. 'Nuff said.
18 years of viruses that, though the software is closed and secreted like the Coca-Cola recipie, manages to support 1,000 brand-new viruses each month. How *do* so many companies make so much money from a flaw?
The way they released "new" versions of Office from 1995-2000 where the changes were only a handful of macros no one uses (and Clippy) but each upgrade cost $200+ and caused your business partner to upgrade his copy, too.
The way their tech support is useless ("Reinstall the operating system") unless you pay them tons of money.
The way they ignore the standards of TCP/IP for reasons that make no real difference to marketting:
Violating the DHCP standard so that a Windows box will keep talking on an IP address after it loses it's lease so that you'll be inclined to use a Windows Brand(TM) DHCP server.
Shortcutting the SYN/ACK protocol of the web when IIS (20% market share) is talking to and IE client, making it look slightly faster on reloads.
But let's not forget what we *really* hate about Microsoft: technology suppression. For the last 10-15 years people have learned (well, people other than Novell) that when you "partner" with Microsoft, it's the last strategic decision you'll make. Blue Mountain Greeting Cards. Sybase (you know it as MS-SQL). LookingGlass (you know it as Internet Explorer).
(See also how the dogs in your yard, when in heat, "Partner" with each other. See? Vulgarity not required.)
Right now they're working on translating something as pure and simple and standard as LDAP into a monstrosity by which they can hold your company by the balls, requiring you to pay them, and only them, for the service since it's the only standard they make, and you'll have.
How many thousands of cool projects have stayed on the launch pad, because the angel investors know better? Make too much money, and Microsoft will either "partner" with you, copy your project entirely and advertise with a billion dollar campaign, or find another way to run you out of business. When the investors can't make money, they don't _lend_ money.
Have I left anything out?
Oh: with Linux none of this matters. Life is sweet and people telling you it's hard haven't looked at it in years. (Or, they're morons.)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Most people don't like Microsoft because of their past experiences with their products. Microsoft also rose to power through some aggressive business practices that screwed over a lot of companies. To that extent, I agree completely. I consider Windows 2000 the first truly decent OS Microsoft released, and Office 2000's autocorrection features and "magic" formatting made me rewrite more documents than I care to remember. But I think the majority of criticism against Microsoft comes in the form of grudges, and I've seen time and again that the emotions that come along with those grudges often ignore the reality that Microsoft and its products are improving. I think Office 2007 is fantastic. I think Windows Vista is a great product that makes big strides in improving the computing experience for end users. Microsoft's the big shot, and they got there by being a bully, so of course people hold grudges. However, I don't think it's fair to look at the changes in the company and their products and say that they're only interested in putting more money in the bank for themselves.
You are only as much as what you do with what you know.
Even though I am writing this on winxp, I would have to admit I hate microsoft. The main reason is their abuse of monopoly, frequent bugs/glitches and their tendency to issue shoddy products. I mean, If they just stuck to building a decent OS with a bare set of applications, i'd be fine. Take for example Windows office, Internet Explorer and windows onecare could well be an example of their vertical lifting. Then, there is the frequent bugs and glitces, like every now and again a tooltip will decide it doesn't need to go away, leaving it stuck on the desktop, or the unreliable windows explorer. And my last point has already been covered better than I can explain it.
now a little to the left
I have read through all of the comments so far and most of them do not reflect my position. I agree with the contempt that most folks have for the lying, cheating, dirty tricks, etc that Microsoft has pulled throughout their history. Just those are enough, however, here is my list:
EULA: I may have seen a EULA or two before Microsoft came on the scene but Microsoft pretty much standardized the EULA and lead the entire industry towards using them all of the time. I do not respect EULAs at all. The software is mine once I purchase it and they have no control over what I do with it afterwards.
Reliability: While their operating systems have greatly improved over time, even XP64 (their most stable OS yet) has crashed on me a couple of times. Linux on the same hardware (dual boot laptop) has never crashed. MS Access crashes on me all of the time without error messages.
Performance: I have 2 gigs of ram on my laptops. Why do I need to have 200 megs swapped out? Why does a newly loading program need to write out to swap as it is loading? Since the first version of windows, there has been a starfield screensaver. When it runs, every few seconds or so, you can see it hiccup. All of the stars stop momentarily. What is going on that prevents the computer from running so smoothly even decades later with incredibly more powerful processors?
Control: This a a big one. Why can't I easily turn off the netbios port on my home computer? Why does my computer fail to function without an externally listening RPC port? It is clear that the operating system was designed so that someone other than the person sitting at the keyboard would be in control of the computer. Why can't I tell my computer to stop talking to microsoft.com all of the time? Why are there a dozen ways to start a program running with most of those ways not being easily accessible to me? I own the computer and I own the software. Microsoft only owns the rights to copy it. Stop changing how my computer works when I am supposedly "patching" against vulnerabilities. I can no longer get patches from Microsoft because I know for a fact that Microsoft will change the way my computer works, possibly even shutting it down.
Security: Microsoft sees security as an added cost and therefore will never produce secure software. Microsoft does not even seem to understand security at all. How does clicking on that godawful popup thing in Vista increase security at all? Applications should only be able to write to their own directories and nowhere else. There should not be a need to grant privileges all the time to every program.
Quality: Portions of Microsofts software are written really well. All of those portions seem to be put together in a crappy manner.
Bleh, never mind. This is getting way to long and drawn out. Microsoft sucks and there is no hope for them. They have billions of dollars in reinforcement for their bad behaviours.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
should have written (or, if I also stated incorrectly) "Europe". I will make more use of my atlases and try to be a bit more accurate with countries.
Thanks for correcting me or alerting me to my error.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Nearly, Mr Splog.
Your unwise use of the the phrase "Slashdot [being the leader of] Microsoft hatred" is not appropriate. You have thus loaded the dice so the results of your "research" are now meaningless. Doh. Another F grade for you sonny.
MS needs to support countless hardware configurations.
I dont hate microsoft. I think microsoft must be given the credit for making computers reach the masses in a user friendly manner. (Yeah, Mac was there before, but they tied it to their hardware). But as time passed they have started to become evil by leveraging on the market share. One thing which i definitely dont like is that when mircosoft says "Linux is liable to us. It is using our patented technologies", but damn it it has not shown anything till now! I am not against this claim by microsoft, but then show the violation and i will be pretty happy. Just stop creating FUD :@
...because they have the money.
in the early days they were just awfully unbelievably lucky, bold and impudent. now they just have the money to do about everything you can imagine and still get away with it. so the eu cost them a few billion, so what? they are just so big and powerful, it's frightening. they see a standard or an idea, the just steal it, pay a few million to whoever and make a few billions out of it. they dominate the market and leave most people no chance WHATSOEVER to choose. there's simply nothing else in the world of a computer newbie, than windows. you can't get around it. you have to fucking eat what's on the platter. they thrive on the disaster called "healthy economy", 2% of the population (which hold over 90% of the worlds wealth) find to be a good thing.
they really can do everything and i can't, because there's rules i need to obey. microsoft has that kind of money that bends the rules to their will and they use that kind of power in the most natural and primitive way possible: the strongest survives; and that's why i hate them, but they are surely not the only ones out there to hate.
First, I have to repeat what othes alredy stated (for themselves): I do not hate Microsoft, nor Bill Gates. I just avoid them and sometimes wish they cease to exist ASAP (I do not want to kill them, but rather want them to move on, enyoy the money they made so far and stop interfering with my life).
Why:
I've been using MS DOS on i286 and i386 (Pascal, assembler, games,
Then I used Windows 3.1 (Pascal,
Well, Windows 95 come (I've used it for programming and games etc.), but stability did not improve much.
And then come year 1997 when I heard that this so called Linux is more stable than Windows. I gave it a try and it was true. That helped me realize that yes, with i386 and later 32-bit CPUs it is possible to implement a stable OS but Microsoft is not able to do that.
From that time I used Linux more and more.
The only think I do undestand so far (at least I hope) is the fact, that I'm unable to understand it - like with women: a man is, it looks like, unable to understand a woman.
Microsoft's continued influence now costs a lot of peope a lot of money, nerves, lost opportunities,
In recent years there is also this issue with security, but for the sake of your question we can assume that this topic is part of point [1] of my answer.
hany
1. When installing early version of Word, a warning would pop up if you had Wordperfect installed - offering to uninstall it and suggesting your system would be more stable without it.
2. Video codecs that use careful inspection of stream to detect if it was encoded with a MS 'almost standard' codec - and not play it if it wasn't.
3. Excel had a "feature" (MS's description, not mine) where text wouldn't convert to numbers correctly - unless you ran a macro multiplying everything by 1.
4. Text selection using cursor was offset - you actually had to click slightly to the left of where you wanted the cursor to appear. I remember demonstrating this in win9x/win2k.
5. Recording IE browsing history in a file, then making that file hard to find/delete.
*
My perception is that these 'errors' are deliberate, making MS one of my least favorite corps.
Cliff,
I have been in the computer field for a few years. It is how I have made my living. My dislike of Microsoft comes from these experiences.
1. Apparent lack of quality. I pride myself on my work ethics. I do my best to fix a problem properly, not just put a band-aid on it. In my experience when clients brought a computer for me to repair, I knew it was just a matter of time before the Microsoft OS based computers came back again, for another computer. People with MACs, Linux based PCs, and looking back, Amigas, and so forth, had stable systems, meaning they did 'break down' BSOD or the equivalent, nearly as often. I hated working on someone's Microsoft based PC knowing when I returned it to them, that I would be seeing them again in another six months or so.
2. Bloat. In the late 80s, I was using a fully multi-tasking OS, on a high resolution, high colour, monitor, with a full GUI interface, being able to format a floppy, while rendering a 3D image, all doable without a harddrive. A single floppy drive and I could do all that on my Amiga. Microsoft did not offer most of features found in the Amiga OS, until Windows XP. Windows 2000 did offer a number of them. There are still at least one nice feature of the Amiga OS, that is not yet duplicated by Microsoft. Even now with all the abilities, Windows XP needs 128MB of RAM and a GB of hard drive space just to turn on. My old Amiga worked very nicely with only 512KB of RAM, and a single 880KB floppy. At 1/256th the RAM and less than 1/1024th the storage capacity, that old computer matched capabilities with a current low end XP. (Unfortunately, Commodore's inability to market successfully brought the company down.) Currently I use linux, a fully 64bit OS with almost if not all of my software built for 64bit processing. All my linux software takes up much less hard drive space, and seems to use less RAM than the equivalent MS products would.
3. I could go on about the system security, liking the underdog, and so forth, but I will leave it at that for now.
For the same reason that they hate the government. Because it is imperfect, and no one wants to accept that.
That's true, but the more important reason it'll just keep on continuing is that Microsoft hunts down and kills any potential competition using illegal business tactics. If there were competition, we wouldn't continue to be forced to use the crappy software. If Microsoft obeyed standards, there could be competition.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Does anybody remember what happened to Stacker? Was code from that company copied by Microsoft?
The problem is not with Microsoft, the problem is with monopoly.
Any company big enough is crushing competition with any mean or letting it survive until there is some business-related reason to kill it. Any company big enough will always freeze any advancement unless somebody else can provide a better solution and bring it to the masses. Any company big enough will simply stop technical advancement completely if not under some kind of pressing necessity.
These are not ethical principles, this is undeniably history.
This without regard for principles like technical advancement, customers' care, politeness, fair play... whatever.
MS has been behind competition in all areas most of the time, though users are so stuck with its products that they do not find the time, the curiosity or the occasion to change.
MS can do it and rely on it, because the world of computers is dominated.
MS products are not so bad actually, anybody who has used a number of proprietary products especially on enterprise environments can confirm this... there is so much crap around that MS sometimes even "shines", even though well-known open source programs are usually better and especially far more flexible, the problem is not current quality, the problem is in the way MS cares for quality: just when forced; the problem is rather... "political".
A modern society cannot afford to depend on 90% of its computers running on this ground.
After many years working in the IT sector -mostly with Linux, some with Solaris but also many with Win products-, I have seen a number of things that only a monopolist can afford to deal with such carelessness.
I remember how I was astonished when found that NT servers would do odd things when the mouse was unplugged. A server???
I remember how we had a Red Hat _alpha_ version for Sparc (!) running without a stop for 5 years serving a number of requests day by day and a much-more-recent and much-more-patched NT server that required an impressive number of reboots along the year... Yet, MS was selling. A lot.
It is frustrating if you are born loving science, research and advancement to see how, in the end, market rules can prevent things going the right way.
This happens in the IT sector, but this may also happen in any other, and possibly more relevant one (such as those of pharmaceutics or medicine).
It is a matter of policy that should be applied in all areas of human interest, to prevent big companies from putting obstacles to advancement.
Besides, a monopolist in any PC is just a potential threat to everybody's security. But that's another, well-known and underestimated story.
This whole thing about stability, safty, viruses blahblah, well I run my XP SP2 computer, with Virus scanner, antispywhere scanner, firewall, and I run Hitman (www.nitmanpro.nl) once a week and my comp NEVER has a problem. I put ubuntu on my 2nd machine, it broke in 2 days, and no no, im not a noob, I am an expert and run Win/unix/linux servers. When I get in from the office, I jsut want sit on msn, surf porn and shot some people in Cod or MOHAA or some online game wher I can shoot the fuck out of someone online. I do all this, easily, quickly, with no hassle, why the hell would I move to any other OS like an over priced piece of shit of a mac, or linux emulating everything in WINE that pissed up after 2 days? No no, windows is fine for me :D
Visit My Blog at http://spaces.msn.com/members/chrisharries
Sorry, I got this mixed up with my 'The Onion' RSS feed...
I started hating MS because it took them something like 9 years between the 386 being released and releasing a decent consumer OS that used the 386 to make a proper safe OS. Or was it more than 9 years?
I continued hating MS because still in 2007 they have the most crappy command line in ever conceived based on command.com. Unix shell isn't perfect, but it is like a zillion times better than command.com, and was invented much earlier.
I still hate MS because everything they do is so darned proprietary, trying to keep you locked into their stuff, which might not be so bad if their stuff was state of the art.
I will continue to hate MS, because of their bad reputation for immoral business practices, and products that at best are a yawn, and at worst are a joke.
...I am quite happy to say that overall Microsoft has been a positive force in IT.
I remember being incredibly frustrated at how clunky a computer was. It was a chore to write a makefile, it was essentially impossible to decode someone elses.
Editing source code was a pain in the ass - EVEN - when using emacs. Sorry to you emacs fanatics out there, but emacs is simply not easy to use, and harder to learn when all you want to do is the type of editing that most application programmers were doing in the late 80's.
Don't you guys remember when every application had a different set of keystrokes, and menu options. Becoming productive in WordPerfect 4.0 took weeks (and a cut-out template you placed over your F# keys.)
What about the difference between Quattro and VisiCalc ? Anyone remember coding using ed ? (I know Ken Thompson wrote it for teletypes, but sheesh, could you make a more terse interface ?, I think it had one prompt, the question mark, for about 10 different situations, and you had to somehow know what was happening in order to know what to do)
I know, I know, Apple led the way, but they made one nearly FATAL mistake (for which they are still paying), they refused to open up the hardware.
IBM and Microsoft saw the gap, and jumped in.
OK, I know Microsoft have done plenty of bad things and I really hate most of their shitty software too, especially the multiple flavors of XP , and I am not switching to Vista ever, but I do credit them with bringing the PC to the masses, which generally speaking is a good thing, and they were the driving force behind that, in my book anyway.
The author of the post postulates that there is a "heavily negative bias in the perception of Microsoft". That is he assumes that the perception is worse than reality. I would rather argue that the bias in perception towards Microsoft is *positive*. A vast majority of people do not see the damage caused by Microsoft and believe that what they do is not that bad. (Several of my younger colleagues believe that Microsoft invented Spreadsheet and Word Processing software (or the best of them), designed a nice browser for the Internet...).
I am not the first one quoting that proverb in this context. Frederick Brooks opened a chapter in ''The Mythical Man-Month''[1] with the very same quote, a chapter about sharp tools. Neal Stephenson writes about tools in ''In the Beginning was the Command Line''[2]. Tools are important for mankind. They always have been important and they always will be important.
To put it simple -- The Microsoft world is not my set of tools.
It is not hatred. It is ignorance. I do not care about Microsoft because I do not use their products in my everday work.
Furthermore... I am a computer enthusiast, a geek. I like beautiful computer solutions. What is beautiful to me then? Have you thought about the style of this answer? Would you get the same kind answer from your everyday Microsoft user; with literary references? Maybe, maybe not, though I doubt it. The UNIX crowd are fond of words. Once again, it is not an original thought. Thomas Scoville wrote about it in ''The Elements Of Style: UNIX As Literature''[3].
Yes; you could say Microsoft is a beautiful company from e.g. an economist point of view. I have a great respect for what they have achivied but it is not where my heart lies.
One last thing. History. We like underdogs. Microsoft used to be an underdog when IBM ruled the world. IBM did a lot of good things back then but the grassroots disliked the monopoly. In politics monopoly spells dictatorship. We do not like dictators, we like underdogs. Who is good or who is bad does not matter. We will give our Christmas presents to the underdogs, not to the dictators. I do not say Bill Gates is a dictator, I do not say he is good or bad, but he is not the same underdog he used to be.
/jörgen
--
For the same reason that I don't hate garbage. I do have to deal with the stink and it would be nice if I don't have to.
Microsoft convinced Go's investors to pull out, and the company died. Why?
NOT because it was in Microsoft's business interests. At the time PocketPC/WindowsMobile did not exist, and PDAs do not take away business from Desktops, so Go was not a competitor to Microsoft. Rather, they would have been synergy -- the devices would have needed to plug into PCs for syncing. The only other explanation I can see is that Microsoft wants to prevent innovation. Sounds far fetched, until you see that it is actually a pattern. Read on...
The Zune is actually Microsoft's *fifth* attempt to compete with iTunes Before Zune there was the hyped venture with MTV. Before that was an earlier Microsoft music store. etc.
The point: what did Microsoft gain by these efforts (before the Zune?). It's well known that Apple makes its money off of selling the iPod, whereas the store is only slightly above break-even (it is the music companies get what profit there is to be had from the store). So here we have Microsoft attacking an innovative area, even though it 1) does not compete with Microsoft and 2) Microsoft will not profit (indeed, they had to spend money to setup their various stores). Microsoft's shareholders should object to this behavior by the way.
Once again, an innovative area (search) that was complementary to Microsoft's business. Microsoft makes it a priority to try to kill Google, even though they have plenty of other more important things to do, like getting their OS to ship on time rather than 3 years late (thus creating actual revenue), or fixing some bugs at least.
What do they do with all those people? Ignore them, for the most part. One would expect them to be doing wonders, yet all we see of Microsoft is it's attempts to copy Google and Apple. It must be hard to be at MSR. I guess it's a comfortable job.
I assume there must be is a deep insecurity at the top of Microsoft that leads to this negative behavior.
Microsoft seemed invincible in 1999. One could imagine them taking over the internet and in effect becoming the corporation that controlled the world. Fortunately that didn't happen, and it now seems like Microsoft is quickly becoming irrelevant, except for the Xbox.
The cell phone is the new computing platform, and if you read the international (rather than US) computing press you already know that Microsoft is way behind Linux on phones.
"On smartphones, Windows had a 4% stake of the operating systems in the same quarter, ranking third behind Symbian and Linux, with 64.8% and 26%, respectively."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6089270.html
http://www.symbian.com/files/rx/file8405.pdf
The Go story was discussed in part in this slashdot article:5 35231
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/06/1
"I used the Go OS, which was powerful, well-designed, feature-rich and ran acceptably on a 386-based touchscreen tablet - a real advance at that time....Microsoft suckered Go into telling secrets under NDA, and once they had the details, MS's marketing guys played the vaporware game on Go in the public arena. A key clue was that after Go fell, MS pen computing vanished for almost a decade."
I hate Microsoft because:
1. They convinced people that buggy software is normal. This attitude spread throughout the entire industry. Sometime around Windows 3.0, Microsoft managed to convince the average user that software wasn't actually supposed to work. If it didn't behave as advertised, you should put up with it and hope that the vendor will release a patch or new version someday. This wouldn't have flown in the 8-bit days--if you'd bought an Apple II or Atari 800 program that was as buggy as the average Windows-era piece of Microsoft software, you would have taken it back to the store and gotten a refund. Who even thinks about getting a refund now? You just sit there with your broken software waiting for a patch.
2. Their software is hard to use. Microsoft, with plenty of help from Apple, decided that "user-friendly" meant "easy to learn," not "easy to use." Software like emacs, vi and Unix is hard to learn but easy to use. Software like Windows, Word and Excel is easy to learn but painfully hard to use. If you have to do something once in a Microsoft product, it's pretty easy to find out how. If, on the other hand, you have to do it a thousand times a month, you'll be weeping with frustration. Again, this is a post-Windows phenomenon. In the DOS days their stuff was usually pretty good.
3. Windows constantly steals keyboard focus and assigns it to some window you probably clicked fifty seconds ago that has just now swapped in, or some random program decides its notification dialog box is more important than the work you're doing so it might as well take focus. Such a simple, minor issue, but nothing else about Microsoft fills me with quite so much rage. One of the reasons OS X is such a pleasure to use is that it gets keyboard focus right. (OS X's window management, on the other hand, is execrable, but that's another issue entirely.)
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I was buying a new 'computer.' This is before we only had PC's and Macs in people's homes. I'd grown up with a long line of 8-bits and this was going to be my stepping stone. So, I clearly knew what I was talking about and went and bought an ARM based Archimedes. This was a beautiful 32-bit, sexy little number which would multi-task seemlessly (for the late 80's) and as a young programmer it gave me sweet dreams at night - yes it actually did. It had - and I still miss it - an amazingly intuitive, sophisiticated and visually soothing GUI. A very powerful and novel assembly language. My only obstacles were the older programmers in my family who worked in field. "You should get a 286! This is the standard. Everyone is using it. You should use it. You'll learn something useful. It'll be forgotten and outdated soon. What is the use of learning how to program in ARM assembler anyway?' ;)
I bought it anyway. Not sure if I was rebelling against the status-quo, however at that time, I saw nothing cool, innovative or exciting in owning a PC. My father had one. It was a simple-but-dull bit of kit with an uninspiring OS and interesting, but hardly revolutionary applications. A fun distraction, but nothing to tun my head towards - except for Zortech C - which first exposed me to C.. I used a mac at school and could instantly see that this PC was kind of dull.
So I grew older, learned a lot with my Archi(s) and ended up doing one of my A-levels in computer science. I had a PC emulator on my archie, but it only emultated an XT and now I needed to use applications under windows 3.1. So I got a PC and installed windows. A fun novalty - for a month. RISC-OS was still leagues ahead, but I needed Windows for school. Life moved on it was kind of cool to have a machine, where you didn't need to find so niche a group of people to understand what you were talking about. It was nice to be able to get lots of games, etc, but they were quite poor. PC hardware was always fun and easy to toy with. The OS however was obviously unstable - although I'd often blame myself when life would force me to re-install. Borland turbo c++ was another toy. Still not exactly the OS of my dreams. Microsoft still hadn't sold themselves to me.
Went to UNI with my archie and eventually needed another PC. I was using sun-os predominantly during the day and my archi at home. I sold a subset of my old PC and built a new one. I was running windows 95 and it had trouble supporting old hardware, which I still had. It wasn't my favourite machine, but I had tools for some of the stuff I needed. My home kit wasn't as good, so I lived in a lab. I used my PC mostly when I went home for the holidays, and then, I'd pretty much been living in a terminal dialed into our university servers. Windows was just the glitter around it. It was unstable and occaisonally cool, but Microsoft had failed to impress me.
I didn't yet loath Microsoft. Bill Gates, as embarssed as I am to say it, was my hero. A 'geek,' as I thought then, who had made it. Well, I hadn't heard of Linus or Richard Stallman yet. And then, a friend introduced me to RedHat linux - almost ten years ago. It changed my life. I could truly work at home, contained with my 'own' UNIX environment. It was like buying an archimedes all over. Getting my box running and especially my X Server was a pain, but it was 'FUN!' - after I'd got it working. Lots of my old iso cards worked without major issue and, well, I knew that my life had changed.
Various incarnations of windows passed and I tried them. Windows 2000 struck me as being less likely to blue screen - until it blue screened. As we all do, I'd often have to sacrifice my space time to help countless very intelligent people fix their very unintuitive and temp
The American public hate monopolies. Although, the home OS market in my opinion is a oligopoly(apple and other unix base OSes do compete), Microsoft by far still holds the largest share. Microsoft breaks anti-trust laws. Microsoft has a strangle hold on the system builders. If Dell decides they want to install Linux on some of their boxes they'll have to pay more for a license to Microsoft because Microsoft doesn't want them to do that. It's really the fault of the American consumer. If americans would just educate themselves they could use a free OS like Linux. If I thought I could take a big chunk out of Microsofts market share I'd write a UI for linux that is easier to use than Windows XP. Thats kinda what Apple did only they based it on BSD. Microsoft writes terrible code and has consistently made bad descisions on critical issues related to the design of it's operating systems which lead to major bugs and lack of security. The only reason why Apple can have those comercials that say it's OS is more secure than a "PC"(They should really market against windows instead of using the term "PC") is because OS X was based of BSD, which has proven itself to be much more secure. I don't hate Microsoft. I just think they make an inferior product and it costs too much. You can't get many game companies to develope on Linux. Games typically drive the advancements in personal computing hardware. Most other types of software has the Linux equivilent. Things that most people typically use a computer for like Web surfing, word processing and multimedia editing is competely supported by free software that runs on Linux.
I resent the fact that they manged to effectivly tax nearly all forms of doing business in the industrialized world. They are the only private entity ever having achieved that. Its tax like, since virtually every business in the world pays them. Its unlike a tax however, since only a moderate percentage of the money payed serves common interrests.
Simple,cos its so ingrained in people's mind that to them Microsoft=Computer like Ipod=Mp3 Player.Thank god now my parents think Internet=firefox
OK - When I started my first tech company, in 1984, we used then-new IBM PCs with (ta-daa) MSDOS. It was a royal pain. My memory of using MSDOS was that whenever I used my IBM PC, I sat in front of it with a pile of manuals on my lap and the desk. With lots of luck, patience, and time, I might eventually get the machine to do what I needed. So one long-ago Thursday morning, I came in and all three of our IBM PCs were toes-up and gasping, each for a different reason, but all MS-software related, not due to hardware. We were in trouble. My friend and co-founder went home and brought in his new Mac Classic. I sat down and began to use the thing - a couple of hours later, I hopped in my car and went out to buy four new machines. Next Monday morning, I took our three IBM systems to the local high school and left them in the Principal's office as a donation - which, come to think of it, was a disservice to the students. I remember that within the first week, I'd misplaced the user's manuals for the Macs, and it didn't matter! So what did I learn from this? I learned that someone cared to design computer products that served me, the user, to help me move uphill in my struggle against entropy. And by contrast, I learned that MS didn't find it worthwhile to take that road. Every company I've done since has used the Mac. During the following quarter of a century, I've checked in on MS from time to time to see if they had gained any ground in providing products I could integrate into my work. Every time, the answer was no. My antipathy against Microsoft is manifold and complex, and includes the following: a. The Microsoft OS was designed by people (Bill, mainly) who had no care for, nor understanding of, customers who weren't interested in computers per se, but who just wanted a tool to get new things done. This orientation has continued to the present. At a time when Apple has long since shown how to field an OS and hardware that amplify the users' talents, MS continues to complexify, obfuscate, cripple, and compromise their products in the name of their perceived self-interest above serving their customers. A founder determines his/her company's mindset: Bill cared next to nothing for MS's customers, and hired accordingly for twenty years. And here we are. b. The Microsoft business strategy was designed by people (Bill, mainly) who took as their highest objective to gather to MS the entire blossoming personal computing market, whatever it took, regardless of the merits: competitors? take 'em out with FUD, not superior products; security? screw it, it costs too much to re-do our spaghetti code, patch it with a Band-Aid and shove it down their throats; whoa! what is this FOSS you speak of? We better embrace/extend/FUD/buy legislators, judges to drown this sucker so we don't have to actually improve our products. Make it so, Steve. Oh, you need more chairs? OK, whatever. c. Think of all the times you've sat through the BSOD. Think of all the times you had to use . Think of the $ you've paid out for antivirus apps. Think of the times when your legal, bought-and-paid-for copy of XP failed the Windows Genuine Advantage Nazi ID check (Youah papers, pliss!). Recall the time you've spent helping your friends, family, co-workers, colleagues, fixing freezes, recovering data, purging viruses, spyware, trojans, etc. - and ask yourself, with all the money and brains that MS has had over the years, is there really any excuse for their poor product quality and their heedless expenditure of your irreplacible time? Specifics, you ask? Well, yeah, there are one or two...thousand. How about the time I linked a Word document to an Excel spreadsheet, only to find that for every single value in the Excel sheet, Word would open Excel, import the value, then close Excel and move on to the next value. Look ahead and keep Excel open until all the values were imported? Naaahhh. Our user has infinite time, so let's make it take an hour instead of two minutes to import those Excel values. OK, further on that them
The reason I hate them is the way they crush competition, usually after stealing their ideas. Microsoft hardly ever innovate, they just copy what has been done previously. And then then sue anyone who does the same, even if it is who they stole the idea from in the first place. They normally win, as they can afford the best lawyers. Remember all the anti-competition lawsuits against Big Bad Bill ? When they were found guilty in one case, THEY told the judge what their punishment would be. They gave away MS software to schools. This just ousted their competitors & increased their monopoly. If they would compete fairly, I might like them. Might. ;)
No, really !
When I got into computing, Microsoft was mostly known for providing the BASIC interpreter for most of the then-popular "home computers". I started to vaguely dislike them back the because it was always a disappointment when a new home computer came out with MS basic, it was so bland.
The BASIC itself had one interesting feature that made me less than impressed by Bill Gates abilities as a programmer. GOTO was O(n), where n was the number of lines before the one you wanted to go to. It worked by keeping the program as a sorted list of lines, and goto just searched the list from the beginning. Given that GOTO is pretty important in BASIC, that was a awful way to do it. Still better than the TI 99/4A, which kept the lines as an unsorted list, so going to the next line meant searching through the entire program.
Then MS/PC DOS began to gain dominance at the same time I started to play with Unix and Lisa/Mac computers. MS-DOS was so backward, no hardware abstraction at all, not to mention any multi user/process facilities. Some people expected me to be able to help them with their PC problems, because I studied computers as school. And the problems was always stupid hardware questions that any half-decent OS would have shielded the user from. My advice tended to be "get a Mac" (even though I personally preferred Unix it was at the time only for programmers).
It took MS an eternity to come up with a usable graphic abstraction (MS Windows), not to mention OS (NT). I honestly believe that this was Gates greatest crime to humanity, holding back the state of the art for 20 years. The accumulated economic cost of this must have been enormous, if we translate this into human lives he becomes the largest mass-murderer in history. His foundation better find a cure for AIDS for his karma balance to go up.
Although not Microsoft's fault, it does not make me like them better when I hear ordinary people seriously being thankful to Microsoft for inventing all kind of stuff that other people did better before. People seriously believe Microsoft invented the Internet, or made it accessible, even though it was one of the last companies to get into that area. Even Al Gore has a better claim on it, he was preaching the blessing and potentials of the Internet for Congress and any journalist who cared to listen long before Bill Gates discovered that it was something he had to support if he didn't want to become irrelevant.
The Microsoft software nowadays is actually pretty good. Since they *finally* dumped the DOS based line of operating systems with XP, I have no more complaints on that front, and their applications have always been better than their direct competitors. Which lead to my next problem with Microsoft: Their systematic use of illegal business practice. This is not just my opinion, multiple judges in the US and elsewhere have come to that conclusion. In particular, their tying other products with the one line where they have a monopoly. This is how they won the Office market, and in fact how they won every market they have won. This make Microsoft the largest organization whose main business model is based on illegal activities. Whenever we talk about the Columbian drug lords, Chinese triads, or Russian mafia, it is worth remembering that the largest mob boss is sitting in Seattle.
"The average customer of the computing industry has been served so poorly that he expects his system to crash all the time, and we witness a massive worldwide distribution of bug-ridden software for which we should be deeply ashamed." - Dijkstra
I'm sorry to tell you this, but the grass IS greener! I don't have unrealistic expectations, in terms of OS design and implementation, most of my expectations have been met, in some cases before MS existed! You say that Windows is a large program so we should give it some slack. So you understand that having 60 million lines of code in the core of an OS is a bad thing yet you excuse it! I believe that it is MS's greatest problem, and the development time for Vista is proof of it (look at what Apple has accomplished with 300 programmers, vs. MS with thousands, the reason is that the MS ones, while smart, have to balance the house of cards that is the NT FrankenKernel).
I would say that OS X is the best OS for non-technical users, Windows is relatively hard to keep clean and safe. Linux can be really annoying when something goes wrong (typically the easiest to repair mind you, but you usually have to be willing to read documentation which by my definition a non-technical user will not do). All and all, the stuff that an advanced user or a novice needs is the same, they just need it for different reasons (I need the right foundation to build you a skyscraper).
All that being said, I doubt you're a programmer, much less a Computer Scientist. And you do seem to be an understanding person, so I'll advise you that theory and practice exist in far greater quality than what Microsoft has delivered. If you don't want to believe me, then please, learn the trade. As for myself, I have had major problems programming with lower level Windows (the core reason why I "bash" them), and I'll tell you that it is so unbelievably ugly that the only way you'll understand is to do it yourself (please note that I said lower level, as in programming device drivers with Visual C++, not programming a trivial application in perl or java).
It wasn't clear that Unix was going to be such a practical system. In those days, the VMS geeks would laugh at the Unix nerds for their worms and other security breaches. Even when I got into Linux in 2000, there were frequent vulnerability reports for services (sendmail) that were installed and running by default in most distros.
Your history is also way off. Windows NT wasn't released until 1993 or so, certainly after Linux had networking and X-Windows. What would have killed Linux is if VMS or Plan-9 or Genera or one of the other advanced OS's were free instead of siloed by their developers. Technical prowess is nifty, but free as in freedom trumps a lot.
I simply just don't believe in their capacity to make good software and don't trust them. :D) that only served to make my opinion on windows even worse. Meanwhile I had some Linux formation. Beeing in a not very developed country (Portugal) where the first ISP only apeared in 1995 and where until 2000 most of the people didn't had internet and just 2 or 3 years ago broadband started to replace dial-up, I had never had access to Linux before, but quickly I switched to Linux. Was good to finaly have a good OS that returned me the control of my computer and didn't crash regularly. By 1999 I was using Linux desktop, and beeing the only IT guy who took real advantage of the Linux formation we add, the IT department director (the only other guy using Linux) promoted me to Sys Admin where I helped and learned from him to administer Linux machines.
There are reasons for this too. I've used Microsoft products since 1988 and though I used IBM's PC-DOS (the one with the ibmdos.com and ibmbio.com instedd of MS's io.sys msdos.sys) and not MS-DOS some friend got me a copy of an early version of windows that I rarely used just cause I couldn't get the point, I could do the same without it and keep more free memory for my applications (and believe me at that time memory was a big problem, lots of applications required a big chunk of the first 640KB to be free.
I started disliking their products at that time just cause I didn't get the point of why someone should use it (I was 13 then, now I understand not everyone is capable of understanding how a computer works, and windows were trying to be a layer between the computer and dumb users, a very bad and weak layer, but a layer still).
When rumors started about something called "Windows Chicago" I was one of those o got excited about it, I had been struggling to keep my computer up to date for years and the rumors were that it would solve the protected memory problems, that it would revive old computers back, etc...
But... when it came out, it was what we all know, none of those problems were solved and some of them even got worst. Beeing that the first big Microsoft software I was thinking of using we can say that my confidence in their software droped almost to 0.
By 1996 I started working, repairing computers... for thoose of you who never did it, most of the times the computers were ok. The problem? Software, of course. I did that for 2 years and by the time I ended it, I was pretty shure Microsoft software sucked big time. My next job was in 1998 and started as a sort of help desk in a corporation with 200 machines, almost all of the desktops where windows and some where Mac's (yes the Mac's at the time sucked even worse than windows, but things change and now I have one
Since then I've been using Linux on my desktop, except on a Powerbook I brought where I use Mac OS X.
And this long story is the reason why I don't like Microsoft's software. Because they always say the software will do wonders and then it do nothing of what they say, I tend to distrust the hype they seel before releasing a software.
The reason I distrust them is for all those known issues with lotus, netscape, dr-dos more recently with Linux. Apart from those issues I see an attitude coming from microsoft that makes me don't trust them, and that is the fact that they seem to drive the technology not to where it would benefit most their clients but to where it benefits their sales.
So, I don't really hate them, I don't even dislike them. I just don't trust them and don't like their software. The day they release a good software that don't stay in the way of what it should do, and I enphasize the "release" part, not say they will release, but actualy do it, I will gladly use it.
First off, I'm not a Free software zealot. Although I prefer open source software, if the right tool happens to be closed source, I'm not all that bothered by it - I'll use it.
The thing is, my entire computing background from age 8 or 9 or so is that computers were open and free to tinker with. For example, the ZX Spectrum was fully documented, and you could buy a book with a complete, clearly commented ROM disassembly, and Sinclair Research was quite happy about this. The basic user manual that came with the machine had a complete description of the computer's edge connector as well - information was easy to obtain even without the Internet. As I moved on to university, I started using UNIX systems - while the code might not have been open source, all the protocols were well documented - X11, NFS, TCP/IP etc. Vendors damned well made sure that you could easily obtain specifications to protocols so you could make your programs work with their programs.
It doesn't bother me that Microsoft are a closed source company. What bothers me is they make all their protocols secret so you can't interoperate with their programs without a huge effort of reverse engineering. The whole 'embrace, extend, extinguish'. The lack of interoperability is an anathema to me. I would quit hating Microsoft tomorrow if they documented all their protocols - and not with restrictive licenses which stops you using those protocol specifications to make your GPLed program interoperate with a Microsoft program.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Because.. MS Windows is just a (relatively good) attack vector for MS Office, spam, trojans, DRM and viruses, so they can all easily and safely invade your computer.
I'm surprised no one mentioned KMFMS yet, and their great article What's So Bad About Microsoft?.
factor 966971: 966971
Many of the ills that Microsoft have inflicted on the computer industry had a reason behind them, whether it be capturing a greater market share or maximising profits. However, the one thing I can't forgive was back in the days when Bill was writing Microsoft BASIC.
He was personally hand-coding it all in assembler, so there's nobody else he can blame. He wrote his implementation based on the definitions of the language in Kemeny & Kurtz' book, but he couldn't understand the MAT() command, so he left it out. That decision set back 3D computer graphics by ten years, and Bill Gates was single-handedly responsible for it.
In 1999, while using Windows 98 SE, I became frustrated when I wanted to expand my knowledge in programming, image manipulation, office productivity, and the security side of networking. However, at that time, I did not have the money to go out and purchase these types of programs. Then, I read the The Hacker's Handbook by Dr. K. The book mentioned a lot of Red Hat 6 Linux and some of the things that can be done. I researched what this 'Linux' was and why this-n-that about it. I bought a custom-built machine in 2001 dual booted with Windows XP Professional and Red Hat 7.2. At that time, I was a Windows user and I decided to learn what Linux was as well as basic computing concepts in terms how they really worked.
As I learned about the Linux operating system, what a shell script was, and all that software that came with a basic Linux operating system in terms of office suites, development, documentation, the on-line community , etc, I felt I need to be belong to a community and actually use an operating system.
I had been on IRC and we were speaking about Linux and Microsoft. Someone on IRC said to me that I won't be able to play the popular games, have popular and special programs running such as DVD playback, and some other things that will not run as easy in Linux then it does in Windows. "Welcome to Linux."
After that day, It took me two more years to move away from the win32/NTFS platform to a committed Linux platform. I have been using Linux for five years and I am content. Now I am studying for a Information Security degree and building custom Linux servers as well as building a mixed OS network environment.
I feel I could do a lot more in terms of using Linux and the software that it comes with than I can if I were committed to a sole Microsoft solution. The big advantage is I can save myself a lot of money in terms of software and I can also help a business save money by adopting either a Linux backbone or the use of open-source/free software in a Windows environment.
It is my story and I am sticking to it.
Paint is good enough for most basic needs, but Notepad is much too basic. One of my first actions is to load up a decent replacement for NotePad, whether its CrimsonEditor, Notepad++, GVim for Windows, Nedit...
Both applications have barely evolved over the last 15 years, but could have offered a lot more functionality without becoming bloated.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Mostly because it simply makes me ANGRY when I am forced to work with their products, and the software just doesn't work predictably. But actually, I don't hate anyone for being a bad programmer, I hate them for trying to FORCE everyone to use ONLY their products INSTEAD OF BETTER PRODUCTS.
/dev/stdin and /dev/stdout. /dev
/dev/stdout | grep pattern
/s con | grep pattern
;-)
Effectively, my impression is that Microsoft cares more about pushing all competing better products out of the market instead of making their own products better. That is what really makes me angry. They are a marketing/propaganda-based company rather than a technical company.
Why do I think that Microsoft software is bad?
Just to name a few examples:
On UNIX, you have
- stdin is a character special file (or a symlink to a special file), and its role is defined by a major/minor node number
- stdin is exactly where it was created, commonly in
- if it had another filename, it would still work the same way
- if it where in another directory, it would still work the same way
- if you create a plain text file and call it "stdin", then you have a plain text file; not a stdin device
You can do something like:
Most utilities in Unix write to stdout anyway, but if you have one that writes to a file, you can do the following:
$ myprogram_A --outfile
Everything perfectly consistent, isn't it?
On NT, you have "con"
- you can't find con anywhere in the filesystem
- but at the same time con IS EVERYWHERE in the filesystem
- you can not create a text file named con anywhere in the filesystem, because con is already there, you just can't see it
- if con had another filename, i don't know what would happen; i don't even know whether con is actually a file
- if you read from con, then it is stdin, but if you write to con, then it is stdout?? or is it stderr?
- if con is not stdin, then where is stdin?
How consistent is that?
Now try on NT what you did on Unix (for example, with the registry editor):
C:\> regedit
It just doesn't work.
Other examples:
- CreateRemoteThread() - let's just create a new thread at an arbitrary address in some other process' address space. Very bad idea.
- Unix's getuid() in NT: GetCurrentProcess(), OpenProcessToken(), GetTokenInformation() (to get the size of the datastructure), GetTokenInformation() again (to get the datastructure), extract SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES struct by resolving a pointer, extract SID by resolving a pointer; and then you still don't know how the size of the SID datastructure, so you need to call some other functions to do something useful with it, for example, to compare the user id of two processes: EqualSid()
- NT: TerminateProcess() specifies the exit code of the process that it kills. As you might know, another application may receive this exit code as a some kind of an answer from that process; it could also throw dice, though...
- While NT is booting, it can't run windows programs until csrss.exe is running
etc... there are numerous examples...
By the way, there are also a lot of other companies that are not much better (or maybe even worse) than Microsoft. Microsoft is really not the only "bad" company on this planet.
Does anyone want to start a "Why do you hate Symantec" thread now?
Hate would indicate mostly emotion. There is plenty of emotion that drives my negativity towards Microsoft, but there is also just as much logic as well as principle. I started disliking Microsoft from the first week I typed win at a dos prompt. Many of the programs I had written in DOS did not run. My 386 would endlessly grind away trying to run "win", and oftentimes when something did happen on the screen, it was not a positive experience. There were many inconsistencies in both useability and performance. I was running Stacker at the time as well. A friend of mine used to work for them and mentioned one day how Microsoft had stole Stac's code and put it in DOS 6 and tried to get away with it. Stac won the court case, but the litigation expenses were tremendous. I never saw Stacker again. I thought that was pretty crummy that a company could do that to another.
Meanwhile Windows 95 came out and everyone was saying how it was going to fix all the problems with windows 3.1. Everyone threw money into upgrades but 95 failed to deliver. Things were actually worse, only faster. One day, someone mentioned how Microsoft was trying to kill off Netscape and force people to use Internet explorer. I never saw (the) Netscape again. I thought that was pretty crummy that a company could get away with something like that.
Meanwhile, windows 98 was in the works and everyone was saying how it was going to fix all the problemws with windows 95. Everyone threw money into upgrades but 98 failed to deliver. Things were actually worse, only faster. About this time, Microsoft was in an Anti-Trust trial for all their marketing activities. I figured this was the end of all this product killing nonsense, but the judge in the case "accidentally" said some stuff to the media that he wasn't supposed to and a lot of evidence had to be thrown out of court.
This cycle of fixed-in-the-next-update repeats itself every few years (and on patch tuesday) like clockwork. Fortunately, for Microsoft, there are plenty of people in the world that keep buying into the marketing hype and pretty wrappers and promises of a better product. Microsoft's success is simply a result of a well tuned marketing engine being passed off as a technological innovator and leader; it's complete hogwash but people are suckers for things that look nice.
The icing on the cake is that Microsoft is now financially wealthy enough to buy or litigate-to-death whatever opposition they encounter in order to keep their insanely dreadful products on the top (only?) shelf. With the advent of Vista and DRM (presented under the guise of a Good Thing (tm)) Microsoft will maintain their overbearing,unprincipled,hated success while keeping any alternatives completely off the hardware which are not sanctioned by Microsoft. All of the above is evidence that Microsoft is unable to compete in the market fairly. They need to resort to corporate level sucker-punches and knees-to-the-crotch in order to stay afloat. It's how they built their business, and it's how they stay in business and it's why so many people "hate" them.
--
*Ron we smell poniez: http://www.techp.org/petition/show/1
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Because they spend most of their time not making it easier for me to use their software, but making it more difficult for me to use the software of anyone else.
I don't hate what microsoft has done for computing - They have done lots to bring people together in one big environment where they can interact with and understand one-another. what I hate is their anti-competitive practices, which I guess amounts to the same thing. Study Tarot, and you'll see that Microsoft is Microhard.
Most large (world-wide) companies have to have a desire to dominate the world and be willing to do anything however illegal or immoral to achieve this. This Bloefelt attitude is unpleasant. Particularly when applied to computers. As the Microsoft home shows: everything could be run by computer in the near future. And if that home is using Microsoft products that means your hoe will be run by Microsoft, effectively every time you unlock your front door you will be paying them money. I would prefer a system run by me that always me back into my home for free.
Having said that after 6 years of trying to use linux i find ubuntu almost useable - about the same as win95 was for me. Its difficult to get running, to get online, printers working, scanners, cameras etc.. and there are few people you can ask (offline), find the right software.
So i don't like Microsoft because i don't like their products - they seem to be deliberately badly made, i don't like their aims (to rule the world is not an aim i like), and i don't like their methods - do anything to achieve success.
Ain't that the truth! I spent over a whole day once getting Zork: Grand Inquisitor to work for a friend. It would have been less if I knew what I was doing from the start, of course. But I eventually got it going with Virtual Machine and an old Windows-98 install.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
...because they have taken away my freedom and joy in computer usage.
I wouldn't normally post on this forum (or any), but I have to say, I hated reading through these responses. The personal attacks on Gates were totally unwarranted; he's a successful and remarkably generous person. The attacks on the company are what were asked for, so I can't argue with that. The question asked for the negative opinions and this is the place to find people with lots of those and everyone is entitled to them.
I just thought I'd say something nice about Microsoft. They are a successful company with global market dominance through all manner of tactics fair and foul. And what's wrong with that? The purpose of a company is to sell as much of their product as possible and ensure their competition sells less. Striving to achieve is what people do. Any wannabe successful company would happily 'bury the competition' if they could leaving the competition whining "it's not fair". Those are the breaks.
Microsoft aren't trying to take over the world, they're just trying to be the most successful OS producers. If someone came up with a better product we'd buy it assuming (and this is the important bit) they didn't sell out when MS comes knocking. Just because you're offered hard cash doesn't mean you have to take it. Chances are MS will take your ideas and lose them. Maybe they can't be integrated into what they already have. Maybe your genuinely better product doesn't fit into the direction MS wants to go. Maybe they just don't want to, it's theirs now, they can do whatever they like. None of this is anti-competitive. If you believe you can compete then get into the market and be the competition, but don't whine about how you were bought out and buried. If a company has done well enough that they can afford to buy the competition and close them down, I say well done.
While we're close to the subject, no government has the right to say "You're too successful, stop it". And don't start me on the EU, what a bunch of busybodies.
Anyway, the point is Microsoft won't be the dominant OS forever. Someone will produce something bigger, better, faster, more. These corporations come and go and it's the market that decides (that's us for those of you not paying attention). There are plenty of mega-companies in operation that we don't harass half as bad. Look to the motor industry. GM, for example, sells under names from Cadillac to Suzuki, from Holden to Saab. Every motor manufacturer is owned by someone else to the point where they all probably own each other. Where they have been different is they have maintained individual brand names on takeover and not simply drawn everything under the parent name. That's what gives us the illusion of competition.
I'm going to stop now and let you all think about why you really hate MS and if you really hate MS.
Just looking at how weird MS is acting in the OpenDocument vs. MS Office Open XML issue, it's crystal clear to me MS scuks. There's a 600 page ISO standard called OpenDocument which is ready to use, and which is used by OpenOffice.org. MS is making complicated dances around it trying not to make it readable and writable in Word, maybe sometime in the future via a plugin... On the other hand, they try to make 6000 pages strong OOXML (now an ECMA "standard") the new thing the whole office world has to use.
.docx file back to the sender, asking him to send an .odt.
Let me tell you this: As a customer who shares lots of documents with others, I'll gonna send every single
This is not an issue now, at the end of 2006. But the same thime in two years, I'll not be the only one who does. I'm not a religious person, but in this one, i do believe!
There's an implicit assumption in this question that there is an
average negative perception of Microsoft in society. You will
be selecting for people with that negative bias. A better
phrasing of the question that would give you, perhaps a better
set of sample results is:
With respect to Microsoft do you feel:
Strongly positive, positive, neutral, negative, strongly negative
about them and why.
In my experience over the last 15 years. I would go out and find a piece of software that would improve how my computer and I work together. It did what I wanted and how I wanted. Within 6 months to a year M$ would steal the idea, or buy them out, or take a lost with their own crappy version, to drive out he competition. I would use the last version until it no longer worked with the OS or MS finally made a better version. The closing of doc standards so you have to have MSword to guarantee you can read the a document. Why do they have to make it so the word processor that did what I needed will not work with their docs standard? Why punish the user so it can hold 1% of market share. I Hate M$ because it copies other peoples ideas and use their idea to run the real innovator out of business. To MS Other software Dev are a source of new ideas and are seen as the enemy, The OS is the Dev connection to the user but MS can decided at anytime to go after your user base because The Dev may be taking the technology to fast into a direction that MS has not planned to develop for another 2 to 10 years. MS is not a software company they are a marketing company that sells software. i want to see MS make a tight secure OS/office suite that was independent of latent software. This way people will have a choice of running old software OS or use the a package that is better faster and runs on newer hardware. They have to create a file standard that both can read and open it up so people can develop of the OS without having to write their own standard to get all the functionality that is required
It is Human Nature to hate to overload and root for the underdog.
That overload used to be IBM. We taught them in the 80s.
Now it is Microsoft and has been since they were forced onto us in the work place (12+ years).
Then there is Steve Balmer - I don't know him personally, but he comes across as a real prick. I get that he is passionate and that is probably where most of the passion shown by MS comes from these days. It is hard to keep that passion for your job going all those years and he has.
I've been forced to work with MS solutions recently. I don't know whether they don't "get it" or if our MS folks are just idiots forcing terrible decisions on us, but there all sorts of things they weren't/aren't doing to play nice with the other 5,000 UNIX/Mainframe servers we have. Why must we have any MS-DHCP servers? Why should we have to use MS-Active Directory for any reason. There are perfectly standard LDAP servers that integrate with web and UNIX and Mainframes, yet MS forces AD for Sharepoint, Exchange, and Fileserver logins (ok, not really, but they make it really hard otherwise).
Perception is important and I perceive the upper management at MS as pricks (except Mr. Gates - a pie in the face changed that opinion for me). They forever promise solutions, miss the dates, bring Shite for the first 3 releases - now we're 5 years later and I still don't have a working solution. I've tried to convince our upper management to see this is a pattern of deceipt and just select another vendors' answer today.
Sorry for all the bithc/moaning here.
The fundamental appeal of the computer to a hacker (in the real sense, not cracker sense) is what you can do with it. The totally unlimited potential of the machine. MS limits what you can do with your computer. You have to have permission to install the OS. You can't tinker with the hardware, or the OS will quit working. They want to put DRM on your media files to restrict what you can do with them. You can't get rid of stuff you don't want when you consider it a loss (like Outlook Express - apparently it's the cockroach of Windows and survives any attempt to get rid of it). Now they want to have DRM in Office documents so other people can control what you can and can't do with information. Throw in Palladium, which has never taken off, and MS could control every aspect of your computer. Now that the average desktop computer is more powerful than the original LISP hackers ever imagined a computer being, and blows away the high-end UNIX workstations of the early 90s, the potential to use the computer is more unlimited than ever. So why is it MS's mission to limit the potential?
My antipathy toward Microsoft goes back to C80, M80, & L80: extremely buggy and no support.
Most of all, though, Microsoft changed, in a totally negative way, the herd instincts of corporate management. In the pre-Microsoft success days, many companies tried to produce quality products, and most others paid lip service to the concept, since it was considered a positive selling point. However, since Microsoft got lucky with the IBM contract for DOS, shipping beta (DOS 2 & 4, W95, W98FE, NT4) or even alpha (DOS 5, ME, NT3x, various NT4 service packs), code to customers, using them as testers and charging them for the privilege, it has become a standard corporate mantra that it does not matter how bad a product is, one must merely "establish market share" to succeed. We can all see how well that has worked for the American based automobile manufacturers (the two of them that remain).
What the suits fail to understand is how Microsoft got to where they are (not the underhanded and illegal parts, those, they do understand). When the PC was released there was almost no rational justification for buying one. All the available software (Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Databases, terminal emulators, and games) ran on Apple IIs or CP/M-80 boxes. Additionally, PCs and the software were much more expensive and significantly slower. The difference was that "corporate buyers" wouldn't buy Apples, but would willingly piss away shareholder's wealth on PCs, 'cause "you couldn't be fired for buying IBM" (pure bureauratic cowardice). Once the PCs ended up on middle manager's desktops, helped by a generous policy on software piracy, they would buy one to continue work at home. This created a secondary market for software on those machines, in households with available funds, for games and other "home use" software, like screen savers, once the top-selling category of all software, leading to where we find ourselves now.
Bit of background: IBM originally developed the PC because the "Big Blue Suits" in Austin were very peeved at seeing so many Apple IIs in IBM's headquarters. Middle managers found that they could get results faster using the spreadsheets and databases on those than sending jobs down to the IT department. Having created the product for internal use, there was very little cost involved in pushing them through the normal sales channels. Some success there led to expansion into the "office machine" dealers market (IBM made good typewriters).
A bit more: the PC has the worst-possible CPU architecture that could be coerced into stumbling along because IBM purchasing selected the CPU vendor, not engineering. The engineers had selected the Zilog Z8000 (not Z80) which had multiple orthogonal registers and a very powerful instruction set (at the time) for them. The engineers liked it because it was conceptually similar to the mainframe CPU and quite powerful (first UNIX, Version 6, as I remember, that I logged into was on a Z8000). Purchasing liked to have "leverage" over outside vendors, so they selected Intel, about to go under due the poor perfomance and complicated interface of the 8080, compared to the 6502 and 6800/6809, while Zilog was under the umbrella of a small company called "Exxon", where IBM had no leverage.
I dislike Microsoft because using their software is like grating your nails over a blackboard.
When I use their products, I continuously experience a little anxiety for the next unexpected warning box, incomprehensible dialog or misaligned piece of GUI. The same action does not always get the same outcome. I get more nervous when I'm looking for a function or setting in any of their software, because they're hard to find or have disturbing side-effects.
Computers used to be determistic machines, but somehow Microsoft manages to make them behave randomly. Using computers has moved from being fun and creative to an annoying chore.
Another thing that makes me sad is that people's conception of what a computer is and can do, has become very skewed. People don't think about computers in terms of data to be manipulated, but in terms of squeezing data into Excel or information into a Powerpoint bullet-list.
People tend to tailor their ideas to fit the fashion of Microsoft's software in stead of picking the right computer technology to express their actual ideas.
I won't go into the technological inefficiency of Microsoft's products.
Not that they are uncompetitive, it's just that the always lose ... but somehow, they always win.
Of course, I haven't used every version of every product they have ever made; but without exception, every single Microsoft product I *have* ever used, I found to be deficient _on-balance_ compared to another product, either commercial or OS. I have never found MS to have the best product.
That coupled with their ubiquity/monopoly is a good reason to be aggravated enough to develop some level of hatred.
No mystery here.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
The Gimp
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I have 5 very strong objections against Microsoft:
t ml
... Interoperatibility is MOST important for successful use of technology because without that it becomes very hard to build more sophisticated systems that require components from various parties.
1. Unlawful monopolistic practices have led to a situation where it is hard to buy a laptop without Windows licence (for running other OSes)
2. Their technology is simply bad in all respects except C#.
The operating system has thousands of seemingly random places of configuration files, many of which are not understandable by text editor inspection.
The C programming API lacks definite power of UNIX filesystems/names (how many times have you seen a notice that says a file is reserved by some application?), that is, good separation of dentries and inodes.
The rest of the Win32 API is mostly random chunk that is hard or inconvenient to use. See
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/spinellis97critique.h
Ironically a more advanced API (the NP API) was instroduced with the NT, but it was left undocumented by Microsoft and thus it is not used for applications.
Furthermore, their technology is FULL of hacks and workarounds, but the main reason for bugginess of their system is BAD design and implementation.
3. They hostile towards operating systems by obfuscating and hiding their file formats and protocols. Think of Windows file and print services, Windows Media, Microsoft Word,
4. They are hostile towards technology improvement. Windows OS (but mostly applications) is practically useful with only x86 line processors, which slows down development of microprocessors. Windows is not even a good OS to take advantage of x86-64, let alone Itanium that they dumped. Fortunately, F/OSS operating systems made it possible to test and use those better processors with real applications from very early development to this day.
Also, the OS is a mess because they have REFUSED to fix it; the main drive has been money through gradual backwards compatible changes that has added to the mess.
5. The Windows culture is hostile towards maintainable systems. Where is the package management system that would be so desperately needed by ALL users of Windows? It would be simple to create a distributed package management system like apt in Debian, which would ease updates and installing software for all parties. Having a package management system would not even require Microsoft, but why hasn't Microsoft done it? Do they just hate convenience, or why is their update system such useless?
Summary: All in all, Microsoft has been harmful to all parties surrounding their operating system: the hardware and software people, consumers, users and administrators.
PS. sorry for "gain saying", it would take hours and hours to write comprehensive explanations of these points.
I don't hate Microsoft. I just love freedom. Microsoft hates freedom. So we're enemies.
They lie, cheat and steal for a living. They give their word and then break it on a daily basis. Anyone who is guilty of that *deserves* unending loathing and disgust.
Anyone who questions why this hatred exists is obviously living in a fantasy world. Wake up already.
Because they called Linux a "cancer". I think that says all you need to know about Microsoft's attitude.
...to the bull with this question aren't we?
Why does everyone hate Microsoft? Wait until the next time your system crashes or re-boots for no good reason, or becomes infected with viruses or spy-ware, THEN ask why!
We've had decades of piss-poor products from the Redmond crew, and there has been no real alternatives because M$ has employed clever, but devious, methods to see off potential competition. We have seen open-source and Linux come from behind with a vengence of late, but again, M$ has put into action a cunning and devious plan that they hope will fracture the open-source community.
Lets not forget, Microsoft may own countless software patents, but what have they invented? What ACTUAL innovations have they brought to the computing world (apart from how to rule it)? None, zero, zilch, nada! The company was even built from a "borrowed" product.
Oh BTW... How many of M$'s business partners HAVEN'T they shafted over the years.
Ballmer refered to Linux as "communism". Taking that anology, I suppose that means Microsoft must be "Fascism" or at the very least, "Totalitarianism".
PCs became popular because they were infinately configurable, NOT because of great software. Now PCs are less upgradable these days, we are seeing more people jump ship to Apple. About bloody time.
The origin of bad feeling for microsoft was never it's size but it's actions.
Microsoft was one of the first company to realise that user friendliness may be the single most important aspect of software design in the eyes of the consumer. For example, previously when using various text editors you had to remember loads of different key combinations for each of them to perform common commands like copy and paste.
I remember when I first used MS Edit, I had copied something to the clipboard and was trying to figure out which shortcut keys would paste it. The first one I tried (Shift-Ins) worked. I thought I'd been lucky only to find out a few weeks later that a friend, who was used to using a different text editor had found a different shortcut key to do the same thing. MS had included all the different shortcut keys combinations it could so, whichever software it's users came from, they would feel comfortable in MS Edit.
This is the kind of innovation (aestetic rather than technical) that made MS grow to such a huge size today.
Now, while having such a large percentage of any major global resource controlled by a single company is enough reason to cause a bit of discomfort, in this case of MS there have been many cases of that power actually being misused. Which serves to justify and multiply that discomfort into distate.
Some examples:-
Mis-use of wide customer base:
In the days of MS-DOS 4 it was said that if you wrote exactly the same program in Microsoft C and in Borland C and ran them on an MS-DOS machine, even if they both compiled into the same machine code, the one written in Borland C would run slower. This is becuase each of the compilers sign the executables they create differently. MS-Dos would simply look at the signature and decide whether to slow it down or not. The result would be that, since most people used MS-DOS, people would assume the MS C compiler was better.
Mis-use of deeper pockets:
One tactic that was very popular with MS in the early days of windows was to add "free" software to windows which the competition was already selling. Since every one with a windows operating system will already have the software, only a tiny fraction of users will bother paying for the one the competitor is selling (no matter how much 'better' or 'more efficient' its product was). Once the competitor has been driven out of business, MS can jack up the price of windows to compensate for the price of the new software plus a whole LOAD of extra profit since, as the Parent said, there is no other option left for the consumers.
Mis-use of inside information:
A third party inspection of MS Office 95 and 97 showed that they were using a lot of undocumented functions in Windows. This is the equivalent of a company that built all the roads and roadmaps in a city, opening a pizza delivery company which constantly arrives with hotter pizzas becuase it's drivers use shortcuts which are hidden to other drivers and don't show up on any of the company maps.
This will, of course, give an unfair advantage to it's own pizza delivery company. Not becuase they are better at delivering pizzas, but becuase they have a totally unrelated, and unfair, advantage.
News of breaches like this were all too common in the early days of windows. Now though, most of these have been forgotten but the animosity remains. And it's not helped by the fact that MS seems consistently less interested in producing good software as it does in producing good-looking software.
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
While I am frustrated by Microsoft's buggy products one of my biggest peeves is that they have a terminal case of Not Invented Here. Even when implementing industry standards, they have to make their implementation just enough different that it's extremely painful to use. Remote Access Services (RAS) is PPP. Well, it's PPP-based. There's a funky handshake at the start that makes scripting a Linux box to talk to RAS really hard and unreliable. PPP is out there, just compile the thing for your platform and sell it!
MS is one of the few technological companies whose corporate culture has succeeded in empowering the business-oriented types at the expense of the techies-types.
/. : it forces its competition to align to their corporate culture practices, and thus makes us lose some power at our workplace.
At Apple, in free-software projects or even HP and IBM (and remember DEC, SGI...?), engineers and scientists can be quite successful at pushing their own agenda forward, often at the expense of growth, revenue or margin.
This is good for the sense of aesthetics and fulfilments of the techies, but quite suboptimal for pragmatic business purposes.
This is how Microsoft has become the "Emperor", and how, by subordinating the techies to the business guys, it attracts so much hate from us techies, specially on
In contrast, I'm sure most technology-neutral people pretty much don't care as much about MS monopoly.
While I hope Google succeeds and keeps it company motto, it's clear that companies that are driven by revenue and growth have more chances, by definition, of "growing and be profitable" than those companies that also try to drive other agendas in parallel.
1) Their way of introducing file and network standards without making the standards public. (.wma
2) Not complying with other peoples standards.
Bad about Windows.
0) It's hard to avoid buying it.
1) No proper permissions on files, all users can delete your files.
2) Software must be downloaded for all task. The out of the box windows can't even split a file.
4) No package system and no certificates, The way of installing things is to run somefile.exe from somewhere.com. This caues A) lots of add/spy ware B) installing a new program often breaks an old one. C) You never know what you actaully installed, just because it was called zip.exe and came from zip.files.com doesn't mean it actually zips files.
5) No proper shell. You can't script things properly and, more importantly, when trying to help a friend out you can't just give him/her a line to copy paste into a terminal that will make everything ok.
6) Random behaviour. Things "just break" and it takes an expert to fix them; mere mortals are usually forced to reinstall from scratch. Windows also becomes sluggish after a while and "nobody knows why".
7) It spies on its users.
Finally, both Sun and Mac have made good commercial operative systems that both lacks most of the above faults. If they wanted to, Microsoft could too.
i don't hate microsoft ...
...
what i hate is that MS encourages hardware manufactureres
to make dumb devices. notably:
GDI printer, win-printer, that have no "brain"
and need a win-OS driver to be able to do anything.
win-modems, (HELOOO connexant), modems that are dumb,
have no own brain and need a driver to do anything.
i'm having a hard time finding a serial port modem (WITH a brain),
for my linux server, for emergency internet connections
this is the REAL reason i dislike MS. they should have never
encouraged this.
old HP printers with a parallel port and old U.S. robotics
modems still are elite gear!
because they have to be victims of something.. and microsoft is the perfect enemy here. Its /. PC to hate microsoft or belittle their work. Got to love the complains about their version 1.0 software, as if Apple's is any better. (hell people still joke that you should avoid version 1.0 hardware from apple)
its the standard game though, hate the big guy. its far easier than doing something to change the situation
From the "market leader" in OS and business application software.
... Annoyances" series. The whole MS approach to software is like running a marathon, doing a decent job, and then tripping on the finish line. To think of the wasted development effort put into some of these useless "features". Word, in its default state, is a *mess*. You have to spend 5 minutes turning things off to make it usable. That's bad design.
I don't like:
1) predatory, monopolistic business practices -- it shouldn't have had to get to the antitrust lawsuit stage for people in the company to realize that what they were doing was not only unethical, but illegal. It damaged/damages the whole industry, and they still skirt the line. It's obvious quite a few (and often bad) products are deployed purely to undercut the competition.
2) Their OS and applications are generally okay, but sometimes unnecessary features are *amazingly* annoying and misguided. This is practically a hallmark of MS products, and it is all the more astonishing because they are supposed to have some huge "user lab" to screen the product usability before release. Examples:
A) "Personalized menus" -- brilliant! Too many menu options? Let's hide half of them and make the user guess where the rest are. Hello? It's a sign you need to reorganize the program, not obfuscate it.
B) "Autocorrect" and "Autoformat" -- that's great for your average memo. For everything else? It does more damage than good, especially for anything technical, and for novice users who don't know how to turn it off, it is EXTREMELY frustrating for them to type something over and over and have the program spontaneously alter what they typed. It is features like this that *sound* good on paper, but unless they work perfectly (and software isn't *that* smart), they are annoying and hinder people's work instead of help it.
C) Two words: Clippy Sucks. Okay, I'm in my post-clippy stage now, because I've learned not to install the "Office Assistant" at all, but for millions of other users, the HATRED directed at Clippy and his allies is just amazing. It shouldn't take, what, 3 versions of Office for MS to realize this "feature" wasn't helpful.
D) the default Windows XP theme -- who came up with this? A recent hire from Fisher-Price? Thank goodness for "Classic" mode in win 2k and win XP. I know MS wants to show off their latest toys, but why does almost every default have to be a stupid one?
E) There are many more examples. Don't believe me? There are whole books written in the "Windows
3) the constant attempts to rope users and developers into proprietary, Windows-only, potentially dead-end solutions, to the point they introduce incompatibilities into "standards" that break other software, or discourage interoperability (e.g., all those stupid "features" and "bugs" in IE). Why do they do this? What possible excuse is there? They *say* they want the opposite, but everything they do is obviously trying to back people into a situation of complete dependency on the "microsoft way" of doing things.
4) Product activation. Sure, it's bad enough to have it on an application, but to have it on the OS such that the whole system becomes non-functional? That's nuts, and apparently it is only going to be worse in Vista. I'm not a pirate. I know MS has a piracy problem, but treating their customers this way isn't the solution. It's as if they DON'T WANT customers to use their newer products. Well, I won't be. It's why I run win 2k and office 2k on my personal machine. I see no compelling reason to upgrade, and activation discourages me from doing so.
So, I don't "hate" Microsoft, I just think they are doing a shoddy job for the vast amount of money they have to throw at the problem. It's a challenging problem, but, sheesh, other companies seem to do a better job with less resources (e.g., Apple, and many open-source projects do some things better, and those products have almost none of th
I hate Microsoft for a lot of reasons, but I think IE is a great microcosm:
They neglected an emerging market, instead of providing leadership.
When they noticed that Netscape was pioneering this market and felt threatened, they licensed the Mosaic code from Spyglass (a company setup by UIUC to profit off the code).
They turned around and gave IE away for free, thus screwing not only Netscape (who made the majority of its income at the time from selling commercial versions of Navigator), but also Spyglass (because their income from the licensing agreement was based on what Microsoft charged for their derivative products). Not only did they give it away for free, but they bribed and threatened OEMs and ISPs to distribute it, make it the default, not distribute Netscape, and to badger and/or force their customers into switching to IE.
They got caught red-handed in the antitrust trial. They lied on the stand, falsified evidence, and were rightly convicted of being a predatory monopolist. And what happened? Nothing much. The trial judge made some inappropriate comments, and the penalties got revisited. The administration changed to a more business-friendly one, and the penalties were gutted and then not enforced.
What did they do with this wonderful market share? Did they continue to add new features? Did they fix all the security problems? No, they basically sat around for a few years, while millions of people got rooted (and continue to be...) because of IE's idiotic security problems. They had so little intention of doing significant development on IE that they even disbanded their development team at one point. It wasn't until Firefox became enough of a threat that they bothered to add features (like tabs and popup-blocking) that other browsers have had for years.
So that's Microsoft in a nutshell: no innovation, no scruples, poor quality, rammed down your throat.
-Esme
Stacker
When the going gets tough, the tough get drunk
I hate Microsoft (products) because their product doesn't stand up to my fundamental computing desire. I desire products that do what is asked, when asked and as easily and quickly as possible. Since DOS Microsoft hasn't produced a product that fits my needs, their products either crash frequently (Windows ME) are slow as garbage (XP with many tasks, outlook, IE) or they just don't do what they should (why does ctrl backspace function differently across Windows). They don't deliver a well made and secure product. They think I want more than I do. I want to send emails, keep a calendar, sync my calendar across a few computers and devices, surf the web and play a few games. I don't need notepad and Wordpad. I don't want to run 3 different security programs (Firewall (which I run because theirs doesn't work), antivirus, Windows defender). I don't need office (but I have to have it) since I only use a few functions in word (tables, fonts, line spacing, spell-check) I don't use much of excel but I need it all on my machine. MS products use to much space given I don't use much of the functionality, they would be smart to par down the products and simplify things so their OS runs fast smooth and is good at what it does. Right now they are across the board mediocre with a whole group of products that when combined are poor.
'nuff said.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Only slashdot users do...
and you are an insignificant minority!
Looking back, it seems that I "hated" Microsoft because everyone in the alternative software (for need of a better description) community did as well. It was simply because I thought it was cool to hate Microsoft.
Now that I can think for myself a bit more, I'm actually in awe of Microsoft and Bill Gates. It's quite amazing what Gates has accomplished.
However, I do think that Gates and Microsoft are immoral, and possibly hypocrites. Gates is a capitalist. But he also gives money to the poor. Now that makes me wonder, if he's being all philanthropic, is that just for recognition or does he actually believe that everyone deserves an equal chance? Because if he does believe in equal opportunity, he wouldn't be a capitalist in the first place would he?
Hi all,
Just to give you my point of view about Micro$oft. Micro$oft (Windows) is worth than any competitors regarding all aspects of their products : prices, quality, bug follow up and features. I guess that people hate Micro$oft mainly because of this, but also because there is almost no other choice for the end-user. If something would be wrong every month with something in my car, I would change for sure! But end-users can't change their OS on Intel... they can re-setup it and start again.
You can't be happy if you don't have the choice at such high prices. And this is bad for Micro$oft's image, as we all know that this "Soviet's Traban like" situation rely on a commercial strategy and not on a technical "miracle" of Micro$oft.
Whne you first watched episode 4 of the Star Wars saga, why did you think The Empire was inherently evil? Oh sure, Vader kinda looked the part, and chocked the hell out of that one poor dude in hte first 10 min of the film, but still. At that point in the movie, the Princess's ship could have been laden with murderers and thieves and such and Vader was just doing some policeing of the sector.
People tend to dislike and distrust things that are bigger than themselves(that they dont control). Even if Microsoft did everything right(which, I admit they didn't, but still.), there would still be mobs of people who would find some small reason to hate them. It becuase Microsoft is a massive corporation, that is all over the place and if we have to blame something on someone, might as well be the huge faceless coporation.
looks like plenty of you took the troll bait.
Well, I certainly don't hate Microsoft and I have invested a ton of money in buying their products. What I hate is NetBSD because it's compact and rock solid and, for crying out loud, you can launch an install from a single floppy. I can't stand Linux because it runs efficiently on anemic old hardware and what do you think that's going to do to my Dell stock? Solaris sucks because it foists DTrace and ZFS on unsuspecting users: I mean, how good can a filesystem be if you don't have to defrag it once in a while? And then there's OpenOffice. Don't even get me started on OpenOffice.
And that's one of the oldest and most played out excuses. Windows will boot and run, every time.
Linux software is shit. I am worried abuot programs as simple as gedit eating my files. What a sad state you are in. What a strong RDF you must have.
I think Microsoft got it right with xbox and live. Live I like a lot because of some of the features are kind of pointless but fun. If I'm on Bungie.net just checking out the boards, I can look up at the top of the page and see if any of my friends are playing their xbox. Then I can click on the little live icon and see what game they are playing. Sometimes I'll jump over to xboxlive.com and send them a message that they should be at work instead of playing xbox.
I wish the Zune was more integrated into the xbox and live experience. It would be pretty fun if the wi-fi could automatically jump on the net and see who's on live without you ever having to log onto a site. It would be cool if you could use the Zune to send text and voice messages to xbox live accounts. Useless stuff, but fun to use.
Can I bum a sig?
Because Bill Gates bought Compuglobalhypermegane!
| (ceci n'est pas une pipe)
I've been doing development on Windows for about 8 years now - Mostly with ASP and ASP.NET. My number one complaint about Microsoft is their documentation. For instance, the .NET class library reference has many entries for methods simply state, "This method returns an int." To be fair, many topics are covered in great detail, but there are many more that are barely mentioned, if at all. A few years ago, I actually found an article on MSDN that stated that the Excel object properties and methods in Office Web Objects were practically undocumented. That's what irritates me more than anything. Microsoft has $ billions on hand, but can't seem to document their programming tools as well as PHP.
Hell is other people's code.
than hate. Disgust in the way they quash innovation, independent ideas, and treat their customers like criminals, and disappointment that with a collection of some of the smartest folks in the world, all they can manage is Microsoft Bob and the Zune.
I'm constantly frustrated by trying to accomplish things for the users I'm responsible for who are heavily restricted by Microsoft applications reliance. This includes family and friends when they ask for my help, but most recently, a new remote employee at my company needed to be able to access our mail server for sending/receiving mail with his company account. The network from which he accesses the internet is managed by another company that uses Exchange and Outlook. Apparently, Outlook, when connected to an Exchange server account, can't usefully be configured to access multiple accounts at once. It's absurd that any email client be unable to support multiple accounts these days and even Outlook does support it - I'm sure - but under these circumstances, we're forced to have this user keep two email clients open all the time. One client for his corporate email at his location and one for his corporate email for my company.
I genuinely enjoy the opportunity to help the users of my systemss. I make them as accessible as I can to users, both local and remote. In this scenario, there's nothing I can do to improve this user's experience. The icing on the cake is that his IT department passes the blame on to me for not providing a solution that can be integrated into their Citrix- and Exchange-dependant infrastructure, even though they acknowledge that it would be very difficult to integrate even if I used those tools.
This is another case of the arbitrary and nonsensical limitations of Microsoft software restricting users from accessing anything standards-compliant or utilizing a mixed environment.
-Neil
I've nothing to say here...
I really hated MS and sometimes I still do. Back in the days of win 3.11 I used to spend nights tweaking the OS or finding workarounds to get my PC doing what I wanted (if I could have afforded it, I probably would have gone out and buy a Mac). I did a lot of crash recoveries for friends and family and helped them to get the most out of windhose. By the time I got everything tweaked and fixed, there came a new OS and I had to start from scratch and the hate rekindled. But over the years, my ability to stop the weak points and tweak them into a workable situations increased, I learnt to use debuggers and memory dumps and got my feet wet by making drivers so my TV card would work under Windhoze NT4. Application wise, same thing. Especially if Excel wouldn't do what I wanted, I build my own workarounds using vb script or VBA. Even got Excel to create pearl scripts to distribute automated reports using a Solaris mail server (that was fun!) Being highly allergic to "you can't do that with MS product X" I got a pretty good idea about what sucked and what could be tweaked to do the most interesting things with M$ products. Guess what happened career wise? I am now a technical mentor for MS Product Support, due to this background and experience. Every new product that MS releases has got me up the curtains, cussing and yelling. Still , for some strange reason I really love this job, it has got me on my toes, forces me to do research and expand my knowledge about the limitations and workarounds to get the crap working. Hell, I'm so much into it, I even installed Vista, because I just need to know into the fine detail about it's flaws and weaknesses, just in case I got an support engineer crying at my desk and expects me to provide an action plan because he just went out of knowledge. Come to think of it, when I look at the smartest MS support engineers in my group, they come from the same background, cussing at MS, trying to get it to work. I guess my hate toward Microsoft got me a career since 10 years. If I didn't, I'd be still shunting cargo waggons in the frickin rain and would have not travelled across the world, got my my house, my car and my MSDN subsciption (hell, you don't expect me to PAY for that crap, do you?)
Supporting MS products doesn't mean you have to like them.
I don't hate Microsoft, I hate monopolies. I just can't imagine a world where every consumer has to bye every device from one company. That's is already the case with OS's and many applications. Now it looks like home multimedia is going to be MS monopoly too because of Windows media center. So soon we have to watch MS TV? That is a horrifying science fiction movie that already has coming reality. And all because IBM once put MS OS in to their PC. And in IT, the need for a standard platform is huge. I think, if standard in necessary, it should be free. It is not consumers fault nor MS's. Politicians and officials (USA, UN...) should put end to this and make sure there is room for competition. (I can understand USA is not so interested to put end to this, rest of wold is throwing money to USA via MS.) The whole biological existence is based on some level of competition. If there is no competition, there is no evolution. Regards, Horrified
I hate Microsoft, but I won't tell you why. Write your own damn paper...
I've just installed it and, well, everything I've tried works fine out of the box. Camera, wireless, scanner, printer, msn, email, calendar. It's very very impressive. It's also very elegantly put together and very easy to use. It's actually more elegant and consistent than Windows (XP) now.
Having said that, when people talk about the alternative to Microsoft applications being better, they're usually not talking about Linux, they're usually talking about alternative Windows applications.
Word is a poor alternative to a host of alternative word processors, not least AmiPro, now Word Pro, or even WordPerfect especially when it comes to longer documents. The limitations and faults in Excel are legendary, it's a far less capable spreadsheet than Lotus 123. I could go on and on, the key is that Microsoft use their OS dominance to enter the market against a leading product with something relatively shoddy then they push the opposition out of the market.
Usually the leading product in the particular market is such for a reason, it's bloody good at what it does, in a monopoly situation, it can be crap and still the leader.
Deleted
When I bought my first computer with multitrack recording in mind, It was $2000 worth of intel 200mmx &accessories w/win95.The software package I bought with it(as a naive newb) was $500 and came on a floppy.V.1.0 and I was allowed one upgrade to V.1.1.What a dissapointment both windows and the windows program were.I even tried an upgrade to NT4 with marginal success and buckets full of winbugs for years and computers later.I am an average working man.My pockets are not full of the money expected to make windows an acceptable environment.Linux however allows me to take all these computers and cluster w/dyne:bolic 1.4.1 for post production effects rendering or record multiple tracks without lag with AgnuLA(demudi)with realtime and preemptive patches.The price is right.Microsoft is like the definition of a boat:A large hole in the water that you keep throwing money into.
I reccomend microsoft for people who want to play games and have nothing to do but spend money time and effort chasing bugs.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Ok I narrowed it down to 3 things.
1. The registry. Allowing programs to hide things in a big encyclopedia of keys and values is just plain stupid. What happened to .txt and .bin files? Uh, nothing. They're still just fine, MS! Putting all your eggs in one basket, the registry, is never secure. I don't have any idea what made MS rise to this height of stupidity, but it alone is enough for me to hate them.
2. I hate when my computer doesn't obey me. Windoze hides things from the user and it tells the user what it can and cannot do. A computer should be a slave, not a master.
3. IE. Even with the new version, I still hate this program. Why do I need to be warned that I'm on a secure website? Shouldn't that be a good thing? They've just begun to catch up with the OSS world in the UI dept., and when they finally did get tabbed browsing, I'm sure they didn't give credit to any OSS web browser for ripping it off them. I don't know who was the first, but I know it wasn't MS.
So, the registry, lack of control, and IE. There you go. Even if MS fixed everything thats wrong with their software, LOL, they would still have a registry and they would still cheat and steal.
So, they must be hated.
"In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
I have no problems with Microsoft. I have had more problems trying to install and update linux then windows. But go ahead and flame away.
Why I Hate Microsoft? Finally someone asked and I think my answer pretty much speaks for us all. You see, at work, I use EXCEL, WORD, Notepad, Explorer, IE and Outlook round-the-clock. Seldom you'll see a non-microsoft icon in my taskbar - And what really gets to me is knowing that Microsoft raked in real, actual money for each icon there... and lots of it... WORLDWIDE. So at home, I rather use a very poor, sticky GUI on a messy maze of over-versioned arquives slapped together by pissed off folks like myself with no "real" jobs and spending time reverse-engeneering the means to make it all work than to pay 10 parcelments of $39,90 just to be reminded of the speed and quality I am forced to live with at work (besides the fact that I am too poor to buy software - heheh). So let's say it loud and proud - FUCK MICROSOFT! I installed DOS 6.22 the other day on a clean PC - What the fuck??? 20 Files makes an OS??? Shit, I need at least 4.278, please!
That's about it.
Dust
People hate Microsoft because they are American and they represent big business. The result is that people look at them and their products and say 'So and so does X. Why can't Microsoft?" Yet at the same time people use their products? I would argue that people hate Microsoft for the same reasons people hate America. I hate them because last time I called support I was routed to India and couldn't get someone who could actually help me. If I am on my own and can't get support then I may as well go with Gentoo. Then at least I am in control!
Why is Gates villified and Jobbs exaulted? You look at the tax filings, Jobbs barely gives a dime to charity and Gates has a foundation dedicated to giving money away.
"Victory can be anticipated, but not assured" - Sun Tzu
Why? How about a quick 10 reasons, just off the top of my head:
1. They're crooks - see the trust suit where the company was found guilty of criminal violation of the law.
The company was founded on criminal behaviour:- BillG and the other guy wrote their original Basic by stealing
access to a University computer (one of them dumpster dived to get the user-id and password)
2. Their failure to deliver. They've been at this game (operating systems) since 1982 and sold software before
then. All the time they've made promises they rarely meet. The ever-diminishing features of Vista are
not a new thing.
3. They lie and cannot be trusted. Any number of times they've made committments and then reneged. Their
business practices are not honorable, and given their long history of deception nobody trusts them anymore:
a.) The practice of FUD (which they learn't from IBM before that company regained its senses)
b.) The repeated use of vaporware in order to kill competing products from company's who actually have good
ideas, in order to kill said companies and then (maybe) later release second-rate knock off copies. The
customer does not benefit at all from this.
c.) The numerous times they ave signed and then violated non-disclosure agreements with potential partners only
then to announce vapourware (see above) competing products thereby killing the potential partner. (Usually
swiftly followed up by a trade offer of about $100k to buy said company)
d.) The use of brutal, offensive business tactics to kill off competitors. You may have heard of the phrase
"We'll hand that guy his head". That is a MS phrase that describes their practice of using a.) b.) and c.)
plus bucketloads of money to eliminate competing products from the market and then extending the
gangster's favorite offer to the victim.
If this was the mob there'd been a gang war and all the other families would've put 'em in their graves long ago
for being the punks they are. As it is, all they had to deal with was normal American capitalists and men of
honor, so they got away with it.
4. Their lousy products. At almost every point in MS's existance, and at every time there have been better products
that were competitive in the marketplace until MS's practices kicked in (see 3)
More evidence? Every few years its something new that they're no good at. Functionality, then performance,
then stability, then security. Now they can't even get products to market in a timely fashion. What's to like?
5. Their arrogance and ruthlessness. At no time has MS ever recognized the worth of a competitor or a competitors
products. Their original mission statement was "A computer on every desk running only Microsoft software."
In the public versions they deleted the word "only", but they have never changed their behaviour. The founder's
well-publicised (admired in some quarters) paranoia is ample explanation for this phenonoma.
6. Their contempt for consumers. You and me in other words. Tried to get support lately? "That'll be $200 please
- would you like fries with that". Tried to understand why something
Hello everybody! My name is code.c and i am a piece of code. .ko and then i :) :(
:)))
I am tinny and slim, i like to run fast and sometimes my owner
writes me as kernel module and my look changes a bit to
can run with many like me, all togheter and if i get useless my owner can
rrmod me
I have a friend, a fat one, he lives in a place called Microsoft Land and he says that
Microsoft Land is blue often and it has nice and cuty interface but he is also
sad because its interface is heavy
He feels fat like an elefant, he would like to fly, not like those flying windows, but like
birds, go anywhere and do whatever he want. He is jaelous about me and i'd like to help him
so i said to my owner to write a code like me, but with some diferencies, some shellcodes
to bring that blue system down and set my friend free !
He is going to live beside me, in the Console Happy Land where we can fly high and
and walk through "/".
It is gonna be great, my friend will be compiled as static and we can even walk through other
Console Lands , other than this one!!!
And even better, he will not get sick anymore with those boring reboots
-code.c
Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
They backstabbed IBM over OS/2 which still has some features superior to XP. I even heard Ballmer in person describe it as "Windows done right".
People want to hate Microsoft exactly the way they hated (and still hate) The Phone Company and The Guy Who Won't Turn Down His Freakin' Subwoofer When He's Sitting In His Car Because He Can't Smoke Inside and, yes, The Weather.
All things bigger than us, beyond any reasonable control, and ubiquitous. Let's face it, we're forced to use Microsoft products in a lot of environments, just like I used to have to deal with Jersey Bell. Both suck(ed), but they're there, you know what you're dealing with, and, yes, you can sit and complain about something other than The Weather.
What's really wrong is the general purpose model of computing has gotten so completely bloated and out of touch with real people that it's a culture on its own, with titanic momentum. Think human-scale.
Why hate Microsoft,
Microsoft did, and still does many great jobs in technoligies around the globe. They try to make the best system or program each time, and they listen with two ears about the feedback people give to there products, so they can make it better.
Yes, the prices are sometimes very high in my point of view, but what you get is really worth it.
If you don't like MS, don't use it.
Bill, is that you?
So much for standards. So much for interoperability.
-- ac at work
"Apple has died"
-July 1975
ops!
Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=decommoditize+micr osoft
Microsoft wishes to turn cheap commodities into their brand names. Their business model is to take away choices and build up a marketing campaign around that to herd us like sheep. You don't become worth $100 billion by accident. Leveraging a monopoly is how to charge whatever you want for a single disc in a large box.
I hate Microsoft because they're an obstacle to progress, to freedom, and to happiness.
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions (very numerous and well documented) and their support and use of proprietary, non-interchangeable, and non-standardized software and patents means progress is slowed down. Imagine how fast computer software would progress if 95% of the world used Linux and contributions to open source software increased in proportion.
Microsoft is the biggest and most direct enemy of free software, and as such is against freedom. They're also a monopoly which, like most lightly regulated for-profit monopolies, is used to expand into other markets to get new monopolies.
By making computing such a pain (to MS and non-MS users alike - the latter still suffer interoperability troubles and slower progress because resources are diverted to MS OSs), Microsoft reduces happiness for the world as a whole.
Way back in '95 when I first heard of Bill Gates, It was on the news, he said " Our goal is to put a computer on every desk". At the time our computer cost us nearly 5 grand to buy and I did not know how to turn it on/ off. I literally had to ask my 8 year old child, (who had them in the classroom) to help me. Now I am pretty savvy, not nearly as knowledgeable as my husband of 4 years, who like many on this site, has used every operating system since before there was a print screen function. Now the operating system is nearly as expensive as the computer that runs it. But STILL very affordable in comparison. Now We have 3 desktops, a laptop, printers, scanners, burners, mp3 players, wireless this and that. I can take my comp. apart and put it back together again. We have a flippin' comp in the garage, for crying out loud! Maybe their practices aren't the best, I agree. But Bill and Microsoft gave people like me a Gateway to the new world, no pun intended. They put a computer on every desk.
I've been using Microsoft products since 1977 when I purchased my first computer; it came with a cassette to load Microsoft's floating point BASIC language. My problems with Microsoft stem from their business practices. It is one thing to make a competing product, price competition, and aggressive marketing. I don't have a problem with that. They even make acceptable software. But Tie in sales, threats to not sell a company's products to you if you don't discontinue a competitor's products, and modifying an operating system to prevent a competitor's application from running are all beyond my (and many other people) concepts of business ethics. They have even been found in violation of laws on the subject in multiple jurisdictions. I come from an ethical tradition that enshrines our codes of business ethics in our holy books with other topics of importance. Where possible, I avoid using the products of companies that I consider to have ethical problems. Since I do work for other people, I do have to use Microsoft products; but I don't have to like it. Where possible, I have chosen to use other products such as Linux, KDE, Gnome, XFCE, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc. What bothers me more than the initial findings is that Microsoft CONTINUES to make the same kinds of ethical decisions after it has been pointed out to them in no uncertain terms.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
I don't use any Microsoft products, and I don't have to support people who do, so I have no reason to hate them.
I had no problem with Microsoft until the first time they deluged the company I work for with random threats mailed to anyone who ever registered a piece of their software under the company name. When some office lady 300 miles away calls crying because she got a letter about lawsuits for hundreds of thousands of dollars and she doesn't even know what it's about, you tend to get pissed off. I still can't understand why our worthless government allows this kind of mob style shakedown to go on unhindered. Best government money can buy as they say.
The most used piece of software has one of the nastiest APIs ever devised called "WIN32". It's a god-awful bag of a horribly-messed up object-oriented architecture bolted on a non-object-oriented programming language or on an object-oriented programming language that is severely violated, littered with hundreds of #defines, with functions taking 10 arguments on average, and each argument usually having multiple meanings, coupled with every other function of the system...even the "Hello World" program takes 152 lines of code!
It's no wonder Microsoft-based products contain so many bugs and so many security holes. Compare that to Unix where each function takes a few well-defined arguments and the UI is totally separated, and you can see why Unix is so much better...
From my point of view M$ was a guy who has 30 inc d*ck and because of this thinks himself best lover of the world.
Because of market share M$ demands everyone to accept their shit withouth question...
For example I'm earning money from Web developing. My base development system was Linux. I can generate tons of good interfaces with using w3c recomendations. And of course IE6 does not render properly. It cost me tons of extra times. Fixing code for IE takes more thime than writing page itself.
this Chirismas my wish from Santa was meeting with IE developer team. In the meeting I will patch their brain with a baseball bat. I believe noting that will fix M$ ignoracne...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
This is a post about Microsoft... I expected a lot of funny comments...
*ducks Ballmer's chair*
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
Bill Gates is a capable and lucky man. He got the DOS contract because his family knew the IBM CEO or something like that IIRC. He used all of his ingenuity to take over the world, and he succeed. His company, however, operates in a purely 'cash cow' marketing mentality: Their only interest in life is to create moderate products and sell them to moderate customers. That's all. Too mainstream. No innovation. No technical advantage. The Microsoft Research department doesn't create anything newsworthy, either. The only advantage of M$ products is their compatibility with the computer systems of your peers, clients, employers, users, friends, or government, because they all use M$ products and M$ builds its products in such a way to make them incompatible with the competition. It isn't easy to read a .doc, .xls, .wmv, .wma, .mht file without M$ products installed. You have difficulty finding laptops without Windows installed, too. They have penetrated the market and created a series of cash cow software products, and now they make money by selling their compatibility advantage, not by selling useful features, robust software, or any other technical advantage. You will have difficulty refusing using some of M$ products if you want to function together with other computer users nowadays, except if you have lots of time in your hands to set up your GNU/Linux systems in such a way to make them compatible with most uses of M$ products (it is possible, but it takes time, especially for hardware that comes with Windows drivers only). This isn't a problem of GNU/Linux. The originator of this problem is M$ because they specifically want their products to be incompatible with the competition. Users like choices, and when they feel that they are forced to accept an M$ product, they tend to hate M$. It's natural. You want to be free, but M$ doesn't because they think that they have easier access to your wallet if they keep you into their compatibility prison. However, every marketing guy will tell you that forcing users to buy something will backfire at some point. People pay for what they truly want, and companies are set up to provide for their desires. If people start demanding freedom, companies will appear to satisfy this need, and people will buy their products instead of M$'s. This is already happening with GNU/Linux right now.
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is - I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way. In the sense that they they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product ehm and you say why is that important - well you know proportionally spaced fonts come from type setting and beautiful books, that's where one gets the idea - if it weren't for the Mac they would never have that in their products and ehm so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success - I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products." Steve Jobs It's so true, even today
"I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
See, you can't even ask a question about MS here without it being tagged both "flamebait" and "trollbait". Knee-jerk reactions FTW.
Microsoft is the first name in computers (now) and Everyone hates #1.
People want to slam on fast food, how often do you hear them say Wendy's? Or Burger King?
People want to slam on POP Music? Britney. You never hear Jessica or Kelly except secondary to the Diva supreme.
How about industrialized nations? USA. Every. Time.
It's basic human nature to hate and despise the Alpha Dog. Anything done by the Betas are considered heroic in contrast to anything the Alpha does to keep hold of their #1 status.
Sometimes, there's fairness in arguing that-- by trying to maintain universal appeal --the #1 dog lacks character. Microsoft products, like McDonald's food, have a sterile, uniform appearance which is tries to be culture-proof to an absolute fault. The #2's, like Apple, Burger King and Christina Aguilera, tend to double up on style (though that doesn't always equate better quality)
Meanwhile, you have the problem with so-called gentiles. Casual computer users are often exposed to Microsoft as their first OS, and come to know it as the OS. Anything which upsets their routine, such as exposure to Linux or even MacOS, is seen as inferior by just being different. Such amplifying the chorus of 'bring down the Alpha' by those who believe they know better.
This is what I believe. Apple has sinned, IBM has sinned, even Linux has sinned. However those were sins carried out in the name of the underdog, and have been forgiven. The sins of Microsoft-- and all alphas --are seen as the sins of a tyrannical ruler, and each one stored in the files to prove that they deserve it when they finally fall. (If ever.)
Now i have warned you guys about The Law of Attraction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction before how many more times.
Your mental disposition will attract equivalent external circumstances and events.
1, 2, 3 All together now, and forget.
For me, the whole thing started when I was a young, bright eyed boy with delusions of being a programmer one day. I was always fascinated by computers, and was supported in my growing interest by my parents, who bought me my first commodore 64 for chirstmas. From that day I was hooked, and I tried BASIC and all the rest (played games too, but who dosen't), and it seemed that the sky was the limit. I tried my hand at graphics programming, with some amount of success.
... and then I have to do what?... ...em...
.. I have to BUY it? How much?.
The problems started however when I went and bought a PC. Everything got harder real quick. Of course I just thought that this was because this was a more "sophisticated" machine than the old commodore, with it's intuitive user interface ("put disk in drive") and easy to learn syntax (10 print 'hello' 20 goto 10). So obviously this monstrous machine with it's peripheral printer and fancy mouse would be more of a challenge. I figured that, down the line, some underlying logic would make itself apparent, and I would again be able to surf the creative waves of programmer heaven.
However, no logic made itself apparent. Sure, there were bits of logic, scattered hither and yon like wounded soldiers on a battlefield, weeping for their mother. But like those soldiers, these fragments of logic were lost and directionless and had no real reason for being there apart from the Demon Lord of Backward Compatibility and his minions the Deadlines of Fate and Versions of Mayhem. At times it seemed like I was having an ongoing conversation with the computer:
Computer : "You can't access memory over 1mb"
Me : "Why?"
Computer : "I don't know"
Computer : "You can't do that."
Me : "Why?"
Computer : "No reason. Just 'cause."
It started to occur to me on an intuitive level that there oughtta be a better way for things to work. I mean, the reasons for the way things work didn't seem like any kinda good reason, they sounded more like someone had just made them up because they had a deadline to catch and didn't want to put the work in to make the product the way it should be. But this didn't make sense, because what kind of person wouldn't put the work in? Who would go and create an operating system if they didn't love their work the way I did? Who would get into computer programming just for the money? What kind of money was in it anyway? Look at me, I was actively losing money trying to program, having saved up all my money to buy this beast in the first place.
So I started to believe that the fault must be mine. That there were in fact very good reasons for all the contradictory logic, I just wasn't intelligent enough to understand what they were. I was stupid.
And then came the crunch. I worked like a son of a bitch, got myself into college, taught myself some languages, and got the computer to grind out sprites that were easily as fast if not faster than contemporary platform games. Horay for me, I spend a whole summer in a bathrode poring over assembly language printouts. God knows why my girlfriend stayed with me.
And then they released Windows 95.
Bastards.
But I had it working. It worked, look at it, it's so beautiful.
But we don't want that old DOS crap any more, we have these things called 3D accellerators that we want to plug in to.
Well, ok, if you say so. Bye bye assembly language.
Let's see what this new fangled internet connection I have in college has to say about how to program in windows 95...
jesus...
Where do I get one of them?
But I don't have that much money I'm a student. Em, mister dean, can I have a copy of... no? Ok.
.
So at the tender age of 19 I came to understand that if I wanted to surf the creative program waves or whatever the hell, I would not only need access to funding beyond what I was capable of, but also have to climb up the learning curve ladder that had taken so much of
Apple's DVD Studio Pro makes excellent use of this type of interface. And don't even dare to question the interface gods at Apple... ;)
1. No perceived real viable options to the OS or Office Suite
1a. Talked with my girlfriend about using open office. She had tried it but it wasn't a realistic option when it came time to send out applications for a job. They want you to send it in a MS Word format. Everyone knows formatting counts when it comes to job interviews so using Open Office wasn't an option.
1b. Sister couldn't go for Open office either. She needed her stuff to be compatible with MS Office at work.
2. MS Certifications include clauses that state they can revoke your certifications at any time if you talk bad about them.
3. We have to patch our systems to protect ourselves from viruses, trojans & hacks, but we have little time to investigate what information MS is taking from our systems or if MS will break our computers (MS Advantage). Who knows what they will do next.
4. To reinstall an upgraded version (OS or Office) on a computer you have to install the prior version first. I want a clean install dammit!
5. You can't upgrade your OS or Office edition from a Dell (insert computer manufacture here) and install that on another computer. It's like I don't really own the OS or Office suite.
6. Friend's, relative's computer is trashed with spyware, trojans & malware. Needs to be reinstalled from scratch. But there are no discs provided to reinstall. Or if they do have the disk, I have to hunt down a serial number. And even if I have that, I have to call into the Microsoft Genuine Advantage number on a sketchy line, tell them why I am doing what I am doing and get new numbers to plug into they system to get it authorized. Why do I have to be treated like a crook? Rebuilding friend's/relatives/girlfriends computers suck as it is.
6a. And if they don't have all the materials, I can't use a different OS installation disk to install it. What do I tell the people I care about... Sorry, you will have to either go out and buy a $300 OS new... or search on line and see if the vendor of choice will send new hardware specific OS disks over a couple of weeks at a $20 charge?
7. No one ever seems to qualify for the upgrade price unless they are upgrading their 2 year old computer that will be in the trash can in a year anyway.
8. New version of Vista is designed NOT to work with media and to prevent me from using my computer to modify my purchased media the way I want to.
9. Bloat. My new hardware should be running faster... not keeping par with the resource hog of my OS & Office suite.
10. Forced click licenses. Most all of it is BS.
11. Nickel & dime - No way out licensing... New Hardware? New License. Linix? You need a CAL to connect to anything.
Note to others: Yes there are work-arounds & choices to be made. But this is just my bitch list. And these are the things we have to deal with in the real world. We can't always make altruistic no-compromise choices and still function in society.
Works great as a chat interface even when talking to tech support. Works great as a message board when your people come into work and the message is in startup for network boot. It is stable, and functional. Not pretty, or feature full, but that's not important.
Phil
Laugh, it's good for you!
the whole point of this is that claiming that all alternatives available are better is a pretty broad and stupid statement. I would say I even enjoy Office 2007 quite a bit.
That is stupid. Only one alternative has to be better for each purpose and person and there are very few places that is not true. This is a natural consequence of free software - users make the thing they want and there are many users. For Word, I can name OO, Kword, Abiword, Scribus, Lyx, Kile and others I have not used. Each one has it's strengths and is better than Word in that situation. Abiword and Kword are good for quick reports, Microsoft's mainstay, but is better because they are not resource hungry and save to formats that everyone can read without problems. Kile, Lyx or regular latex are best for complex reports. Scribus is best for newspapers and posters. I don't have to mention the scores of other specific text editors, like kate or Bluefish, because word does not even pretend to fill those needs. The typical Windows computer, to my way of thinking, is a barren place with a few clumsy tools loved only by the ignorant and loathed by most.
The Windows platform itself is so bad that there are very few applications that can justify using it. Everything, from the 1993 single desk GUI to it's 4 minute half life on any network, to restrictive EULA's make it a very poor choice. More importanlty, for any given M$ thing, I can name two or three that are better suited to any particular purpose. The only real reason for using Windows is inability to move legacy work, but that's a task that happens in the Windows world more than elsewhere so getting out is something better done sooner than later.
I know a lot of people on here look at Linux with adoring eyes, but come on, it's not ready for the desktop. I want to install an OS, and have it work. My printer. My camera. My weird NIC. My DVDRW burner. My 2 month old Video Card. Maybe I should go Mac then? That really doesn't solve the problem because it's hardware controlled
That's not true anymore. All of that stuff works for me. The only real problem I have is with accelerated graphics, but both Nvidia and ATI have non free drivers just as good as they make for windoze. Any commercial distribution of Linux will have those drivers and use them. Outside of gaming, I never notice the difference because processor speed over 400 MHz completely makes up for it for "normal" desktop applications. There will always be a few dumb hardware makers, like Broadcom, but avoiding their crap is as easy as taking it back and trading it in for another $20 NIC that works better anyway.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
For me, "hate" is not the correct term. Perhaps despise would more accurately reflect how I feel towards (m)icrosoft. I know their product is getting better, and what they have done as a company for the advancment of the technology has been as stated; "... a computer in every home ..." But I have 2 problems with (m)icrosoft; 1) They are like a plague, they keep spreading, and growing, and taking over everything. Hey Redmond!, Enjoy the empire you've got... Give others a chance! 2) Their history of how they got the way they are is highly questionable. From the illgotten gains of their original hit product (w)indows, which was not of their creation, but of their duplication. And all the smaller companies who were forced out of business by them, legally or not. Not to mention the EGO of Mr. Gates himself in the early years of (m)icrosoft. TIP #2 Redmond, there will always be someone else who is better and faster then you. Once one has accepted that, one can be at peace with one's self and one's selfworth.
Here is what (m)icrosoft needs to do;
Put out products that work, not "works as designed." Use some common sense. We don't want to patch and upgrade every day.
Clean up your your image. Work honestly and ethically.
That's my (R)eport (A)bout (N)egative (T)hings
Auger Duval.
--AD
Being a computer tech, I am routinely exposed to a variety of different hardware running everything from Window 95 to Vista; XP being the OS of choice. I object to the sense I get that MicroSoft thinks everybody is a Pirate stealing a product that they sold to begin with. So they pile on layer after layer of convoluted software routines to prove that the software is "Genuine". A it takes is one bit to stray and a $200 OS is toast. My typical customer usually misplaces, loses, or is never shipped a Restore disk or the OS in the first place from the vendor. After a dozen of so virii tears up their OS, and a Repair or clean installation is in order. I hold my breathe every time I boot initially, hoping that some deeply embedded routine will not ask for a 100 digit number to enable this or that. Microsoft reminds me of Government at all levels. They should have stuck to their roots, producing a simplified product for a reasonable price and not trying to create a never ending revenue stream.
I'm sure this has been said a couple of hundred times by now, but I just want to add myself to the list...
I don't like Microsoft because they sell overpriced bloatware and can't play nice with others. It's that simple.
I hate them even more now as Vista and several security updates for Windows XP and Server 2003 continue to take more control away from me, as a sysadmin and user, and the users I'm responsible for. Most recently- Internet Exploder 7 completely hosed our Terminal Server implementation by overriding our Group Policies to reset the home page and default security settings. Our users couldn't get into critical Web applications, and we lost many man-hours trying to fix the problems this created.
It's bad enough when hackers/crackers can "own" someone's PC- well guess what- now it seems Microsoft is trying to. When lack of a stable Internet connection or one of probably hundreds of other glitches with Windows can completely disable someone's computer- that's a problem. Every time Microsoft patches things, it also seems more and more "3rd Party" applications stop working right. Microsoft wants to own your PC and wants you to buy ALL of your software from them, or their overpriced partners with bad or nonexistent technical support. They also essentially force people to shell out a lot of $$ on hardware and software just so they can stay with supported operating systems and software.
Lastly- I have hated them with a passion after I spent several thousand dollars and many months of studying and training to get MCSE certified (NT)- only to have my certification dropped less than a year later. Yes- I could have spent lots more $$ and time to upgrade my certification- but at that point I considered it a waste of money.
I run Windows on my corporate desktops because I have to. I run Linux at home and on almost all of my servers because I can, and I have no regrets. I've got Linux boxes that run for months and months at a time with no reboots or issues at all. I don't think I have ever seen a Windows server run for more than two weeks without needing a reboot, either due to lock-ups or other problems (which, of course, M$ blames on 3rd party applications), or because of Windows Update. And Windows' sorry-ass "Event" logger (compared to the excellent logging system in Linux) often doesn't even report what the problem is. Oh- and I am talking about very expensive high-end Dell servers, not something I cobbled together from spare parts. Although- I do have several Linux boxes I HAVE cobbled together from spare parts that probably need to be rebooted 2-3 times a year at most...
Caldera subpoenad a large number of Microsoft emails and the attitude displayed in them is just reprehensible. They didn't want to compete on merits, or provide a better product. They just wanted to win, regardless of their own merit in the marketplace.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Because my work computer turned off in the middle of the night while running a job, because Microsoft REALLY WANTS THOSE UPDATES INSTALLED!
Vote for global prefs bug
I'm just fine with Bill Gates.
I don't much care for Microsoft.
I HATE windows.
Because they lobby along with the music and movie industries to enforce DRM.
They want to control what you can see and hear, hell, they want to control everything. If that's not a Sith move I don't know what would be.
Linux = Freedom.
I hate Microsoft as much as I hate Nike, Coca-Cola, PC-architecture, Qwerty Keyboards, Ethernet, Ikea and Holywood Blockbusters. I hate product dominance, not leaving any worthy alternatives left. I preferably buy "stuff" from small companies, which I abandon as these get big. I also personally think that if 90% of people are using something, it cannot be good, because most people are stupid, uninfomed and have little time to inform themselves about other possible products which may fit their needs in a better way.
So go against the flow, ignore commercials, fight the big ones, make sure no product (or comapny) ever reaches the 5% of the market share.
Bye
Microsoft, counter to Steve Balmer's bluster, actually KILLS innovation in the market! After reading all the comments on this, it occurred to me that was the common theme -- and I must agree. They use their financial and market dominance to utterly crush any and all innovation; even internally!
First reason is strong arm bullying tactics. They make deals with companies to use their software at a very low price, as long as you don't use software from the competition. They may not be the first company to do this, but this is a violation of the antitrust act. They view almost anything else as a threat. MicroSloth is coming up with its own version of "Google Earth." They've made deals with Yahoo because they view Google as a threat. Why? I have no idea. The first version of Windows was delayed because it ran faster on IBM dos than MS dos. They delayed it to make it incompatable. The amount of patches they put out. If Windows were an inner tube, it would be so covered with patches that it would be unusable, and it would still leak. No wonder the new versions of Windows are so expensive. They have to pay for the patches some how. I'd love to blame MicroSloth for the death of the Amiga, but that was mostly Commodore's poor marketing strategy. If I want to use a computer at home, I can get a Mac, try to make Linux do what I need it to, or go with Windows. God I miss my Amiga. - Floyd
M$ is like a huge series of hurdles. I can never get all the M$ hurdles out of my way to develop anything decent.
I am a programmer, since 1987. The era of garage development, the heyday. Sure I bought compilers and tools then.
But now, look at M$ coding. DevStudio and MSDN cost THOUSANDS of dollars and thats before you've created ANYTHING.
In the late 90's M$ just became so openly hostile to all the developers. And their tools stink, very clunky.
Linux on the other hand, free to download and try. The dev tools are free. Emacs, Vi, and most anything else you want to try usually work very well. So after a few hours work all the hurdles are cleared away and you are ready to make the next great game or business app.
But what I guess gripes me most is the M$ people like yourself who think that DevStudio and C# are THE GREATEST thing ever. Yet you've never EVEN TRIED emacs or eclipse or kdev or vi or well, anything. But I have done both sides for years, and Linux still has the edge in dev tools.
In the corporate world what gripes me about M$ is that managers and staff use the stuff in really weird ways. Heres an example that happens here everyday:
1. use webmail to see email (cause i am in linux)
2. open message from secretary
3. msg says 'read the attached pdf'
4. open pdf
5. pdf contains a html link to corporate webpage
6. corporate webpage link points to a word doc
7. save word doc and open it.
8. docs says something really stupid, like "turn in your timecards at 2:10 pm not 2:15pm."
WTF went with plaintext emails???
They Live, We Sleep
Microsoft is just not an ethical company. I'm always shocked when people call what Microsoft does "just good business." I'm a capitalist and conservative but I don't consider calling up your competitors and threatening them "good business." Microsoft continually refuses to truly compete in the market. The only time they do is when they are forced to (read: are unable to successfully gain any leverage on the competition). I recall during the early does of the DOJ case when a small startup's CEO noted a call he got from a Microsoft executive. He said the guy got on the phone and asked about the product they were developing. Then said something like, "Well you need stop development because we already have something in the works and you'll never get this to market." I don't remember the whole quote but I remember how chilling it was. The man had a co-worker in his office and when he got off the phone the guy asked "Who was that?" and he replied, "The neighborhood bully."
Excellent points; concise, yet exhaustive. I might only add that the only reason Microsoft still gets so much business is because you can't teach millions of people to use a different OS or word processor all at once. I bet even Bill Gates hates microsoft to some degree also (now), probably the way Tchaikovsky disliked the Nutcracker Suite...
Here's Why.
Back in the day, I LOVED DOS. In fact, I still love DOS. It's simple, and straight to the point. Windows, however, has never had a place in my heart. Yet, that has nothing to do with the company itself. My most used applications (not games) were DOS (5/6) and MSWorks. A great OS, with a great application. I even defended Microsoft to my friends during the whole 'DriveSpace corruption' scandal. I never had a problem with DriveSpace, and faithfully used every single revision of DOS 6. I was a happy camper. Even used Windows 3.0 in High School without too much complaining :) Really, my main fault with Windows was that games and Telix for DOS ran like crap on it - you had to do some major tweaking to get that full 2400baud out of the com ports for two modems ;) One of my fondest memories of HS was sitting in the school office for a couple hours 'researching colleges' by playing a copy of solitaire they left in the original Windows install directory on the network.
Then came Windows 95. At the time, I had been a tech at Best Buy for a year. OS/2 had been released, and as a tech, it was my duty to learn that OS to support the customers. Holy Crap - it ROCKED! 4 copies of Descent running simultaneously - in 320x200 windows!?!? Proportioned properly to the rest of the OS desktop?! WOW!
"Hey MS Rep - OS/2 has these templates for creating specific DOS/Windows sessions - will Win95 have that?"
"We're not answering any questions about Win95."
"Errr"
Months later....Maybe June "Hey MS Rep - OS/2 has a flat memory model, so hoever much memory I need for whatever type of app I'm running is available. If I have two DOS apps that require 500k of conventional memory, OS/2 can run them both! How does Win95 handle that?"
"We're not answering any questions about Win95."
"What?"
"Sorry"
In August, Win95 is released... 'No More DOS!' - WTF? Any moron can see it's still DOS and Windows, they just put up an animated GIF.
MS Rep shows up - avoids techs, goes to the sales floor "Whatever the customer needs, memory, HD, CPU, Sell them Windows 95 - It will take care of it all!"
So much for not talking about Win95.
That was when my eyes were opened. Sure, Win95 still sucked, and MS didn't have an answer for OS/2 until Win2k came out - at which time, most apps were Windows apps anyways. But the point is, the company will tell the customer ANYTHING to make the sale. I saw the same rep at CompUSA a couple months later, spewing total BS about Office. I should have said something, but I knew it was pointless. Just look at all the fanboy mags - my favorite was PCComputing (or WindowsComputing). Before I threw them away, I probably had 5 covers that said "New Windows xx!!! NEVER REBOOT AGAIN!!" Or the editor saying "We're a PC magazine, we don't review OS/2 or Novell products because that's not what the customer's want." Umm, so people read the magazine reviews about products they've ALREADY bought? Sorry - I'm getting in the land of the paranoid here, but it just seems to all fit too nicely.
I even have a 'Get Warped' 2'x3' poster from Best Buy that was never hung up. I always wonder if there was some sort of politics behind that...
Now, as an IT Manager, I do not immediately count out Microsoft Products. I need to evaluate everything that's available that will fit the needs of MY customer - the end user. Obviously, the viability of the company is included - and a company that I cannot trust, does not score high on that scale.
I run Debian Sid. My user's run WinXP. My file/print/directory server is Netware. My app servers are Linux. I have a Mac for Photoshop/Illustrator/Quark.
IMHO, trying to force-feed any one vendor for all your needs just bad policy to begin with, and because of what I've seen from Microsoft, they aren't the first place I look for a solution.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Everybody hates MS because they are jealous player haters. jealous of the money that could've been theres if they were smart enough and know that protecting their IP rather than 'sharing for the sake of humanity' is actually a bad choice.
My basic problem with Microsoft is consistency. I am what you could call a card-carrying Microsoft dot whore, that is, Microsoft products are what put bread on my table. Yet at home both of my PCs are Macs, the only windows PC is company issued.
What I mean with consistency is that Microsoft has proved to me that they can deliver fantastic work. I have owned both generations of the Xbox, and I really like Visual Studio 2003 and 2005, plus of course SQL Server. Windows 2003 is not bad at all. The problem is that this is the same company that produces IE, XP, MS Office, Vista and other nightmares.
Microsoft is so big that it cannot take advantage of all of these cool projects built in-house. I would have taken the Xbox 360 and Visual Studio folks and have them show the other divisions how the hell they got their stuff done, and see if the others can learn from them.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
I simply and utterly hate microsoft(Deliberate lowercase m) . I have xboxes I hate zunes I hate windows I hate their underhanded marketing tactics their market share just everything about them. Their demise has been too long delayed.
Whenever an entity becomes to big, or powerful or ubiquitous in the US at least they become hated.
Who doesn't hate the Yankees, or the Cowboys or Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan?
Overexposure can breed contempt. (Yes I know the real phrase.)
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com
Look i dount hate microsoft i just dislike the way who they make standarts. If they whould ude open and free standarts it whold be better fore eveyone. One exemple is mp3. No Microsoft think we most have a other standart "our standart" so they creadet wma epeccialy to control "drm". A other exemple is the webbrowser. They didnt try to ship a operatingsystem without explorer. No it has to be integrated bye them in the operatingsystem. Can you ansverm me while you need internetexplorer 5 in windows 95 to have USB support? Apple let us the change untill macos 10.3 than they bulid in safari. Bu tye didn't made it to have the market like microsoft. They build it while there was upset that nobody could build a fast webbrowser. Ok linux (KDE) have konkerer but thats even a open standart browser and the fight about webbrowser was done when linux integrated the browser. A thirth exemple and the last from my side is office. Ok microsofts office was made when the computer was wery easy so it was a good innovation when tey made the dokumentstandart. Even if i think that "rtf" format is a better standart than doc i will agree it works good with doc, xls and ppt. The only problem is just that microsoft make allt time problems that people cant open the "new" dokument standarts of a "new" version of office by a other program than word, exel or powerpoint especially word. I Think thats wrong. I can agree the standart and the formats who microsoft made but not the way who they handle the standarts. while there use them to change the market and make that a easy user most have microsoft to use all toose things even if the person have no money to buy it.
In every enterprise setup I've worked in, I'm constantly seeing 4x-8x the amount of machines and hardware needed to support a business service in Microsoft shops. Maybe this is because of the admin's and project manager's lack of understanding between what the vendor says it can do on a given platform, and what you can really make it do. I still recall running over a million email accounts on Netscape/Sun and watching Microsoft's ISP email solution falter under a 250k load.
It could very well be like Cisco. Cisco tends to teach through their CCDP & CCNP tracks their marketing aspect of network design. However, their products if used properly scale well beyond the levels at which the sales people say they operate at.
So, I would say that Microsoft shops suffer from both incompetence in implementation, bean counters pushing technical decisions, and customers being sold through deceptive means. Caveat Emptor!
...everyone hates Microsoft? If you've asked everyone you missed me and I don't hate Microsoft any more then I hated the neighbors dog for biting me on the ass after I teased it. Biting is what dogs are built to do and squeezing as much out of the consumer is what sellers, like Microsoft, exist to do.
That may seem like a bad thing but capitalist greed-mongering should be viewed in context, just like a dog-bite on the ass.
The context is societies in which capitalism is actively suppressed. They're identifiable by people not complaining about them in a public forum like, oh, Slashdot because those sorts of societies don't overlook criticism and people living in those societies know it.
What all that means is that I don't approve of some of Microsoft's business practices but the cost to society of getting rid of Microsoft is much higher then the cost of any harm Microsoft might inflict on society.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Microsoft products fail to meet expectactions and there is no alternative available out there for the standard user. If it was easy to use an alternative it would be seen that in most cases the alternative is no better. This would difuse the hatred. But because the average person must use the Microsoft,
if the computer becomes viris infested
if word eats a document
if DRM does not let someone copy a home video
it is all Microsoft's fault.
It there was an alternative. One could be happy the Microsoft screwed up less than the competition. Then Microsoft would be seen as the saviour.
This assumes that Microsoft would be able to produce a product better than the competition.
No matter how good something is. If that is all that is available it will be blamed for everything.
((ok no rants about Linux as an alternative here, the average home user, the average office users do not have Linux or OpenOffice available))
If Microsoft was really confident they would push people to try Linux and OpenOffice. Then come back when it failed to meet all expectations. "If you love something, set it free".
What a monopoly a company must have if it can introduce it's own stupid keys on the keyboard, and everyone copies them, in effect, making it impossible to buy a 102-key keyboard? When this happened I wanted to nuke Microsoft, eradicate that bunch of assholes off the earth.
Of course, they did a lot of other bullshit, shoddy products, idiot implementations of good ideas (ACLs), idiot implementations of idiot ideas (PPTP) idiot details (backslash as directory delimiter? Obviously they've never programmed C) and so on, but a lot of these don't concern me, since I can easily evade it by using Unix/Linux. But the 105-key Keyboard I can't.
Plus, on the non-technical side, they behaved like the assholes they are. Bullies.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
If you know the history of MS, you already know that MS and its senior management are liars, cheats and thieves - it's documented and has been legally proved, in court.
Liars:
Bill gates told Paul Brainerd of Aldus to cancel Aldus' nearly-complete "Flintstone" wordprocessor for Windows because, Gates claimed, Word for Windows was about to ship. So Aldus threw away the code, wasted the effort and lost a powerful position in the market: first Windows WP, from the company that produced the excellent PageMaker DTP program. It hasn't been started yet. This is one major corporate CEO personally deceiving another, for personal and corporate gain.
Ask Aldus - but you can't. Its flagship products were bought out by Adobe and it went out of business.
Thieves:
MS stole the code of "DoubleSpace" (later renamed DriveSpace) from STAC's product Stacker. MS had been "evaluating" Stacker for inclusion in MS-DOS 6. Stac rejected the offered licensing terms; MS took the code anyway (MS-DOS 6.0). Stac sued, proved the code was copied, and won $200M. MS remove it (MS-DOS 6.21), rewrote the sections that were shown to be direct copies, renamed the product, and kept on going (MS-DOS 6.22).
Ask Stac - but you can't. It's gone out of business. With an admitted direct copy of its flagship product given away free with MS-DOS 6 and Windows 95, it went under.
Cheats:
MS compelled Central Point to license CP AntiVirus and CP Backup for inclusion in MS-DOS 6, under the sort of terms Stac rejected. (Do it, or we'll write our own versions anyway. No, you don't get any ongoing payment, but you can sell your version as a premium upgrade product.) Low one-off payment, all rights, no royalties, no comeback. It also knocked together an undelete utility, a defragmenter and a basic graphical file manager/program launcher based on IBM's DOSShell from PC DOS 4.0, thus giving away for free all Central Point's main products - Backup, Antivirus and PC Tools.
Ask Central Point how good the deal was for them. But you can't. They've gone under.
Cheats again:
MS hired the same team to write Video for Windows as Apple had used to write QuickTime's code for video playback in a window. The programmers did it the same way. Apple sued. Apple won.
Remember MS' $150M "investment" in Apple a few years back? No investment. That was another lie. It was punitive damages.
Cheats yet again:
MS wrote specific code into Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups to make it generate spurious errors if run on DR-DOS 6. Windows 3.1 actually worked fine on DR-DOS - better than on MS-DOS - but MS wanted to kill the competition, so it wrote routines to detect DR DOS, obfuscated the code and actively hid it in the Windows loader program, WIN.COM. DR sued and proved this in court. An acquaintance of mine, Geoff Chappel, was an expert witness, deconstructing and showing the code and the efforts to hide it.
DR went under. The product rights were sold to Caldera. Caldera continued to sue, and eventually won. But it was too late. Windows 95 included DOS, even though Caldera got it running just fine on DR-DOS in the labs, so you couldn't sell people DOS any more.
And cheats still!
You know what Caldera is doing now? It renamed itself SCO and is suing, well, anyone using Linux. E.g., IBM. Guess who funds this? Microsoft.
You could look at the petty, childish efforts to derail Sun's Java by adding proprietary incompatible extensions to the Windows Java Virtual Machine and then encouraging developers to use them (Visual J ). Then renaming the JVM to the MS VM, then dropping it altogether. This is not a company that cares about its customers. It cares about profits and killing the competition by any means possible, fair or foul, legal or illegal. It can afford to be sued, it can afford to buy off aggrieved competitors, and it's so big and so successful that it knows that the US government daren't touch it or
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)
It all began on an 8088 machine...when new versions of DOS were popping up faster than they could perfect the earlier one, not to mention they kept hitting the market before they were perfected. No other industry could stay in business with such shoddy workmanship.
Add to this the monopoly of OS on the market, and the choices are few, use the beast or don't use a computer.
If one OS maker were to perfect the OS prior to release? Woa, look out!
Because its the uber trendy thing to do...
:)
:)
Current trendy things
1. Drive to Starbucks in your Acura/Honda/Toyota "hip" suv listening to your Ipod.
2. Go to starbucks and use your laptop
3. listen to your ipod at starbucks while using your laptop
4. Listen to your ipod at starbucks while using your laptop and bash microsoft from your Mac
5. Bemoan how MS is the evil on slashdot... and think your so much "wiser" than the little people...
MS has a monopoly and uses it as leverage...
And guess what? so does ANY large company. Apple, IBM, Adobe, Symantec, Intel etc, etc.
You people are so jaded you turn blind eyes to the thousands of lawyers their "competitors" have. They arent there to play nice.
It's called big business, MS is good at it.
Your a fool if you somehow think any of these large corporations would play "NICE" given the leverage MS has. If you think you write a better OS, GET TO CODING
If IBM can write a better OS... Oh wait they tried that with 0S/2... Apple just stole Unix because it couldn't write one...
Theres a whole bunch of stuff going on in this thread...
Greed, envy, lust, and a WHOLE LOT OF narcissists...
I meet people all the time who are too uninformed to blame Microsoft for the many ills it has caused. When I mention that it is a convicted monopolist, that is nearly the end of the discussion. They weren't convicted of child molesting, so it can't be that bad.
Pretty much any white collar crime, from Ken Lay on down the line seems to net a shrug of the shoulders from people who feel that most white collar criminals can tapdance their way down to a manageable penalty and move on. So why waste energy on it?
I used to think we needed a monopolist "death penalty," to stimulate opposition to the worst of them. But now I fear that even that is not enough. Only one group per era can be really hated by the public, the witches / communists / child molesters / terrorists. Now I think the only hope to rid ourselves of the cancer that is Microsoft is to demonize them to the same degree as these other groups. And, who knows, maybe they'll be a rotting carcass before people can be adequately educated both in economics and computer science.
Just the monoculture they developed through what amounts to cheating early on.
Having one system everywhere makes them feel obliged to implement *Every* feature possible, and not necessarily well.
That leads to eternal bugs and their exploits, and a lack of quality that is only covered by the fact they have the source and can make it all run faster than anybody else.
That said, they do make some decent products.
Office (shutup) succeeded not because they copied Corel, but because they were better at selling it.
Their mice happen to be the most reliable I've ever used.
Active Directory, quirks aside, is quite easier to learn and work with than Novell(Novell may have improved since then)
Everybody needs updates, especially corporations, and WSUS is a good way to handle that.
I went to microsoft.com, and looked up the EULA for a package of their software that I ws thinking about buying. It looked OK, so I bought it. Microsoft then asked me to agree to a license after I buy software that was totally different. I tried to get my money back, and they had me fired for piracy.
While I was out of work, I tried to code on Wine95 so it will run PowerPoint97, and Microsoft hires the BSA to go with the SS (Secret Service) and FBI to raid my home. Have you ever come home from college classes to see a SS agnet holding your mom on the ground, while another SS agent holds a gun to her head? I have. They said that Office97 EULA prevented Office from being run on anything other than a licensed MS OS.
I got rid of that legal mess, despite being unable to sue due to corrupt judges & courts, then I decided to sell my MS shelf-ware. I listed it on ebay, with a $1 opening bid. The auctions are closed for piracy. WTF? I write some legal letters, and find that it is eBay's policy not to allow any auctions of MS software that opens below the retail value. (PRICE FIXING!) This was unopened full retail boxes software that had been given to me as prizes at a few competitions. There was no restriction on my transferring it.
I was still looking for a job, and DMCA notices took down my resumes.
After 4 years part time, I got a full time job teaching college computer classes, and have to work with MS software. Among other niceties, an isntall of 2003 server will be owned before it finishes running Windows update. XP can not defrag it's own hard disk, and can not run a basic NAT setup on some versions. There are so many licensing restrictions that you can not use the S/W. Vista can not run in a VM unless you buy the $300 version. I promise we will never train with VISTA until MS allows every version to run in a VM. MS' OSes will not run on Live discs legally. (How silly!) It just is not licensed in a way that allows it to be used.
Yes, I hate MS. I handed out oever 1,000 knoppix dvds and cds in the last year. Microsoft's share holders are the owners of the company, and they are responsible for the abuses I have suffered.
Andy Out!
Note sure if this will get modded up but here goes.
Microsoft is to me what is one of the worst sides of capitalism. Yes, Microsoft has, and I'm sure does continue, to do some great things. But since they've gotten to a size where they control the market I do not get a sense (and my perception may be faulty) that they really play well or gently with others. The world does not exist for corporations. The United States, U.N., Real Estate, and language itself did not come into existence so that Microsoft can derive large amounts of profit for intangible products.
But yet at every turn that Microsoft is threatened it will move heaven and earth to have its way. United States, international go to boy if it feels its market share is going down the tubes. U.N./WTO must have Microsoft designed DRM and IP laws woven in or Microsoft doesn't want to play. Real Estate, an out their example, yet I remember in the hayday of the 90's when they were touting that NT would be woven into routers (I still shudder at the thought) MSN (i.e. Microsoft) was even looking at getting into the Real Estate market taking over existing real estate information systems, offerings, and even brokers.
If M$ was really this simple cute cuddly thing that really cared about its customers, and not their continued payment to M$ until the end of time, I might judge them less harshly. Since I use linux exclusively I don't see their innovations only their excesses as they continue time and time again to not cooperate, but sublimate everything they can into a paradigm of their making for their profit. But time and time again I don't see M$ putting itself at the interest of customers I see it bashing through the world like a drunken has-been knocking this over and wanting the world to forgive their excesses cuz "I'm Microsoft, bitch."
At every turn when M$ gains any market advantage they use the time tried tools of obfuscation and lock in to stifle innovation. They make no apologies, they're a corporation, we don't expect them too. Investors don't expect them too. So they don't. And then when they finally do get around to implementing something, that frankly I've had under Linux for years, expect the world to lavish them with even more money for being cunning thieves. Great job if you can get it.
That's why it's not as simple, for me, to be OS agnostic. Linux exists not because it was the better tool, it only thrives when its the better tool. It exists because I, and a whole bunch of other people, want it to exist. At every turn M$ would be ecstatic if Linux failed or they could subvert it. How can you truly be even neutral for a company that in the end wants complete and utter control of every market in every industry it feels it can gobble up or dominate? Maybe after Balmer retires and they refocus on a few things rather than potentially $EVERYTHING$ I might be more forgiving but I don't trust their agenda, wisdom or lack of humility and frankly don't believe I ever will.
An elite man's ego trip does not deserve my dollars or contribution and frankly that's all I see M$ as being.
May the above be of value to you. For what it's worth I always espouse folks use the technology that works for them best. Linux does everything I could want and then some in a fashion I quite enjoy. To each their own. Well wish to ya!
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
It's not even an exhaustive list of horrible things MS has done. It's not even an exhaustive list of horrible things MS did during the case (e.g. faking video evidence).
And the fact that they got away scott free when Bush came into office doesn't make me feel any better about them either.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Seriously. People like Darth Vader. I hear some Microsoft fanbois speaking wistfully of Microsoft's ability to crush the competition by leveraging an illegal monopoly and toothless DOJ. Sometimes they even do Darth's heavy breathing. Or maybe that's just my interpretation of their heavy breathing.
Microsoft is doing massive lobbying in order to legalize Software & Business methods patents in Europe (let it be clear patents on ideas in order to prevent free competition from SMEs). Even worst when lobbying the UE, Microsoft or their associated organisations (BSA and the like) pretend to do it in the name of European SMEs (bloody liars).
Microsoft is doing everything possible in ordrer to avoid open standards to emerge (web, doc) in order to avoid free competition. And now that they are forced to "openXML" their doc format" they plan to refuse real interoperability to non windows users via the "trusted computing thing".
Microsoft deals with major PC manufacturers conduct them to refuse to refund the consumers refusing the microsoft tax when buying a PC (Windows & Office OEM licences in marketing words).
Microsoft manager liked to insult free software goals and users (communists, anarchists).
I hope you know legacy is the cream of the computer market. Intel got rich off it, Microsoft got rich off it, many more continue to get rich off it. Windows is stuck in a trap security and speed versus legacy. I know of many companies porting to linux because vista does not support some of their applications. Microsoft is going to lose a big market with vista just as many PC/mobo manufacturers lose big orders to companies because of lack of ps/2 or rs232 or isa (in extremes). Development of software continues to cost alot and redevelopment is enough for some companies to drop a product completely at huge cost. Vista will not be supported in my workplace for at least 10 years because thats how long it would take to redevelop the entire system, a real-time life and death system with alot of terminals for a huge number of different users. This is microsft's big gamble in trying to ditch some legacy for security and speed will they win? Only time will tell.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The primary issue that I have with Microsoft products is that the company releases them while in a stage that most every other company on earth would still consider to be in BETA testing. Then, the consumers are used to report bugs, flaws, dangerous security holes, and patches are released at untimely (albeit regular) intervals. The other big issue is that I have documents going back to MS Word 5.5 (old DOS version), and although all have that MS DOC extension, none of them are compatible because of the binary bits at the beginning of each file. So, unreadable files. Recent activity by Microsoft leaves a bad flavor in the mouth not because of their products, but because of the politics and bullying the company does to try to maintain the status quo; instead of producing a product that everyone will want, the company simply makes their products incompatible - often hostile, refusing to coexist peacefully - with every other product on the market. My opinions...
Microsoft has set the entire computer industry back by pushing inferior products. Thanks to Windows people *expect* computers to crash and to have to fiddle for days before they can get something to work.
This is a very long story, but I'll try to condense it in the hopes that someone will bother reading it. I worked on a project for several oil companies, and my job was to produce a 3D crane simulator to train crane operators on the cheap. The client's machines were Windows NT 4, and there was no upgrade planned for years. I did research on what was the best way to accomplish accelerated 3D under Windows NT (This was in the old days before everyone and their grandma had accelerated 3D!)
It looked like OpenGL might fit the bill, but all of the developers around me were "Microsoft Guys" and I was nervous about taking the plunge and failing. Hardware acceleration wasn't exactly "there". Since my company was a top-tier Microsoft Solution provider, I got on the horn with some of the guys on the DirectX team, and they recommended that I use DirectX 5. They said that it was in the pipe and days away from release on NT4. Microsoft wouldn't lie, right? So we used Win95/DirectX as our development platform, under the solid assurance from Microsoft's DirectX team that DirectX5 would be released for NT4.
So, a few months into the project, the simulator was complete. It was pretty sweet, running hardware accelerated, and the collision detection was great. So, now we're just waiting on that DirectX5 for NT 4! The DirectX team told me that it was gold, and they were just waiting on Captain Bill's orders to release it.
That week Bill announced that DirectX5 was not going to be released for NT4. (Now that I think about it, I might have my Windows versions messed up...Was it 3.5? I can't remember, suffice to say, it was the version of Windows my client was running!) This was purely a marketing decision, aimed at artificially forcing people to upgrade their version of Windows. Unfortunately, oil companies are not going to mplement a company-wide upgrade of Windows for my software, so I was screwed. After the DirectX team themselves promised me that they were about to release for NT4 -- after THEY talked me out of OpenGL because it was not the Windows "standard", I was royally screwed. No DirectX 5. We had to back-port to DirectX3 and the BEST part was that it wasn't hardware accelerated. The 3D ran in software. We would have been better off writing our own freaking rendering engine.
The back port took 3 months. We had already finished the project, and been paid all we were going to get. This was in the startup phase of my new company. We had to work for three months with no income because Microsoft lied to us. Not only that, their API sucked so much that porting from 5 to 3 took three months.
The simulator was released, and the performance was so bad that we couldn't spare any cycles for collision detection. The simulator was a pale shadow of what it was supposed to be.
Fast forward: After my company tanked because of this event, I ported the simulator over to OpenGL just to see. It took a week, and ran accelerated in the version of Windows that my client had. Had I gone with a non-Microsoft solution that project would have succeeded, and my Partner would still be working with me instead of hanging out with hotties in San Francisco and bragging that he's a programmer on Tomb Raider.
That's why I hate Microsoft with every molecule in my body.
"I actually do pay great attention to human interface and utility when I design something."
:)
I kind of wish you had taken such consideration when writing your post. Paragraphs please.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
My biggest problem with Microsoft is that they have fundamentally shaped the meme of computing to the detriment of everyone.
They have taught the world that computers and computer programs are finicky, fragile, confusing, and unreliable. They have managed to convince people that its OK for a program to crash on a regular basis, that its normal to have to reboot your computer on a daily basis, and that when things don't work right, that's just how computers are.
They have lowered the bar to so many disciplines through their software, and nearly single-handedly destroyed the truism of "The right tool for the job" by filling their flagship applications with numerous ill-conceived features and capabilities that reach so far beyond the abilities of their user-base that we now have a business environment where a secretary is expected to be a graphic designer using a word processor and to use a spreadsheet to build databases.
you must be really new here.
If it was up to Apple, they would be still on slow powerpc chips but it was the competition in the PC world that finally made them see the light. And you have to thank Microsoft for at least part of that.
That's not a very good example. If I recall, Apple chose to drop their legacy OS and switch to OS X. They also cose to switch to an Intel platform, not because they preferred the powerpc chips, but to get the performance and power consumption levels they required, they couldn't do it with their current platform.
It seems that Apple is willing to look at where they want to be down the road and make the changes to get there instead of throwing more and more resources in maintaining the status quo. What you see as a negative, many see as a positive.
Simple question really
Microsoft made everything so dumb proof, they have allowed n00bs to use a computer without having to learn anything. In that act they promoted stupidity and inneficiency. Not to mention that all their errors messages are like "Something not working, contact your administrator.", they never discribe the problem as they should, so the person can look into the problem himself instead they call me right away. And all this promotion of the "none thinking society" as made people even more stupid, lowered the average IQ etc etc. And now everytime some1 calls me to fix thier comp. and have to do it for free and explain what im doing(bane of my existance right there) because it's a member of my immediate family, I think of Microsoft who made O.S.'s. for people who shoulden't use them. I mean, how would you like it if your country allowed people(i mean every1 aged from 5 to 125, blind or not) to drive without a drivers license and you have to repair every1's car for free, on your spare time!!! You'd be pretty angry at some politians woulden't you be? To top it all, see it this way, everytime I do support some1 and I witness stupidity in all it's glory, I mean I once told some1 over the phone to close all opened windows, and he got up, placed the phone down and went to close all the windows around the house, or I tell some1 to look for an icon on his desktop and I hear paper moving, It makes me lose faith in humanity!!!!!!! I'm pretty sure that the rise in the past 10 years of schools shooting and people snapping out and going on an homicidal rage with AK47s can be blamed on M$.
My reason for not liking MS is simple: They don't open up their APIs. If you truly want your OS to have the best software possible you should let the world know what programming interfaces exist in your application. A few years back, before .net, we were all stuck using an API called MFC to make front-ends and a lot of other minor tasks.
Now you can get their APIs, provided you first sign an agreement that you're in bed with MS. I do think this is a major step up, but would prefer them to keep them open.
I can care less if they're anti-GNU or if they try to put FUD into companies. If I can code with an open API on windows if I choose I would actually respect Microsoft.
They deliberately sabotage other products and it has cost me personally as a developer. Then, there is the security issue where repeated assurance is shown false time and time again. In the long run, any time spent learning their system is a waste.
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products." - Steve Jobs
First let me set the stage -- I've been working with Microsoft products since the DOS and Windows 3.1 days, and up until NT 4.0 I still had a somewhat high opinion of them. Oh, I still liked the Mac, but if you wanted to get anything *done*, you used a PC. After some time spent knocking around network admin and tech support jobs, I got a job as a hardware/software reviewer for a trade publication. I got to meet the managers from Microsoft that were developing Office, Exchange, Windows 2K, and all the rest of it. I also talked to a number of other vendors. I then went into the lab, and per my job, started to try and break stuff. Microsoft's products were almost too easy to break, and there always seemed to be this huge disconnect between the products the Microsofties talked about and what actually got delivered. This is always true to some degree with any vendor, but MS was especially bad. I still remember that during my three years at that publication, we gave only one failing grade (an F - meaning it wouldn't work at all) and that was to MS Exchange 4.5. It was getting so that if you wanted to get anything *done*, you couldn't use Microsoft.
Since then, I've moved on to a number of other fields including graphic and web design -- and this is where Mr. Jobs quote comes in. Microsoft's stuff looks like crap, it acts like crap, and hell it even sounds like crap -- which I guess makes it crap. Add into that their boneheaded insistence on "embrace but extend" in terms of standards -- meaning they make up what they want to and to hell with everyone else -- and you have an OS and software that is difficult to use as you have to mouse with one hand and hold your nose with the other.
Microsoft had its moment in the sun (and an opportunity to really create revolutionary products), but they have allowed themselves to be outpaced in usability, innovation, and adoption of standards. Sure, they have a hell of a lot of inertia that will keep them going for years, but they ceased being a shaper of things to come sometime after NT 4 came out. Nowadays when someone asks me what to buy or what OS to run, I have to recommendations. If they're my parents, grandparents, or someone I might get a call from to provide them computer support, I tell them to buy an Apple. If it is someone who actually wants to tinker, customize, and otherwise be on their own, I tell them to get the Linux distro of their choosing (personally I think Ubuntu is a nice entry level one, but YMMV).
I cannot suggest strongly enough that you get the book "Microsoft Secrets" and read it. It's not a hatchet-job; it's a thorough description of how their processes worked some years ago. Then think about the results of combining their system for rapidly producing vast quantities of mediocre software with marketing and business practices that are hyper-aggressive, often unethical, and sometimes illegal.
If I ran a company and I had to pick an operating system for my employees, I would go with MacOS X; if I were to develop software as an application service provider (e.g., developing web-based applications) I would choose Linux; if I were a desktop application developer I would choose Windows; and as a user, both at work and at home I prefer Windows, because it has the best multimedia, gaming, and productivity support. That is a fact that I cannot ignore at present; if that were to change in the near future, then I might reconsider my choices :)
Its kind of hard for any computer hobbyist not to have a bone to pick with Microsoft.
Microsoft 'ported' a copy of Basic to some minicomputers, and when some hobbyists started copying it, Bill Gates put a n article/letter in Creative Computing that basically called them all thieves.
It kind of went downhill from there, with Microsoft bringing buisness skills and ruthless tactics to what a lot of hackers enjoyed as a hobby. Gearheads think you should be rewarded according to your innovations as opposed to business skills. Microsoft was more of an innovator from the business side of things.
And that about sums it up.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
I am no big fan of propritary software. And a propritary world is a f****** nightmare! Matrix go home! We are all slaves of Microsoft in the real world! Follow the penquin!
I could go into the disorganized way that things are arranged in windows to illustrate my point. I had to set up a wireless network the other day and the screens you need to access are distributed around various parts of the admin tools that are none to intuitive. But the case that I'd really like to bring up would have to be one of my biggest pet peeves about microsoft products: Word. Not really anything in particular, just the whole damn program. I cringe whenever a professor or a job has asked for anything in word format, because I know it means nothing but suffering, and I think this points to the larger issue with Microsoft itself.
In an effort to stay ahead of the game and make Word the end all be all of word processing programs, the program has become so "feature rich" (ie, bloated) that without spending hours of figuring out how to set up the options (which does not work when you do work in a computer lab or on someone else's machine), the standard features often do more harm than good. From resumes to outlines, I've spent hours battling against Word trying to automatically format things that I don't want it to format. Selected characters' formats get transferred to whole pages that weren't selected, bullets get inserted where I just want a dash, and don't even get me started on their piss poor implementation of tables. They make me want to pull my hair out.
At this point, I end up using indesign or xpress to write a two page essay rather than trifling with word. It's like using a steamroller to flatten dough, but it's easier to get it done with that than to use the swiss-army rolling pin that is Word. My point is that Microsoft does not try to make good products. They try to make something that will usurp the competition. There eyes focus on the bottom line of their account books and those of their competitors, and not on their customers. As others before me have stated, I don't think this is a because of maliciousness on the part of the company. I'm sure that programmers are trying their best to come up with the best products. But the bloat of their software reflects the bloat of their design process.
When C compilers finally came out for the PC in the last half of the 1980s I was very pleased. I knew C from college and knew it would be better than the assembler code we had been writing. I managed to get copies of each C compiler as they were released Lattice, Manx Aztec, Borland. We had reworked some of our programs in C and were happy with the results. The programs were always as fast as the assembler programs and much easier to maintain. And all of the compilers were ANSI C compatible or close enough that with a few conditional blocks we could compile the same source on any of the compilers available. With all the things that could have happened in the PC industry we believed portability would allow us to quickly adapt. Portability is good, and is an essential characteristic of the C programming language. Once you had a C compiler for your platform you could port Megabytes of code to it. We only had 10 Mb HDDs so that was a whole lot back then.
Microsoft bought Lattice and reworked their product into the first Microsoft C compiler. At that time I respected Microsoft they put together high quality products. So we bought our copy right away and I set to work to make sure our programs would compile. They would not. And the changes required to make them compile prevented them from compiling with the other C compilers. After getting down the the essential problems I determined that Microsoft C was not ANSI C compatible. I think there was a conditional that helped to port ANSI C to Microsoft C, but it still required source code changes that prevented the program from compiling with any other C compiler.
I can't tell you how stunned I was by this. I knew they started with an ANSI C compiler. I could see that none of the changes they made were genuine improvements over ANSI C. The only explanation was that they had intentionally created an incompatible proprietary C language. If you wrote a program in Microsoft C porting to another platform or even another compiler was a major effort. Maybe I was just young and idealistic. Achieving the portability of the C programming language was a great accomplishment a true advancement in computer science. The idea that a company would discard these advancements and try to lock customers into it's platform was appalling. The greed and evil disregard for the progress of science was too much for my compassionate and charitable soul. I shelved the Microsoft C compiler and believed no other self respecting computer scientist would use such an abomination. I knew it would only be a matter of time before Microsoft realized nobody wanted that product and returned to the true spirit of the scientific community. I guess I am still waiting.
If I hate Microsoft it is when I think of what might have been. If the hardware and software vendors had held to well designed, open standards, if we still had source code portability (outside of POSIX), if HTML had not been used as a battleground, if we cooperated and solved common simple problems once and for everyone the state of computer science could have advanced much further then where we are today. For every good idea that has come out of Microsoft they have stomped on five more that they did not own or control.
It took a real world war to end the airplane's patent wars. - Fâché Rouge -
My first experience with Microsoft was a Windows 3.1 machine purchased circa 1990.
That is why I *hate* Microsoft.
Lets face it people are never going to agree on what is the os of choice. What it really comes down to is choice. Microsoft started the pc revolution in the home. I still use it and have since windows 3.0!! I also use Linux and love it. Each has its place on its prospective computer. I use linux for web browsing and email with Mozilla thunderbird and firefox. I use windows to do my taxes and edit pictures from my digital camera since my photo printer only works in windows so far. Plus I game on windows for the most part. I do play some games in Linux and I believe in time there will be more development in this area. The only problem I have with Microsoft is that they buy up their competitors or run them out of business. Then development stops on the aquired software. Don't get me started on internet exploder and the spyware tools. There will be a place for microsoft and any other os for anyone that wants it. It all comes down to choice and we should all appreciate that. I have never worked in a mac/apple system but I plan to sometime in the future. I am sure that system has its merits as well. For now I will run windows and linux and enjoy what each one has to offer.
Regarding business conduct...
- They are against free and fair competition.
- They disregard privacy.
- They patent the obvious.
- They attempt to restrict free speech.
- They restrict free and fair use.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm sure this will get lost in the noise, but my biggest problem with Microsoft is something that can almost be termed anti-competitive, but not against their competitors.
I previously worked for a company that created graphics chips for the PC. Our primary customers were PCs built for businesses for office use. Our business was good.
Then Microsoft decided to make 3-D graphics mandatory for all graphics chips. No, they don't dictate to 3rd parties what they should do. But they effectively do this when they tie their requirements to their Logo requirements. (For those who don't know, to get the Windows Logo ("Designed for Windows...") on your PC, the machine must pass a set of tests at Microsoft. The Logo wouldn't be all that important, except that along with it comes a huge savings on the O/S. Instead of full retail, something in the neighborhood of $35!)
Microsoft didn't say "hey, if you do 3-D and want it to work with Windows, this is the way we support." They said "you must have 3-D." They even dictated the minimum performance, which meant that a bare-bones solution (i.e. cheap) for us wouldn't help.
Our customers didn't care about 3-D. But they sure cared about that extra savings. So we had to scramble to hire a 3-D team to add it to our device. That serious budget and schedule hit, coupled with mismanagement on a number of other issues, resulted in the demise of the graphics chip team at that company.
----
So I had to move to another company. There we were working on a Modem. One of the requirements Microsoft added to their Logo program was for something called Distinctive Ring. (For those who don't know, you can get more than one phone line assigned to your phone. To tell which line is ringing, a different ring pattern is assigned to each line. So instead of just ring...ring...ring, you might hear ring, ring....ring, ring. The requirement was for the Modem to be able to distinguish between the different rings and decide whether to answer or not.) Well what fraction of a percent of people have multiple lines? And what fraction of that fraction have a modem attached to those phone lines? But every single Modem has to have this feature.
Again, Microsoft didn't say "if you want to add distinctive ring, here's how to do it so it will work with the O/S." They said "every Modem must have this feature."
----
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of competition. If our graphics chip company's customers wanted 3-D and we didn't provide it, we deserved to lose them as customers. If we provided it and it was too slow, then our penalty would have been lost revenue. But our customers specifically told us they didn't care about 3-D. And if we could have offered our devices for $1 less a chip than our competitors because we didn't include 3-D and they did, they'd have beat a path to our door.
And if the other company's Modem lacking Distinctive Ring meant we couldn't sell our Modem, that's Capitalism at work. But my guess is that if a customer even knew what Distinctive Ring was, and they really needed a Modem capable of handling it, they'd be willing to pay $5 or something to add the feature to a Modem. And that would offset the development cost of this feature.
But in both cases (and others I wasn't directly involved in, but which were similar), Microsoft chose to dictate the features that hardware vendors put into their hardware. They effectively removed our ability to differentiate from the competition. That's pretty close to the definition of anti-competitive. And they also removed our ability to balance budgets for features with demand. Basically, all those features had to be added for free, because every competing hardware vendor was doing it too.
Certainly Microsoft's goal is to bound their support. They want stability and to simplify their own implementations. But they flattened the landscape and drove some companies out of business.
Instead, if they had just said that IF the features were i
Yes, it is annoying that Microsoft collects $50 from every buyer of a computer, and that they do nearly no work to earn it. Vista and XP are no better than Win2000, which was nothing more than a bug fixed Win98. Win98 was a nice step forward from earlier software, though. But that pales in comparison to the evil done by software patents. Microsoft has a very evil patent portfolio, including patents that make it illegal to do almost everything. If you write a program, using just your imagination and your familiarity with the idea of a GUI with menus, buttons, requester boxes, it will usually violates dozens of patents. This is a risk to Linux, but also to any individual programmer. If you are a large company, you can patent the most obvious things, making nearly all activity in the world illegal for over a decade. For example, the patent on a web site having a shopping cart, if enforced would mean the end of buying anything online. The ridiculous company that runs the test.com website has a patent that makes it illegal to run most tests or quizzes online. Microsoft's software patents are a scourge that threatens all programmers and all non-Microsoft software.
This is easy.. its because they are trying to take over the computer industry. Microsoft looses a large amount of money on every other product save 2. Windows and Office. I believe they lost 1.6 billion on things like MSN, Xbox, Windows Mobile, in 2003. Imagine how great Microsoft could be if they were concerned with making one really great desktop OS and one really great office suite.. and imagine how rich they might be if they only did that? But Microsoft dosnt do that.. they need to take over.. Desktop OS from Apple Search engine from Google. Directory and portal from Yahoo Server OS from IBM Novell and SUN Internet Media from Real Office products from Corel Internet Browsing from Netscape (now re-badged as Firefox) Game consoles from Sony / Nintendo Portable Document formats from Adobe Computer games from Blizzard / everyone else. (I don't know much about games) Internet service provider from AOL / Earthlink Portable music players from Apple Cell phone OS from Palm / Symbian / Ericsson Online Music from Napster / iTunes And now Social sites from MySpace. Thats whats wrong.. they want technical world domination and are not content to make a great product everyone enjoys.. they need to make ALL products.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
And, yes, Unixers that goes for you, too. You're going to meet four kinds of people in IT. The first is the "Old-Timer". You can usually tell these people pretty easily because they're still running Unix (or Netware!). Most of them have never once sat in front of a machine running Windows, but can tell you point-by-point every single thing that's wrong with the OS, most of which is gathered from reading self-appointed pundits in the media or from talking with their cronies, none of whom have sat in front of a Windows box either. These guys (this isn't a sexist statement, ladies. There weren't many in the IT field 20-30 years ago, so your chances of meeting an old-timer with a vagina are very slim) can't even begin to fathom why you need more than two colors on a screen (green & black) or why you'd want to use a mouse to do ANYTHING. Oh, and Vax rules. They claim to be the most technologically advanced of the people in the field, and perhaps 20 years ago they were. However, times changed...they didn't. Can't you just smell the vitriol?
Secondly, we have the newbies. This is generally anyone who entered the field after 1995. The first OS they ever used was Windows 95, so they don't even know there's a command line, even in modern day incarnations of Windows. They'll drone on and on about the insecurity or instability of Windows because they can't manage to keep their machines in a usable state for more than five minutes. And, since the majority of people have the same problem, it must be the OS. They know slightly more than users, so it couldn't possibly be them. These folks are typically divided further into two groups: Linux users and Morons.
Morons are distinguishable because they'll say things like "Ugh, I hate the registry, it's too complex and it gets corrupted all the time!" or "Your machine bluescreened? That's MS way of telling you it's been more than five minutes since you rebooted. Hardy-har-har" or my favorite "It's probably a virus". They're often described by their friends and families as someone "who's good with computers". If they answer no to either of the following questions, you know you're dealing with a moron: "Is Windows stable?", "Is Windows secure?" Hit them on the head with your keyboard and ask to see someone who knows what they're doing.
The Linux sub genus of newbies will generally identify themselves pretty quickly. They're strangely proud to admit how ignorant they are, probably because they've managed to figure out a way to blame all of their problems on Mr. Gates. They lose sleep over it, they continually ponder it, they proclaim it loudly to anyone with ears. In the same breath, they'll describe Windows as a "Fisher-price" OS, then tell you how they couldn't figure it out. Granted, they think they're telling you that there's nothing to figure out, but those of us in the know smile knowingly and don't mention the pity we have for them. Ironically, Penguinheads are usually very intelligent people. They've just failed to resist the hive mentality of the Morons. While they're smart enough to figure things out on their own, they don't bother to and just fall prey to the rhetoric. Then they call anyone who prefers Windows a shill or automaton and complain loudly how they make so little in comparison because they "chose" to use an alternate OS.
Note: members of all three of the above do share a common trait: they all regularly work more than 40 hours per week. They're so bad at what they do that it takes them a long time to do it. To paraphrase a quote I once read: "Show me an IT person who regularly works more than 40 hours a week, and I'll show you an IT person that needs to be flipping burgers." The IT industry's purpose is to make companies and people more efficient. It's there to allow people to produce more output with less input. If you can't accomplish that for yourself, how in the hell are you supposed to accomplish it for thousands of users? This trait's often hard to distinguish because they've gotten real
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
What a bunch of hypocritical ninconpoopery. Although, that's only to be expected when reading SlashDot and Microsoft in the same sentence. I was impressed to see a few people actually backing the 3v1l suxx0rz, however. I haven't read all the posts and this one won't get read either, but I couldn't not put something down.
Bill Buxton recently spoke at CSCW 2006 and had a great talk. One of the things he talked about was his recent hiring by Microsft Research. He took a lot of flak when he moved there, but here he presented the reasons he joined. Basically, Microsoft funds and embraces research, and they encourage people to publish what they find. This can be seen in reality when you look at the mass of publications that come from or are touched by Microsoft Research at many of the academic conferences I attend regularly (like SIGCHI, CSCW, UIST, etc...). I have known many people who have done many internships at MSR, why would they go back if it is so terrible?
A good example of research personified is the new side-bar in Vista. This idea was not stolen from anywhere. It was originally published here and in that paper you'll see the original prototype was written by a research intern, who was inspired by work he and I were doing together at the time in our graduate programs (and that work is cited by this paper as well). Am I peeved that MS hasn't bought out my MSc Thesis? No! Is he peeved that MSR furthered and then included his prototype in a shipping product several years later? No! Most of the numpties here would be peeved, though. Whatever. We work at the same company now, and I can honestly say it's a discussion we've never had.
It was amazing to see the zealots in the CSCW community turn on Buxton. Buxton is long resepected and almost revered in this research area, but the overpowering hate of MS broke through even his passionate and relevant points. It's almost as bad as religious extremism. During the question period, one attendee called out MS (using Bill Buxton as the face) for not releasing easy ways for him to get projects he was working on in after school programs with kids onto the XBox. "Why can't I compile and run this stuff on an XBox without paying lots of money to MS? If MS is so great, why don't they enable people to use their stuff?" Bill said "well geez, contact me after the conference and I'll look into it." Anyways, it's unrelated to Bill, how about this??? And a month after his talk, no less. MS knows that enabling people on their systems is the way to go, and they work towards that. Slashdot will accuse them of stealing the idea from OSS, I can't wait.
(Now) classic Slashdot riff: "PS3 is teh suxx0rz! My XBOX 360 pWns! Gonna get a Wii too!" followed by a post in the next article by the same person "M$ is teh suxx0rz! Evil evil bad horrible!" Again, if you don't want to use MS products, then don't! It's that simple! I run Windows because I don't have to think about it. It has the tools I want, accessible and running. I run a Linux file server, because it's inexpensive (cost: a bunch of hard drives and an old pc I'm not using) and it works just for what I need. This is hardly Gap or Nike or Enron or McKesson (personal experience dictates I say that here :D) we're talking about, here.
A point about OS's. The classic definition of OS has changed and evolved over the last few years (greatly simplified): An OS initially was a human operating a loom. Then it evolved to a series of cards running a loom. Then it was a bunch of cards running a census tabulator. Then it was a bunch of cards running a bunch of vaccuum tubes (pop!). Then it was a bunch of cards running big mainframes. Then it was an incr
Their helpdesk wants 50 euros before any advice is given, and that's without guarantee that you'll get any solution to your problem, and even though it's their product that is causing the problem.
I will not be buying a Windows version ever again.
Former OS/2 user. 'nuff said.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Wow, you mentioned Tivoli. I'm quite surprised Tivoli is still out there to be quite honest.
I agree with nearly everything you've said, but would like to highlight one particular point: There's a very high cost of entry to be totally integrated with Microsoft...
I realized a few years ago that if I wanted to write code that fully worked well on Windows, I would have to buy into the whole shebang. You can't get it all with GTK, or wxWindows, or some other framework: you need specifically the MS APIs to do Windows right. If you have full knowledge of those APIs, you can use them to write beautiful Windows software that interoperates "perfectly" with other MS software. Then I remembered that Windows only runs on PC-class machines, i.e. it requires a graphics display and an Intel processor. All other platforms run something else, and I sure do like running my code on 128-way SMP machines sometimes.
This is the Achilles heel of Microsoft: that the choice is all or nothing. Those who choose MS can interoperate with other MS products. Those who choose otherwise can write code that runs from embedded 486-class processors with no video card to 128-way Itanium SMP machines to Beowulf-style G5 clusters and everything in between, and even run in Windows via Cygwin.
I started programming in high school in the early seventies, and in college I was taught about efficiency (with respect to "x"), programming style, and programming correctness. Back then most software was done on punched cards, and you had better make sure that your code worked right before keypunching it. Yes, you read correctly, no code and check, code and check, etc. The turn around time was hours, and the cost of computers and computer time slices was very high.
Microcomputers were a great tool for Comp. Sci. students since they let you experiment and grow in real time. Computers such as the HeathKit H-8 were extremely open and provided access to the software and hardware, something that is no longer the norm but relegated to the specialty areas of PIC programing, for instance.
Anyway, when MS-DOS came out it was OK, but not great. And it came with BASIC and MASM and an edit program and sample code. Nice, and for computer scientists it was still a springboard, a tool. And most real programming was done in 8080 assembler language. When MS-DOS 2.18 (I believe) came out with "file handles" and memory allocation and improved methods of loading .EXE and .COM files, it seemed like a nice leap forward. At the time, I was working at SyncSort, a top-notch mainframe software vendor (managed by some really bizzare people, which I guess is fitting of software companies), and learned that the trick to sorting was allocating resources: memory and disk space. Anyway, I wrote a file entab/detab program in 8080 assembler using the new interrupt calls, and the program screamed. It allocated as much memory as it could in two chunks, one for input and one for output, read the file, processed the text, and wrote the file out. It ran so fast I spent more time verifying the results than writing and running the program. As part of my checking, I ran one of the bundled programs from Microsoft that did the same thing. I was amazed. The demo program on the new OS that had all these great features, read and wrote a character at a time. Read. Write. Read. Write. I couldn't believe it. You would think that the shoemaker's children wouldn't go barefoot, that Microsoft would have developers at least as competent as me, taking full advantage of their own tools. Ha! My program could entab/detab files of tens of kilobytes in a second or so. Microsoft's took the better part of an hour. I was disillusioned. I swore never to touch a Microsoft-based machine again. And I didn't, for over a decade.
My bias continues, now, because I continue to see bloatware. I don't see the largest software company making god use of software reuse, best practices, efficiency with respect to this or that. Nothing. I do admire the fact that they have created large systems of programs that work together to solve business problems. But so do other smaller companies.
Oh yeah, and the interview. In 1985 or so I sent Microsoft an unsolicited library of vector-based 2D graphic routines, a continuation of my Master's work that I toyed with. I was surprised when I got a call from Seattle and was asked to come up for a few days, spend the weekend if I liked. Great! I interviewed and loved it. It was a day of highly technical tests and quizzes and I thought I was in, until I met with the last manager. "How hard do you work?" Huh? "How do you know when you are finished working on something?" Wha? Nothing I could say was right, and my elation turned to despair. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. My friends didn't believe me, until later more and more stories came out about their interview questions such as "How many gas stations are there in the US?" Um, obviously the answers to those questions have helped make their software small, fast, secure, etc.
I would have loved to have the opportunity to work for Microsoft, and think they would have benefited from my training and experience. I like to think it was their loss. Anyone in my graduating class from Rhody would have contributed to Microsoft more than they can imagine. More than they can afford to admit. Why do you dislike Microsoft?
EdMy user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
Microsoft Charges hundreds of dollars for their operating system.
It's a great operating system, despite what people say to the contrary.
It's just too expensive.
Other Operating systems are also great.
Linux is free.
Mac OS X (although the hardware is expensive), costs 1/2 what Vista does.
Long Live OSX!
...as insightful.
I think the point illustrates the caliber the parent poster.
Internet Explorer is reason enough to slap Bill Gates silly.
Here are my points on this subject: 1) People who know better (CS degrees, codemonkeys, and networking gurus etc) look at the foundation they have to work with, and see the flaws constantly. However, they are stuck with these systems because Windows is so widely used by their Job, other people they interact with and such. This is why slashdotters hate microsoft so much. They have to fix the thing so often. You'll hear mechanics complain about japanese cars to because they have to fix them all the time (and they cram everything into such small spaces), but the Driver loves the car because they don't have any problems getting from A to B. 2) I fall into the moderate user of windows. It works just fine for me and my wife. I can buy the software I need to do the things I need to do without installing emulators and worrying about compatibilty with my Job, my friends computer, and such. I don't necessarily agree with MS's business practices, but I don't really have a choice to move to another OS (I don't know enough to get a Linux machine up and running, and I'm too poor to buy the expensive mac hardware). 3) Most people I know who use windows are the "dumb" users. I got a call last night from my sister-in-law that said "How do i get this camera to work on my computer". I said "plug it in" and it worked. She doesn't get drivers, she wants to use the internet and put her pictures on her computer. I think that these people are the reason why Windows is so bloated. Not knowing enough about coding, it seems like windows programms for the lowest common denominator, so the people at the top (/.ers) see all the useless (to them) stuff and can't stand the powersuck it is. I had to add to this huge thread.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Their blatent disregard for standards. Sometimes it goes further than that, where they purposely ignore or mangle standards (Java anyone? How about CSS?) to prevent you from switching to anyone else who plays on a level field.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
1. They are not much of a technology innovator. They have a history as a monopoly product pusher who put out apes of other people's work.
A. Want to know what the next DOS will look like? Let's see what features the little group of people producing 4DOS in their small office park suite have added to their latest late-80s version.
B. I'm old enough to actually remember when PC Magazine praised a non-Microsoft product and voted Borland Quattro Pro the innovative 3D Windows spreadsheet of the year.
C. OS2 Warp was an IBM creation long after the MS split, came out nearly a year before Windows 95, and had a ton of desktop features and options that made Win95 look typical shoddy and limited.
D. I particularly have to bridle my rage when it comes to their piece-o'-crap text editor Word. If there were truly a non-satanic sentient deity of any compassion, the exponentially more powerful WordPerfect would never have been killed by the Office 97 monopoly pricing campaign. A pricing that went back up in typical monopoly fashion after the cancer of Office had effectively destroyed WordPerfect Suite's market position.
E. Where did DOS come from anyway? Because Microsoft is such a technological innovator, Bill Gates thunk it up from his own cerebrum, right? Not like there were programs like dbase, WordStar or Turbo Pascal already in existence on some desktop platform.
2. On the latter point, Microsoft as the myth of the "little technology company that fueled a revolution" is a fraud. The story I got was that Gates mother was on the board of directors of the same charity as the CEO of IBM and said, "I know someone who can find you an operating system for this new 'PC' thing". With an emphasis on "find" and "QDOS" and "purchase" and "different IBM disk format". I've always seen Microsoft as a lamprey on the belly of the shark of IBM.
Unfortunately, they used that niche monopoly leverage in the worst possible way. Microsoft is the poster child for the meme that corporations are inherently sociopathic. It is a pillar of their foundation that Microsoft will use their effective market monopoly to create "standards" -- standards that more often than not run counter to the desires of the rest of the industry and impede overall progress for everyone (IE anyone?). I would argue that Microsoft is a sick anomoly. Businesses coexist all the time. Because of market traffic, it is _typical_ to see an Arbys next to a Burger King next to a Subway. If Microsoft were Arbys, they would be out every night pouring broken glass on the Burger King and Subway parking lots so that people's tires only worked on _their_ parking lot.
And the FUD is tiring and the third-party monetary support for lawsuits like the SCO fiasco against linux are tiring.
3. The whole "1900 robber baron" thing is a little stale, isn't it? Eliminate labor laws in Washington State for your programmers and when that isn't profitable enough, start moving operations to China like every other corporation. But set up some charities like Carnegie and Rockefeller did in the hope that the history books will be rewritten. Boring.
With over 1000 comments so far, this probably won't be read let alone modded, but nevertheless:
Why do you talk of "Microsoft hatred"? While the arguments against MS's practices have their place, it is the initial question that should be examined IMHO. I think the term "hate" is the problem. Hatred is a psychological phenomenon. The question "Why A hates B" can be answered in many ways: perhaps B wronged A, and A has never forgiven; or perhaps A has a pathology which makes him hate B for no reason at all. If we ask a psychological question, we get a psychological answer. Maybe there was an objective deed which is the cause of the hatred, but by itself it is never sufficient to explain it. Moreover, "hatred" usually has negative connotations. If I told you "A hates B", you would probably look badly upon A -- more so if I told you that the basis of this hatred is political controversy (like it is in the case of MS). So what is biased here is the question itself.
But if "hatred" is psychological term which (usually) applies between two people, what does it mean to say that a person (or a group of people) hates a software company, i.e. a corporation? You could have said that these people "condemn that corporation's practices", for example. But this way we're not talking about the psychological phenomenon of condemning -- but about the content of this act of condemning -- i.e. the moral and political stance which these people take. It is an altogether different question to ask "why do you take this moral/political stance?", than to ask "why do you hate so-and-so".
Moreover: a political stance, a political world-view, is something taken by people as groups -- as political groups, you might say. If you decide to act upon this stance in a democratic country, then you act along with the group: thus it's political action. (e.g. your representatives could pass laws in accord with those views). But how do you act upon "hatred"? (Go to a shrink?) What I mean to say: by speaking of "hatred" in place of ethical and political views, the question dissolves everything social and political in advance, and we are left with a void of "psychologism". In sum, I say, this is simply an offensive case of ad hominem.
M$FT began as a basement/garage grunge company with smart but not academic nerds who showed the world that you did not have to shell out millions for mainframes to use computers. They brought computing home by building on notions of open hardware for cheap pcs. This made them instant targets. IBM has hated them for totally overturning their big box paradigm. Apple hated them for showing how expensive and elite their product line was. Sun and Oracle hated them for having the gall to allow mere PC's to do the work of "real" servers and "professional" database megasoftware. To top all this off, Gates did not pay megabucks to corrupt politicians (usually of the left variety) like IBM, Oracle, SUN, and HP did with M$FT having being fairly neutral in politics. The shakedown of high-tech companies is well known and Gates just does not take side. This allowed a consortium of those already jealous and bitter about M$SFT's success to work with governing agencies to go after their money and their hard-won business advantages. And once Spitzer, the EU, and other grubbing big-government leeches get a taste for your money, look out. Any quasi ministry has a shot at the pot 'o gold, almost as big as big Tobacco's. I'm surprised that the food police (CSPI) have not issued a white-paper on them yet. Oh - it never had anything to do with Linux or OSFS at all.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
I know it seems like ancient history to some, but what really got me personally angry with Microsoft was how they forcibly shoved IE 4 down everyones throats.
Back in the day most people were happy using Netscape 3 and 4 on Windows 95 or not even having a browser at all. IE 1 and 2 were basically just slightly modified versions of Mosaic and IE 3 was useless and mostly ignored. But when IE 4 came out they started shoving it down everybody's throat. It seemed to come bundled with almost every commercial application for Windows 95 and NT 4 even if it wasn't technically needed - even the non-Microsoft ones. And that wasn't even getting into the monstrosity that was Windows 98 and the IE desktop shell that nobody really wanted.
Back in the day I pointed out how dumb many of the "features" were such as the dangers of Active X - and nobody listened. It's too bad everyone had to learn the hard way.
Because of the pounding Netscape took and because of some mistakes on Netscape's part IE 5.0 got ahead of the then shipping Netscape 4.x and most of the regular users who hadn't already been forced off the ship finally jumped ship. Heck IE 5 was even available for Mac, Solaris, and Windows 3.1. Then Microsoft let it all die.
Even today they find ways to make people use IE. These days whenever you come across an IE-only web site that isn't just garbage or a left-over of the 1900's you can be sure that Microsoft is having something to do with that.
Walk in to any office of any large company an see what browser they are running and why. They likely have apps like Microsoft Project Web Access that only works in IE (And from what I understand Microsoft Office Project Server 2007 still, unsurprisingly only works in IE). So people "just use IE" so they don't have to use more than one browser. Oh, and they are probably all scared to death that if the MS Sales rep shows up and happen to see Firefox running then their special discount on MS-Office licenses, or some such thing, might mysteriously disappear.
I don't hate Microsoft, I just don't want to do business with a paranoid, untrustworthy, greedy organization that spends most of the time sabataging their partners software, financing bogus litigation issues and threatening people for not using their inferior product.
.. it would take about 3-4 days for one of the MS-DOS developers to take the code out of the MS-DOS Kernel and build it into an independent library routine. We could turn that into an installable driver which I would allow apps to continue after encountering such an exror. We would then ship this driver with Win31. we need not give this code to Novell nor give them permission to redistribute it.
.. As an example, some tests will run faster if you have more RAM, so that you - do more cacheing. Although that may not seem fair, it actually is JUST what we want. This is discussed more below ..
.. I do not think that we need to spend a lot of time or effort actually creating the benchmarks "with' the ISVs in a serious way. We don't want this bogged down with Politics, and there is no reason to do so. We probably should get CONFIDENTIAL permission from them and should sanity check the data file that we use. if this is done properly the ISVs should love this.
.. The best solution from a practical standpoint is to get same public dcmain code (which may need to be ported to our OS) to create the benchmark. There should be a set of 5-10 different integer programs and again as many floating point program . We should make sure that the programs are quite different in their composition. There is a place called the Austin Code Works which sells tons of PD software, and that is a good place to look first ..
..
-------
[how to diss DR-DOS]
From: bradc
"another message is that dr dos 6 is incompatible and buggy"
"Please do not say we are spreading DR DOS FUD. that implies that the data we provide people who ask, like the press is unrue - it isn't. the top two pr objectives are to 1) Ensure the press gets the true story on our superiority and dr's inferiority - we have the better product; 2) derail the dr dos train"
"ms-dos terminology reminder - how will we impliment so that we don't just legitimize dr? ya know when people say pc-compatible they really mean ms-dos compatible"
[How to make sure Novell netware running DR-DOS will fail]
From: greglo
To: bradsi, davidcol, tomle
1. the purpose is to map Fail into a reasonable error code that will be correctly handled by windows apps
2. it would ship only with Win31 retail; no one could distribute seperatly (although we'll probably make it available earlier to a few key accounts such as American Airlines
3. testing will be done by our test group as well as Novell and a few corporate accounts such as American Airlines.
4. maintenence could potentially be done by our group (ArronR; he could do the initial work except that he is booked solid) I don't know if MSDOS6 will make such changes as to require some help from your group.
From tomle
To: bradsi davidcol greglo
Subject: Re: Novell
I am still confused about the solution. How do we use this library. How will this be use to circumvent Novell's panic on a return from rerty, fail
This measure is to address the critical-error problem that American Airlines is up in arms about
[how to fudge benchmarks in favor of MS]
- Create a benchmark suite analogous to SPECma-rks, but specialized to Windows based systems
[discussing using public domain code in Winstones and disguising the fact]
Ideally speaking, this would allow us to directly DERIVE our system stratagy from "objective" empirical results
Selling against OS/2
The claim th
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. The user interface is difficult to use (though no more difficult than OSX or Linux) but I've never heard of a grandmother, aunt, uncle, [child], or otherwise require [...] Lucky you - but they are out there and they are terrified of the user interface. I removed child from the list, because kids can basically handle anything and the thing is they aren't worried about breaking the computer. Older people on the other hand know how much it cost, how much it will cost to repair and that breaking it is a genuine possibility.
Think about it. The simplest thing you do on a windows interface probably is to click 'Start'. But if you don't understand what click means that can be very daunting. And it requires a hint of arrogance to suggest that it is easy.
2. Games are irrelevant.
I'm not dismissing your 'favourite' activity. But the GP point is valid. When comparing operating systems, running games doesn't count. Consider the issues:
1. Security: Who cares if someone hacks your MU session.
2. Interface: You don't use the windows interface in a game, it has it's own
3. Hardware Support: Video, Joystick/Keyboard/Mouse, (Network?) - hardly a serious hardware scenario
4. Upgrades: What upgrades?
5. Compatability: Not relevant
6. Availability of Applications: Huh?
Windows is, I'm sure, a very good games platform - but games are a red herring when comparing OSs.
3. As far as installation goes, I do both on a regular basis and I would much rather do a Linux/Ubuntu install than a Windows install. It simple and straightforward. Ok there are occasionally some hardware issues. But every one of those that I know of occur because of some crappy vendor lock in by Microsoft.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Micrsoft is Evil, because the FOSS cult requires an "EVIL" entity to rally the troops and to give them something to fight for.
If it was not microsoft, it would be someone else. just needs to be someone.
as for quality of software, no question, that the reason why Microsoft is SO popular.
Is because the overall quality of their producdts are way above anything else.
But its a pointless question, as in the REAL WORLD, no one really hates Microsoft. and are happy with the quality of their products.
and with Bill Gates recent very large donations, its turned ALOT more peoples attitudes about him around.
its really hard to say someone is evil when they are saving people from starvation and death. and the people who are saying he's evil are the very ones who dont believe programmers should be paid for the efforts.
When paying Open Source programmers, would allow people the break out of povity by increasing their skills in programming.
I guess FOSS likes the idea of "Keep em hungry, to keep em keen".
Deliberately putting code into Win3.1 so that it would error when trying to install under DR-DOS when there was no technical reason it couldnt be loaded in DR-DOS.
2
Having the Registration Wizard in Win95 call home to report on software that you had installed on Win3.1 when upgrading. The first true spyware.
3
Six letters. N S A K E Y. Need I say more?
4
Bundling IE with windows, just to be petty and drive Netscape out of business.
5
Slopping DRM over everything in sight despite what they claim are their preferences. They could have stood up to Holywood.
6
Engineering the equivilant of Intels processor ID in the form of the windows product activation hash.
7
Bullying computer manufacturers into preinstalling windows so there is a windows tax, under the gise of combatting windows pirates.
I know there are a couple more that are slipping my mind at the moment.
HA this is like the scene in Airplane! where the passangers all line up to slap the hysterical woman. What I hate most about Microsoft however is a "feature" of Windows where a program will take focus away from the program you are using when you don't want it to. I know what I am doing Microsoft, I will use that other program when I am good and ready! This is honestly the thing I hate most about Microsoft and I know they do it on purpose.
Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
On Feb 1995 I got my first computer, Intel 486DX2-66, 8MB RAM, 420GB HDD, 1MB S3 video card, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. $2000 (plus HP printer, etc.) I tried to play one of the DOS games that was put on the computer by the shop that sold it to me but it wanted more _____ memory. I don't like limitations like that so I went out and bought another 4MB at $40+/MB. Same problem. A little research later and I learned that the game wanted EXPANDED memory for which I learned to use memmaker. Hmmm.
Now I was learning to use the GUI. I'd be downloading, via modem, of course, from BS, Compuserve or my school VAX system and I noticed that if I launched another application while downloading the download time would increase. Or how about formatting a floppy? Well, I guess I can stop doing everything else for a few minutes. Oh, wait, I tried to do to many things at once, I'm out of system resources. Ok, I'll close an app, nope resources still tied up. Ok, I'll close Windows, wait what is this Blue Screen? Oh, it's a BSOD.
I was ready to quit computers when a friend told me about IBM OS/2. Wow, no DOS memory issues (only issue was that some games like DOOM did not work with sound), it did not crash and it did not EVER run out of system resources. Why I would launch a Windows sessions, run out of system resources, launch another Windows session, repeat, then play Heretic, and continue downloading without the download getting interrupted. WTF?
And then came OS/2 Warp. 32 bit, preemptive multi tasking, memory protected, object-oriented, highly crash proof. The GUI with Object Desktop was... sublime. All the mags would say, though, was "this is great, too bad it won't be able to run Windows 32 bit apps which won't come out until next year." WHAT? Oh, yeah MS advertisement money...
When I learned about Microsoft's trade practices, buying off the mag reviewers, putting vendors into deals that would penalize them for installing other OS's in a dual-boot situation - heck even IBM's PC division could not resist. Maybe if their products did not suck so much, which they do compared to almost everyone else's, I wouldn't be bothered so much. And it's not like they've stopped doing that "evil" shit. Why do they refuse to compete on quality alone?
No, sir, Microsoft did not get as big as they are by having superior products but by doing things that **I** consider EVIL and plenty worthy of my hate!
I think it has more to do with the kind of people that comprise the tech crowd. A lot of techies tend to be more anti-establishment (think open source) and often more arrogant than the average joe. This means 1) that they already have it in for any big organization that is imposing rules or standards (in the form of file formats, DRM, etc) that are not democratically adopted by the community, and 2) they like to think that they know how it could be done better. We also seem to hold them to very, very high standards; any flaw or problem is considered unacceptable. This may be because we expect better out of a company with so much money, talent, raw manpower, and committed user base. It may also just be that we like to complain. Haters gonna hate.
Google for Sendo or Ernie Ball for a good example of each.
They treat their customers as criminals to target with threats and lawsuits; and they treat their partners as someone to steal from.
I hate Microsoft because Windows got to be a market leader by not being the product that users want, but by being the product that users ended up with by default.
While I think that Microsoft's worship of "active content" makes current Windows systems inferior to its contemporaries, some people do try to make a case that current Windows is at least competitive or nearly on par. But back in the late 1980s when Microsoft achieved their dominance, there's no way anyone would have remotely tried to take that position. Compare MSDOS or early versions of MS Windows to OSes like AmigaOS, or even MacOS, and you'll laugh yourself silly. Microsoft's products were antiquated jokes. Why didn't Microsoft fade away into obscurity? Because their system was preloaded, that's why. Their "per-processor" agreements existed solely to pressure computer makers into including MSDOS with every machine, to eliminate sellers from offering other OSes (since they had to pay for MSDOS anyway).
Every bit of Microsoft's current market share can be traced back to establishing that market share. If you don't see how MSDOS established Windows XP, then take it one step at a time: MSDOS 6, Windows 3, Windows 95, etc. Get it now? Every year, old users had legacy software and usually(*) only one clear "upgrade" direction. Combine that with the fact that Windows still comes preloaded on 99% of personal computers, and you have a situation where the users' choice was obscured.
They got where they are not by impressing users and making users say "I want that." This goes against everything I (we?) value about free market capitalism. When someone holds Microsoft up as an example of capitalism, I have to laugh. Ok, maybe they really are an example of capitalism, but they're an example of the dark side which defies the very ideals that I use to defend and advocate capitalism. Microsoft shows that capitalism doesn't necessarily result in free market competition, and as a capitalist advocate, that makes me look bad. ;-)
As for technical lameness (mainly 1. insecurity of "active content" and 2. horrible GUIs that make bash look user-friendly by comparison) of Microsoft's recent products, I don't see that as a reason to hate them, just a reason they should lose. The hate comes when this inferiority wins.
(*) Ok, except in the mid-1990s, when OS/2 was the best upgrade for a MSDOS legacy. But even then, Windows (not OS/2) came preloaded on almost all x86 machines (even the ones from IBM).
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I recall a comment by someone who worked with the Microsoft people. They were actually boasting about how they screwed over competitors - they thought it was funny.
The example given was the DOS memory swap utility that they eventually got sued over (and lost). The company came to demonstrate it for a few days. They were persuaded that it was all right to leave their demo equipment in the MS Office area overnight. The MS techs tore apart the software to see what it did (stealing their technology, which showed up in the next DOS). They then sabotaged the equipment so the demo was a failure.
Apparently this was typical behaviour for quite a few years at MS. The fellow describing this says the most disgusting part was, the MS guys thought this was funny. His take was that Microsoft was full of those arrogant "know-it-all" types that seem to be common in engineering college - they're brilliant and know it and look down on everyone else as "they don't get it". In most firms, they bump into the experienced old engineers who teach them "you can't do that", eventually knocking common sense and humility into their heads. Microsoft was brand new and had no older people, so it was run by the arrogant jerks. It took the threat of an antitrust action to smarten them up - but not in the right way.
That's not saying anything about the quality of their products - which basically prove they're not as bright as they think.
You think there is a negative bias against MS because you read Slashdot.
According to Forbe's Magazine 2006 survey, Microsoft is the 6th most admired company on the globe. Here's how the top 10 look:
1 General Electric
2 Toyota Motor
3 Procter & Gamble
4 FedEx
5 Johnson & Johnson
6 Microsoft
7 Dell
8 Berkshire Hathaway
9 Apple Computer
10 Wal-Mart Stores
I personally think MS is terrific. I use many of their products and make a living designing and implementing their server and desktop solutions. Like any company I can point to questionable choices in their product development. But when I look at the big picture I truly admire what they have done and continue to do.
Nothing evil to see here.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
I don't "hate" Microsoft; though I "dislike" their approach over the years.
Essentially, what turns me off about Microsoft has been their attitude and apparent unwillingness to "play nice" with the open source community. Instead of doing so, they stance was to fight and poise themselves as superior. That was a big mistake on their part.
Microsoft and Windows. I often wonder of the product lifetime, and their vulnerability if they cannot keep up with the rest of the world (Linux, Mac OS, et al). Imagine if they were to become more open with parts of their system, more integral. God knows they're making enough money off everything now, so their primary motivation cannot be the income stream alone, it's politics.
Anyway, I don't hate Microsoft - I use XP all the time, and rely upon it. Indeed, being a sysadmin most of my career, I have come to appreciate that every OS has it's place in the work environment.
Microsoft: play nicely (and sincerely so) and help integrate, not separate.
Because I'm a big fat whiny, jealous, unimportant, pussy. Oh, and also because it is so geek chique.
What has MS done to me personally? Nothing really. But because I care so f'ing much about everyone else, I must hate MS. Why if MS didn't exist there would be no poverty in the world and no war. MS is just plain evil, what with their turning a profit and such. I mean, how dare they succeed rather than fail like the vast majority of OSS projects, right? I believe they should forget about their pesky shareholders and just fold so at least the honorable FOSS crowd with their perfect software can respect them. At the end of the day, isn't the respect of the 18-24 year-old FOSS fanatics all that REALLY matters?
For shame Bill Gates...for shame.
Spoken like a true non-gamer...
!@#$%
Remember when Homer started up his Internet company?
From Wikipedia:
The Simpsons: "Das Bus" (February 15, 1998) (Season 9, Episode 5F11) -- Bill Gates comes to "buy" Homer Simpson's ambiguous Internet company, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet. Gates orders his underlings to "buy out" Simpson's business, so they wreck the place. When Homer asks for the money Gates replies, "Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [manic laughter]"
That is how I always picture the real MS way.
After getting started as a programmer in the 1980's on MS-DOS, I was happy to move to OS/2 in 1988. Finally I could get some work done while formatting a stack of floppies! Gawd that MS-DOS wasted my time. As someone who loved computer science, OS/2 was *much* more interesting and functional that MS-DOS. Protected memory! Threads! After the first version, a windows system!
:) My resentment is almost gone. Bill Gates' wonderful contributions to Africa have helped me believe that maybe everything works out for the best, in the end.
Then Microsoft disassociated with OS/2, and used their (subsequently found to be illegal) monopoly contracts with OEMs to prevent OS/2 preinstalls, instead sticking the market with MS-DOS 5.0 and then Windows 3.0 (which to it's immense discredit the business community standardized on). Microsoft did this for business reasons because they shared the rights to OS/2 with IBM and they wanted complete ownership.
I knew that the market was getting stuck with a crap environment. Microsoft zealously, and in the end illegally, pursued their own interest with no regard whatsoever for what was best for the consumer -- me! A little ember of resentment was created which was fanned into flames by one awful experience after another with Win 3.1. I had to wait for one reboot after another. Microsoft's product, forced upon me, wasted my time and thus disrespected my life. Their behavior before and during the antitrust trial was not honorable. IE was cruel, MS's response to Java was strangulation, and I felt as if computing had become a concentration-camp experience. If it wasn't for Linux, I would have changed careers.
So that's why I hate Microsoft, because I love computers and technology, and they selfishly held back the market for years and years. I suspect that my reasons are common, and explains why the nerds that visit Slashdot hate Microsoft too, as a rule.
Funny, the image I have to type to post this, is "resents".
"However, Microsoft is a special kind of Corporation: A Publicly Traded Corporation. As such, and according to Law, Microsoft's first responsibility is not to its rights and responsibilities as a member of society, but to protect and grow the assets of its shareholders."
Like Enron or Pricewaterhouse Cooper?
Nice rant.
1. Excel. Nothing on Mac(even its excel) or Linux even comes close to the functionality I get out of excel(keep in mind, lots of proprietary add ins really make it worthwhile).
With programs like Parallels, arguments like this are obsolete.
4. Far cheaper(only compared against a mac, I build my own machines now and roll an old harddrive image over, so costs are level with linux)
Yes, but the mac laptops are very competitively priced vs. any similar pc solution.
5. When I was first considering changing, my only real choices were windows or Mac before OS X,which sucked just as bad in my experience with it at school.
Okay that's nice and all, but OS X is quite different from OS 9.
6. Easy ability to turn off all the bells, whistles, and pretty menu systems so I can get a fast running machine that doesn't stress my video card( I am appalled every time I use my Mac book at how slow the interface is comparable, and it is a intel core duo with a gig of ram)
That's odd. I had an iBook G4 which ran OS X (10.4.8) just fine. I think your computer or hard drive has some problems.
7. More natural methods of interfacing(especially when I am filling out forms online. a great example is the tab key. in windows, I can tab to check boxes, text boxes, or drop down boxes and then manipulate those. I have been searching and have yet to figure out a quick way to do this on a mac, just one example)
System Prefs>Keyboard and mouse>Keyboard shortcuts>All controls
There are really only two reasons I dislike Microsoft: their shoddy products, and their shady business practices.
There's more than a little truth to the notion that if Microsoft wanted to produce a product that didn't suck, they'd make a vacuum cleaner. Their usability is poor, their default UI settings (especially the XP color scheme) are hideous, and let's not even get started on their anti-security record. There's a reason I haven't bought a Windows license for my own use since NT 4, and these days I don't even use Windows at work anymore.
On the practices side, the saying in the bad old days was "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run", and the attitude underlying that adage is still alive and well in Redmond.
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
While squelching any technology they can't use to their (financial) advantage.
I would compile a list of all the great technology that no longer exists becasue of Microsoft's predatory business practices but I wouldn't want to make Slashdot have to upgrade its SQL servers again.
First, I can't say it rises to the level of hate. But there is a deep dislike.
Why? Because the company sold MS Word 98 -- 2000 for Mac, with a service plan.
Then, knowing that their product was causing file corruption (as inside documents
later disclosed), they then denied that any such thing was happening during
service calls, and still did not fix the problem for several releases.
This cost me greatly. If I remember correctly, it cost me something like $8000
in direct costs, and another $11000+ in losses due to lost contracts.
That is, their fraud (selling a product with a service plan, and then denying service)
cost me a significant fraction of my annual income. If they will come forward and
make good my losses -- voluntarily, of course -- I will then voluntarily reconsider
my dislike. Other than that, I have no reason to like them.
Oh, and by the way... I've gotten rid of my home computer about a year ago. I've found
I really don't need it any more.
- Michael Rudmin,
Portsmouth VA,
formerly of Diversified Service Company Publishing, LLC (now shut down).
I'm lost on the whole "fanbois" thing with operating systems.. its like comparing motorcycles to cars to vans to trucks, etc etc etc. They all have very similar purposes and capabilities but they all have their own areas of strength and some people need to recognize that. I admit I am a windows user, although I do have Fedora, and I had Ubuntu CDs sent to my home, but I just dislike the driver support and the lack of gaming that I just don't use them. I like to explore alternatives, and I just haven't found any yet. But I don't sit here praising MS or Ubuntu or Mac OS X like they are gods or something.
"Why Does Everybody Hate Microsoft?" was the topic of a feature
/ 25/110300
I wrote for Slashdot back in 1998. I'm not sure how well it holds
up today (Microsoft is not exactly the same company now that it was
then), but for what it's worth, here's the link:
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/03
Enjoy,
-Karl Fogel
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
My biggest frustration with Microsoft is that they clearly have the resources to make a better product than they do. I've heard many excuses as to why the operating system isn't more stable or secure. They are, however, simply excuses. With Microsoft's resources, they really have no excuse. Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, and others have shown us that it is possible to create a more stable and secure operating system with LESS resources than Microsoft. I have a different beef with Microsoft Office. Here, there are some gripes about stability and security (more security than stability), but my biggest complaint is price. Way too expensive. You want to fight software piracy, Bill? Make your prices MUCH more reasonable. There is definitely a priceline at which a user, who would not normally pirate software, will consider pirating software simply because the cost is too prohibitive. Something to think about. So that perspective is made clear, I am a long-time Mac user. I'm also into Linux and BSD. I don't consider myself a zealot or a bigot. I don't wish Microsoft would fail. On the contrary, I think it would be a great benefit to the entire community to see them succeed and succeed well. It frustrates me that they choose not to.
1. The cost and quality of their products and how they are tiered. High on cost and low on quality. If you want quality then you have to upgrade at an outrageous cost. Ex. 2003 Server Std. Ed. vs. 2003 Server Data Center.
2. SA and their thug like, arm twisting tactics to get you to pay for the same product year after year after year after year. It's a protection money racketeering. Pay us every year and we won't make you go through an expensive audit to prove you aren't breaking the law. First of all, you can't prove a negative. Secondly, doesn't that violate the 5th amendment? They make you do an audit at your expense and then the results are used to sue you if you are even one office license out of conpliance. Basically, you do the work for them and your results are used as testimony against you.
/me grabs the analogy and runs for the hills...
But then over the years, McD's introduces new meals and refines older meals. It starts to taste rather good and it's not all that bad for you. You're still wondering about the guys outside the doors handing out leaflets advocating their open food stalls; food that apparently taste wonderful and make you live forever. You try them out but find the food comes in those annoying plastic wrappers that have the "handy" tabs to open them that tear off before you actually manage to break the seal, forcing you to tear them open with your teeth. When you do finally get the packet open, you find the food isn't compatible with your fork and you end up trying to eat your peas off your knife. And they don't do McRibs.
IMO System Restore is one of the most useless tools in Windows. It's totally useless for serious problems, because it requires fairly working Windows for itself to work(!). For minor problems it's mostly useless, because in 90% of cases, after a long restoring and reboot, it says the system could not be restored. Even if it successfully restores the system, it doesn't do it reliably. There are cases when software removed by system restore will not reinstall, because it thinks it is already installed. Windows reinstallation in repair mode invalidates all restore points. System Restore repository is a good hiding place for malware. The only good use for it I can think of, is getting a good registry file from its repository, in case of severe corruption of main registry files. However, a simple registry backup would be as useful in this case.
page nubmers did not work for a long time
cause office is not consistent - you learn how to use word, and the same thing is diff in excell and pp
cause service packs and upgrades disable running programs
stupid help and error messages
Wow, there are a lot of zealots here
.NET (C#/VB.NET) you can get a job within HOURS. It's in such high demand! Folks aren't as enthusiastic about hiring someone that only runs Linux and only does LISP, Ruby, and Scheme because they are 1337... Business owners want a proven solution. Not to mention the component market kicks ass on Windows. If I want to develop a project for a customer, I can do research and find an existing COM or .NET component to do very specific things, maybe Drivers license parsing. I can purchase this component and support on Windows and have that part immediately done... On Linux I'd be sitting down with a drivers license spec and having to recreate the wheel.
Let's get right to it. Visual studio kicks ass. I've been programming for 15 years in C and C++ and I would stake my life on the fact that I can kick most people's ass at writing C and C++ code. I didn't write it in some piece of shit program, like VI (OMG HARDCORE)... I used tools which helped me get it done faster. Bosses don't like seeing people use command prompt or terminal based programs in the year 2006, you look like an idiot. I've had coworkers that are linux advocates shell into their home linux box over SSH and start doing commands to make themselves look smart while they are in a conversation with me. I get it.. You can use linux. There is nothing difficult about Linux, it doesn't impress me. Lets get over the "OMG LINUX DOESN'T CRASH" phase of pre-windows 2000.
The real situation is that Microsoft has created jobs. Shitloads of jobs. If you know
And now with XNA out... I can port all of my hobby games to C# and run them on my XBox 360. I'm sure Microsoft will eventually evole this into something I can sell at the online marketplace. Microsoft has given me so many opportunities and has changed the way the world uses computers. If you have Microsoft, stop using fucking KDE and Gnome then. Please. They are just shitty wanna-be copies of the Mac OS finder or the Windows Explorer.
Microsoft assumes that everyone is a thief.
Think of all the ways they use, telling you that they believe that you are a thief:
1. BSA.
2. License activation codes.
2. GWA.
4. DRM.
5. SCO lawsuit (Linux is stealing from us) (paid for by MS)
6. Advertisements in major magazines calling you thieves.
7. Reactivation required whenever you change hardware.
8. Secret interfaces in their OS, because otherwise you'll write software that will steal from them.
etc...
How would you feel if every time you went to work, your boss had you stripped and cavity searched every time you entered and left work, because he assumed you were a thief. That is how windows makes me feel. It's constantly probing you, trying to find any possible reason for calling you a thief.
That's one of the main reasons I prefer Linux. No anal probing.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Proof, proof, proof is just too against you.
Microsoft has been, and continues to be, a criminal operation. I wouldn't persoanlly care too much if they were only stealing other people's money, but it is darn near impossible to buy a desktop computer from a Microsoft OEM 'partner' without paying for a copy of Windows that you don't want, or need. I'll stop hating Microsoft when I can buy an HP, Dell, IBM, or Gateway desktop computer with no OS and the price of Windows deducted.
I view MS as a committee which behind closed doors makes decisions regarding my behavior and use of a computer. To implement these policies they strategically place obstacles in my path to steer me in their desired direction of computer use. I object to being steered by use of obstacles. I prefer to be lured by attractive and useful features, not turned by locked doors and roadblocks as if I were a rat in a maze being observed from above.
I also object to the MS business model of ceasing all effort to improve product once a target market has been captured. For example, Internet Explorer was actively developed until it captured the market from Netscape. Then all improvement ceased for years. This has not been my experience using open-source software, which tends toward steady and incremental improvement over time.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
As a developer, there have been quite a few times when I was infuriated enough at Microsoft to write to them about an issue. The issues themselves are quite diverse, but they all came from the same source: very poor design decisions that proved to be driven by petty marketing concerns rather than incompetence. As much as this fury is directed at Microsoft when it happens (some problem that wastes 3 days of my time at a crucial development juncture) - it's really just an inevitable by-product of using tools created by a for-profit corporation. A corporation's purpose is to make a profit, not to make my life easier, or my job possible. If they can do all of those things, they will, but whenever they have to chose just one of those things, they will always choose profit. In a way, you can't blame them, they're only doing what any corporation that thrives will do. Microsoft just happens to be particularly good, ruthlessly so, at it. But yeah, I still "hate" them because I care more about doing good work than making just a little extra money - and Microsoft wisely pretends to share those values, and wisely *doesn't* share them (as their market cap illustrates). Oh yeah, I also "hate" Microsoft because when an opportunity arises where they can make more profit by destroying a superior technology with dirty tricks, they take it; thus denying the world a much needed better alternative.
I switched to open source programming languages/databases/OS's for part of one job, and when I saw the glaring difference of working with the tools created by people who's first priority was creating good tools; I cheerfully abandoned my 15 years of Microsoft development experience and sort of started my career over again. As a result, I make about 25% less than I used to, but my days are much, much happier. The work I produce is much better, and when something doesn't work, I *know* I can fix it, not merely hope that I've eventually identified the problem area and attempt to code around it.
And yes, being able to take that level of pride in my work, is well worth the $25,000 a year I've given up in salary. Which is probably one of the geekiest sentiments I've expressed this week.
a) simple: jeleously. MS is successful, Gates is rich, I'm jeleous. Now thats out of the way
b) 1984 (the book). An Operating System for a computer (aka Windows) has to have total control of your system. And a OS company, for practical purposes, has to make desicisions and stick to them, in order to provide stability. But, Americans traditionally don't like to be told what to do, how to do it, etc. And anything that's seen as excessively authoratative ie bad.
c) legalease / liscense rules: All software companies, since at least the early 80s, realized that there was a chance for a bug to affect the customers data. And that the cost to the customer could be FAR more than the customer had paid for the software. Since no company can afford to pay millions in damage claims on a product that sells for a hundred bucks, computer software companies (all of them) include disclaimers for any responsibility at all. Because of existing comsumer laws, many software products dont claim to even do what they are designed to do -- that way they can't be sued if they fail. All this leads to an impression of trying to aviod responsibility.
d) bugs: closely related to the above, are the bugs themselves. All programs have bugs. Its a fact that humans make mistakes, and so far all programmers are human. And their tools are created by humans. Everyone who's spent time with computers has had to deal with bugs before. It's annoying. Microsoft has the disadvantage that 1) their software is EVERYWHERE. So any bug affects everyone, and you hear about it in the news. 2) their software is the control software for your computer, so their bugs can potentially mess up your computer, and/or prevent you from using your computer the way you want to.
e) design. This is a big related to the authority issue. MS controls their design, and they are slow to change it. Fact is, they have to be, to provide stability. But it makes them look arragant, and draws people's ire.
f) takeovers. Once upon a time, there was Word Perfect. Then MS decided it wanted the market, and after years of leveraging their resources and advantages, Word now rules the market. Once upon a time, lotus 1 2 3 was the spreadsheet software. Now its excel. Once upon a time, there was various database software, now there's access. The domination of the market makes them appear (quite rightly in many cases) as a giant monopoly. And we all know that giant monopolys dont care about me or you, so they are hated.
g) greed. MS is a for profit company. They want to make money. No suprise there. But they want to find ways to make money off me any you. And with computer software and with liscenses, they have a lot more chance to use "artificial" means to force us to pay them. Compare: If I buy a hammer from Sears, I'm not going to buy another one unless it breaks or I loose it. If I buy windows from MS, I don't need to buy it again. But yet, when I buy a new computer, I have to buy windows again for the new computer. And the publicity about software companies (and media companies in general) wanting to move to subscription liscencing makes people hate the idea. Do you want to have to pay Sears every year to renew your liscense to use your hammer? I dont want to either.
h) Possession. People and companies have an inherent disagreement about what it means to buy software. People know what it means to buy a hammer, and they exect buying software to be like that. But record companies, software companies, movie companies, etc don't think that way. You are merely buying a limited, liscensed copy of the product, and have only the rights they allow you. This is counter to people's normal idea of ownership, and is a large reason why people feel no guilt in letting a friend listen to their CD, lettin a friend borrow a DVD, or installing windows on a friends PC. Software companies have been able to use a variety of mechanisms to enforce their view (the 2nd copy of windows needs to be registered before it will work, and
I agree whole-heartedly. It is just disgusting to watch how people wince and cross their fingers every time they make a change on a Microsoft OS, blink in astonishment if it works the first time, and think of this as normal.
I'm a fossil; I date back to the days when computers were housed in big white rooms, programs were punched into little pieces of cardboard or paper tape, and little Billy Gates slept on computer room floors. Want to know something? Even with those clunky, cantankerous, 16-64KB machines, we were astonished if things didn't work the first time. What happened? Microsoft happened.
I never heard of a "snow crash" until the first time I touched MS-DOS. Windows 1 & 2 were sick jokes. Windows 3.x froze the machine at least four times a day, to the point that PC manufacturers actually started installing a button leading directly to the CPU's RESET pin on the front panels of their machines. That sort of thing was unheard of until MS came into town.
I was foolish enough to hope the MS hell was over when NT 3.51 showed up, it was so good in comparison to what went before; probably because most of the code was derived from IBM's work. But then Bill Gate's so-called programmers 'accelerated' NT 4.x by loading the drivers into kernel space and everything went to crap again. An earlier post tried to point fingers at badly-written device drivers. Here's news for you, kiddies: bad drivers should not be able to crash a properly-written OS!
Then their horrific coding practices began to catch up with them, and now every user of a MS OS has to wrap it in layer after layer of security software just to keep the silly thing from getting eaten alive the moment it's connected to the Internet....
And people think this is all normal.
Shall I now mention a few of the lovely, anti-competitive dirty tricks built into the code? I personally remember the coding trap deliberately written into Windows 3.x so it would bomb when you tried to run the thing atop Digital Research's DR-DOS. Then there was the esoteric memory-addressing stunts built into a lot of MS apps and designed to do just one thing: page-fault Windows emulation sessions under OS/2.
And that last paragraph, my friends, is as far as I'm going to get into their business practices, as Wired did a very nice job of that back in 2000 with this article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft_ pr.html. I'm done; just thinking about Microsoft and all the grief they've caused people over the years has just about ruined the rest of my day.
And people still think this is all so very, very, normal.
Incredible.
Regards;
With pirated copies of XP I've seen around, installing windows has been rather easy. No annoying activation, and in the early days windows update worked nicely and there was no WGA (it's slightly more difficult now, but not overly so).
Now here at work, I've got about 50 machines with fresh XP Professional reinstalls. Since they've all been reformatted (moving departments), that means that for every freakin' one I've had the authentication fail (it only works once online). To fix it, I need to call MS, talk to a damn machine voice agent, type out the confirmation ID to the machine (about 10-12 sets of 6 digits) on the phone keypad, and then have it reject my number. Then I get forwarded on to tech support in India (judging by the accent) and have to explain that NO, I am not installing on multiple machines etc etc, and have them read out another 10-12 sets of 6-digit keys which I must enter to validate the damn install.
And we're paying customers.
So yes, while the issues of crashing and viruses had previously given me a certain amount of dislike for MS's Operating System, needing to call tech support 50 times (or at least several times for sets of machines on my KVM) has pushed me towards the hate spectrum.
.. its a good article!
NO I will not stop playing games on a superior platform. It sucks, I don't have much choice, Wintel vs. Mactel, the choice is pretty pro Windows. I use a computer to play games because only (so far that is) a mouse and a keyboard provide me with enough control. Maybe for some sports games like Madden '07, NBA Jam, etc... but I'll take my PC over a console ANY DAY OF THE WEEK/MONTH/YEAR/???(longer time frame yet to be determined.) When I play UT2K4, I want to be able to strafe, and turn, and still be able to line up my crosshairs on an opponent all at the same time!. When Mac performance surpases PC (it will, give it a little more time) and the price is right, you'll se me switch.
The OS means little to the end user, it's the application that matters. If the app works on multiple OS platforms, and had similar performance, you would see me working to try a linux distro. I think really, I just hit the point.
THE OS isn't what the user cares about. I don't think my mom thinks of her computer being a windows box, it's simply a computer. I mean... there are plenty of people who think AOL IS the internet. It's not about mac/ linux/ win/ OS2, etc... It's just that windows allready has the install base, has more applications being developed for it, and has also become the standard office environment. The majority of users don't want to have to learn multiple ways to do things. Teaching clinical apps tought me that very well. "Just show us the first, easiest method." was the cry from students. (I had to follow a structured lesson plan.. 8'(
All in all though, you can't just say don't use the ONLY viable FPS platform, the only truely viable MMORPG platform, and expect a bunch of gamers to jump ship and go out and buy a PS3. It don't work that way.
-
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Oh, no actually, that's not quite true, hence the 1200+ posts here.
People like a winner who doesn't play foul ball, over and over and over. Right from the outset, Gates has been a Machiavellian creep. His history is long and slime-filled.
And Microsoft doesn't create the market in which there will always be a demand for skilled workers. Companies are always going to need computers. What Microsoft happens to do is to monopolize that market. --Work would still need doing no matter who was leading the way. People who complain do so because they can see the potential which could be realized if only there were a better managed system in control which made higher quality works and made morally sound decisions. The result of Machiavellian tactics is that people have their spirits crushed into unnatural shapes, and that means everybody has their light dimmed. Nobody can be at their best. Luckily, there are other systems which are not corrupt, and they steadily grow stronger and better organizes. The dark side takes you to a lot of power very quickly, but it also corrupts and thus can never reach the same potential as the forces of light. And yes, that may sound fanatical, but it's also accurate. (Dark = selfish and manipulative, Light = Service to Others oriented. Simple as that.)
So, do I throw my support behind a sociopath like Gates and hope that maybe I'm special and he won't try to take advantage of me, or should I throw my support behind community collective movements which seek to create a positive world? Microsoft's basic tendency is to create a reality where computers control people, not the other way around. I'll support the other side of that argument every day of the week. And that might seem fanatical, but it also might seem like common sense.
-FL
Hate is a strong word but I do resent and dislike them emmensly. Here's why:
1) Windows is made for users not developers (I'm a developer)
2) MS wants a piece of everything you do. Example, you want to build a C (the most widely distributed language around) application on Windows, poney up the bucks. Yes, I'm cheap but I really love FREE and I get that a lot with Linux and Open Source. Often for things you can't even get in the Windows world.
3) DLL hell
4) Forced upgrades
5) Windows is a moving target for developers and users
6) Enter a 25 character key (yes, I counted), hook up to the web to Activate, hook up to the web to Register, run S Update for hours (for XP Pro SP II, it takes nearly 3 hours on a high speed network to get all the updates and get them installed. This one's a HATE!!
7) Virus magnet! Maybe not MS's fault but you still have to live with it if you're a Windows user.
8) Bill Gates is the richest guy in the world the stinking little dweeb!! And he still wants you to pay another couple hundred bucks to exchange the bugs in XP for the bugs in Vista.
9) Bill Gates is the richest guy in the world the stinking little dweeb!! (did I already say that....)
10) MS has destroyed some pretty good companys clawing their way to a monopoly. I just want to see them go down. Not gone, but dropping to 30% of the OS market would put a spring in my step!!
There was a time when Microsoft was the most admire company in geekdom, very much like Google is today. They were always agressive and had a rapidly expanding dominant position but nobody begrudged them for it. But at some point in the early 90s they switched to full-bully mode, disabling DrDos, forcing other companies to sell technology to them at cutthroat low prices, hiking the prices of their upgrades, abusing their monopoly power to remove Nestcape from the desktop and that was the beginning of the end.
Much as people complained about all other supposed defficiencies, they do not stand out as being much worse than the rest of the field. Lets face it most software out there is buggy and bloated, be it from Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, or the Mozilla foundation. If this is all they did, they wouldn't be hated just as people don't hate Apple or Adobe.
No unwelcome anal probing? I mean, if you wanted to you could change the code.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
For me it all started with the original "OS2" project between IBM and MS. MS split and produced Win95, while IBM marketed OS2. This was the first time you saw MS do the tricks: OS2 ran windows faster than windows, needed only 4MB memory and did not need a hardware upgrade. MS started their marketing dirty tricks: claimed W95 would also run in 4MB of RAM - it didn't and everyone got into the first cycle of buying new PCs. It was also unstable so setting the scene for everyone to buy the upgrade to W98, needing new PCs again, and so on! Constant stress and dissatisfaction - wtth no where else to turn until Linux came along - Macs and Unix based systems were still much more expensive and MS had the programs being written for it (much like Linux does now).
There are also rumours of foul deeds at PC shows where MS and IBM were showing their competing products. I would suggest tracking down some old IBMers from that time.
ScreenPrint32. Lets you crop while taking a screenshot. Brilliant FREE program. Cannot live without. Snagit costs money.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Remember Stacker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics) ? I'm quite sure you don't, but I do. This is exactly the kind of attitude a Monopoly has and why everybody hates Microsoft. Microsoft tries to get the universe in their "OS" while killing other small biz by copying their technologies. The "Borg" comparison is then quite appropriate.
I suppose it's pointless adding to the as-of-now 1200 comments, the content of which whirled off into unrelated rantery with more than the usual rapidity, but just the same, to return to the original question:
Why I, at least, hate Microsoft is first, because they lie. They lie consistently, and they lie as a matter of policy. They tell untruths which cause people outside of Microsoft to waste hours, days, years of their productive time and of course money.
This is going way, way back I know -- and I have tried to let go of this and forgive and forget -- but I cannot forget hearing Bill Gates in person telling a crowd of techies, and this is an exact quote, "OS/2 is our platform for the next decade." And a few weeks later, at an OS/2 developer's conference in Manhattan, I heard Steve Ballmer say essentially the same thing. How many companies and individuals wasted years of time on the strength of that assurance? Those who did haven't forgotten the lie or forgiven the waste.
The utter lack of respect for standards, best exemplified by their multi-year refusal to repair the many, clearly-documented, and egregious errors in IE6's CSS support... how many thousands of web-developer years have been pointlessly wasted programming around Microsoft's ignorance and intransigence in that matter?
In these and many other ways, Microsoft has deliberately made life harder and less productive for millions of people who care about productivity. They are hated for that, and quite deservedly so.
If you think MS are ok read the Windows Vista EULA which gives MS the power to switch off your computer's os whenever they want without specifing a reason.
LINUX ROCKS, especially UBUNTU & DSL.
Dumb ass SOBs cant ever get it right, trying to take over the world and taking down anyone that gets in their way. Yeah I hate them. Get it right or stop and get out of the business MS!!!
Not everyone hates Microsoft. MS makes MANY terrific products. Hardware and Software.
...I fell a little like Tyler Durden when i say "You are not the software you use".
I dont really understand it at all. If I had to guess, its tribal types stuck in an us-vs-them mentality. Marketing today is so emotion/self-identity based, people view themselves through the products they purchase. Its an emotionally weak perpective, but much of the public falls prey to this perspective and discourse.
I was a worker at Apple in the Early Days of the Mac, and Lisa and have it on goof authority that Gates effectively Killed the MacBasic since Apple still needed the ROMS for the Apple][ from M$oft Then they turned aroudn and bought Absoft and then sold the Basic Compiler as their own for an inflated price while killing absoft. From that day forward, i have done everything in my power to not use any M$oft products. I used QUEMM, with multiple instances of windows 3.1 something Even Windows 98 could not do. I used Wordperfect, Quattro, and other products NEver ever did I use a M$oft productivity unless the company absolutely required it. I one case I was forced to use Visual C++ 1.0 instead of the Borland OWL and I QUIT !!!!!
I don't hate MS. I definitely don't love them either though - I think they're too big to generalize, like Sony.
.NET app add stupid overhead if you're just writing a small app, but in time this should become better integrated with Windows, so it will become less of an issue. As for development, it's the only IDE I've used that feels like it WANTS me to get the job done. Minor common mistakes in syntax are automatically and properly mended, and most of the time I need only guess at the keyword I want to use, and it will pop up a quick menu to choose it from. When accessing class members, the menu shows me all of them and their types, making object oriented programming a breeze. C++ is fun, but I seriously think it's about a decade overdue to be phased out. Then again, it's sad that only MS will ever make VB.NET so it will stay proprietary... still, it's my first choice for hassle-free fully-featured languages, and if you make a dumb mistake that would normally crash your PC, the .NET framework almost always catches it, making it much less of a headache to debug. I'll add the diaclaimer to that whole paragraph: I'm not a professional programmer, but have done a bit of coding in a dozen or two languages.
They piss me off with a lot of the things they do, and I hate their tendency to just buy any company with something they like, especially now that they're in the console gaming market.
I used to love MS-DOS and know it pretty much inside out. Back when GUIs were a novelty, I thought Win 3.1 was pretty cool, but that soon wore off. Win95 annoyed me, but I had one of the rare fast, stable systems after OSR2 came out and I learned to like it. Win98... meh. More of the same but a bit more bloated. Never played with NT or 2000 much, but 2003 is truly awesome, and when I compare it to all the other OSes I've tried including OS/2, Workbench, MacOS 7 through X, BeOS, and various Linux distros from 1998 to present, I'd go with Win2k3... if price wasn't an issue, that is. WinXP... DOES have Swiss cheese security, but a knowledgable user can actually make it quite fast, stable, and secure with relatively little effort. I'm kind of ambivalent about it, but it DOES work, and I only see it crash on PCs loaded to the breaking point with bundled crap and spyware.
The XBox on the other hand, I hate outright. It's a clumsy attempt to muscle in on the console gaming market, except it has maybe a half dozen games I'd want to play if you include the 360. After the power cord fiasco though, I'm not getting any XBox period. (MS recalled power cords and replaced them with one with a fuse, when the real problem was shorting contacts on the power supply board that can (and may have) caused house fires. MS took the cheap and sleazy way out of this one and risked their customers' personal safety in the process so their consoles are dead to me.)
Also, I used to say MS was at least good at making hardware. It was generally easy to set up and use, ergonomic, functional, and durable, with good built quality. Since the XBox though, I'm afraid to say that anymore since of the XBox owners I know, about 80-90% have had to replace their system at least once, sometimes as much as 3 or 4 times, usually due to dead DVD drives, though I know someone who updated his 360's and ended up with a next-gen paperweight.
VB.NET... is beautful. The common-language runtimes that load to support a
I guess overall, I don't love or hate MS. I just watch them carefully because they might always do something terribly stupid. They are capable of great things though, it's just a matter of hit and miss.
;)
./ make life difficult)
(gosh the filters on
They've been declared by US Courts to be an illegal monopoly, built on unethical business practices.
Anyone remember this?
http://www.tbtf.com/archive/1998-08-31.html#s02
"The memos are email conversations among Microsoft executives in 1991 and 1992 that discuss deliberately crippling a beta copy of Windows 3.1 so it would produce an obscure error message if run atop DR-DOS, a competing operating system now owned by Caldera. The code to check for the existence of DR-DOS was encrypted and obfuscated -- it was the only encrypted code in the beta -- but was cracked by programmer Andrew Schulman and published in Dr. Dobbs Journal in 1993 [9a]. Schulman discovered that the code searched for tiny differences between MS-DOS and DR-DOS, and when it found the latter it displayed an obscure but worrying error message: "Non-fatal error detected: Error #4D53. (Please contact Windows 3.1 Beta Support.)" The non-MS-detecting code was dropped into 5 places in the beta Win 3.1 code and, according to Schulman, had no possible legitimate purpose in ensuring the proper functioning of Windows. The code was still present in three places in the shipping Win 3.1 product, but had a single byte flipped to disable it."
I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg. OpenGL sandbagging...
However, my feeling towards Microsoft is disappointment. A company with such deep pockets and undoubted engineering talent could have pushed the world of computing to dizzying heights. They could have made the experience of technology beautiful for hundreds of millions of people.
Instead they've made the world an ugly place. Microsoft, you have wasted your life in pursuit of the mediocre.
The way I see it, learn as much as you can about each operating system (by using them), and then decide for yourself what is best for you.
I don't hate MS, Apple, or Linux, that is counter-productive.
I prefer Linux as a server/client development platform, and use it for 85% of my Desktop needs, and 100% of my Server needs, as it lets me do whatever I want (with the programming and scripting languages that I'm fluent in), and that keeps me fed each day.
I enjoy Mac for high-end audio/video engineering, and I also use Windows for low-end/home-studio electronic music production.
Linux is not a contender in the Audio Engineering field, and won't be for some time, so I really have no choice but Mac or Windows, for now.
Each suits it's purpose well. I just try to avoid using a web browser (IE or Firefox) in Windows as much as possible, due to the amount of exploits running wild for the operating system, not because I hate Microsoft.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
I used Microsoft DOS happily until 6.0 when disk compression was included. This product was so dangerous that it often scrambled users' entire hard drives irretrievably. Microsoft's negligent response to this revealed to me their collective soul. They never really fixed the product and kept selling it, long after it had ruined may customers' systems. I switched to OS/2 2.0 and Geoworks, and later to Linux. I now happily use SimplyMEPIS.
- David Batchelor
How not to design an OS if it wasn't for Windows?
How good an OS could be if it wasn't for OS/2?
How a micro (UNIX) should work if it wasn't for Xenix?
How cheap commodity PC's could get off the ground without DOS?
I'm not a fan of MS, but I (think)Iv'e kept an open mind!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Microsoft has more programmers working for it than God Himself, yet they come up with incredably bad interfaces. For example, right this minute I am trying to download Visio 2003 SP1. I am on the download page and cannot for the life of me find a button that says something like 'click to download'! Ferchrissake!
I's only good for games. Right? Isnt' that what MS used to say about Commodore, Amiga, Mac, etc? BC
Wow! You must read a lot of science-fiction.
I'm a Linux Fanboy who worked A LOT with Windows,
developping software on it for more than 12 years.
I have 20 years of experience int IT,
and I can say from experience that M$ products are TOTAL CRAP.
I never saw a Windoze expert solve a UNIX/Linux problem.
They never know anything else than Windoze.
I fix a lot of problems for those poor folks, though.
It's a question designed to put people on the defensive, categorizing their problem or problems with Microsoft as "hate". It's misdirection. A better question is neutral, structured in a way that does not assume anything about the person being questioned. In which case "What is your opinion of Microsoft" or possibly "What concerns do you have with respect to Microsoft" is a better approach. Recognizing that a tried and convicted monopolist is bad for consumers and stifles competition cannot be properly described as "hate".
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
I _had_ an HP desktop which I used for various purposes, Windows training, software testing, etc. The system came loaded with WinXP Home, which was adequate for my needs. I had recently refreshed the installation, using a retail Microsoft CD, but entering the OEM Product Key during setup. I activated the OS as required. So no problems. Then, a week or so later the motherboard was physically damaged after I dropped the case. I salvaged the hard drive, and installed it into a old IBM system. I refreshed the OS for the new system, assuming I could use the OEM Product Key from the damaged HP. Setup completed, but the OS would not activate. I called Microsoft and spoke with a nice woman with a British accent. I explained what had transpired, and my intended solution. She informed me that per the Windows EULA, I could not use the software license from the OEM on a "home-built" system.
It infuriated me that, from Microsoft's perspective, a damaged OEM motherboard results in a forfeit of the accompanying Windows license. The software was not damaged, so why can I not continue to use it? I realize there are business forces behind this, but I simply find it unfair and frustrating.
This is just one example of why I do not particularly like Microsoft as a company.
Dave K.
That's my $0.02.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
Hate.... not so much hate as dislike.
Lets see:
Business 'ethics' of The leader. The lawsuit with the professor and Bill over BASIC. The whole Q-DOS and burning of the office building to establish the rights to the code of MS-DOS.
I can 'blame' both sides of the contracts for the forced bundling of Dos/Windows on machines all those years ago. (Sub $10 for dos/windows when the retail price was so high)
The big issue for me is "Does the software work AS ADVERTISED/promised" For Microsoft that answer is "no" more often than "yes"
Microsoft's screw-ups give me billable time, and I make a good living. And if something doesn't work I can blame Microsoft and I'm off the hook. How can you hate such a fine scapegoat?
Microsoft is just a company, but the actions it takes and policies it has set reflect the personalities of its leaders. Over the last three decades, Microsoft has used its position to do very little. It has not ushered in new technology, but rather remained on top by blocking superior competition using fradulent business practices.
.. And so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success; I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success, in the most part; I have a problem with the fact they make really third rate products." -- Steve Jobs, in 'Triumph of the Nerds'
Examples:
In 1981, Microsoft said it would deliver the same graphical UI that Apple, Amiga, Atari and others were working on. Everyone else delivered in the mid 80s except for Microsoft, which couldn't release a product anyone wanted to buy until Windows 3.0 in 1990. It was still crap. Windows 95, a full decade late, was derivative and unoriginal, certaily not anything new.
1990s
Cairo, in 1991, promised to deliver ideas beyond those offered by NeXT, Apple, IBM, and Novell... but never did. Those companies all released technologies Microsoft planned, before Microsoft did - a half decade or more before, in an industry where a year is forever.
Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo
In addition to Cairo as an operating system, Microsoft did the EXACT same thing with Quicktime and the PenPoint and Newton handhelds: annonce a lot, deliver ten years late, if at all.
Microsoft also worked to kill every open standard that threatened its Windows monopoly, including the Java VM and the web browser. Once the threat was terminated, development slowed to a crawl. Today they are working against PDF, OpenGL, JPEG, and MP3, hoping to install and maintain their own proprietary standards.
2000s
Cairo was repeated as Longhorn, delayed for years, then stripped of any interesting features and dumped out many years late in Vista, which is highly derivative of Mac OS X.
Where is this company's contributions: Clippy? Yes, Microsoft has worked on some interesting things and does have products that work. They're just decades late and have sat on top of better products from other companies who delivered the same technology much earlier. A company with as much clout and resources as Microsoft has some accountability to actualy deliver and lead. It hasn't.
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste; they have absolutely no taste. And what that means is - I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way - in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products
And you sir are a bald face liar. No nice way to say it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Sharepoint, Biztalk, and Office 2007 integrations. The "business solutions" coming out of Microsoft right now are so painful. Their work flow foundation framework and developers tools seem less about programming and design and more about product integration with vendor lock-in. And let's not get into trying to trouble-shoot one of these "solutions" after they've been deployed -- or, #$%^&, try to upgrade it.
.Net 2.0 on a box for very long it seems the errors just start piling up after you add a few basic microsoft products -- can you say SQL Server or WSUS.
... basically we're talking about arbitrarily crippling a product for the express purpose of selling it at a higher premium. Did it take them extra development time so that Exchange could handle a 15GB mailstore or a 75GB mailstore? No it did not.
I hear people say good things about Server 2003, but trying to track down error codes and troubleshoot bugs once the install becomes more complex becomes a real nightmare. After you have IIS and
Oh and the way they deploy their administration tools is joke -- can't we just get a package installer please that works across their product line?
I guess we could also point out how painful AD schema troubleshooting is particularly after you throw in Exchange.
Finally, I just loath the way their tier all their products -- from server products to desktop applications. I mean, Basic, Small Office, Standard, Enterprise, Elite, Platinum, please! Take the Exchange mailstore as an example
Anyway, in the end I don't think they look out for us, the customer, as well as they should. And thus, I'm happy to look for alternatives whenever possible.
I grew up using Mac OS, and I learned my way around GNU/Linux in college. At home, I run a Debian box and an Apple laptop, and I use Windows at work. I also own a PC that ran Windows at one time; we're a small company, so it's currently the desktop machine for one of my coworkers. I'm not an expert Windows user, but I've used it enough now to have an opinion of my comfort on all three systems.`
.NET, managed C++, or straight 'on the metal' code with full library support from the Windows OS. Primarily because the dev tools are written by the same people who write the OS, the IDE is tightly integrated against the documentation that's available. Windows has hundreds of thousands of API calls, but the autocomplete features make them easy-to-find. And it's almost impossible to get the debugger into a situation where it can't dish up the current program state.
.NET project. And documentation integration is almost non-existant; I'm sorry to say that man is a terribly old system, info is little better, and documentation available in HTML is a notably less-than-perfect solution. I often find that the easiest way to find docs on whatever API I'm using in Linux is to type some function names into google, which takes me entirely out of my programming flow. And in most of the programming I do, it seems as though I can crash gdb by breathing on it. Apple's software was half-done when I used it last, and my computer was too slow to use auto-complete; hopefully, they've fixed those problems, but I've gotten away from Cocoa programming recently.
I see the developer toolchain as the biggest advantage to using Windows, if you can afford it. Because they know the survival of their operating system depends on the applications, Microsoft's development support is far above and beyond all other options I've worked with, both in Mac OS X and the Debian community.
Let's compare the dev process in Linux and Windows, for example. The obvious linchpin of the dev cycle in Windows is Visual Studio, which features a pervasive debugger and a GUI tightly integrated to the compiler. Depending on what I want to do, I can attack a problem at multiple levels---high level abstractions such as
In contrast, my experiences programming in Linux have been fairly nightmarish. Eclipse is a very decent package of software, if I want to program in Java, but I try to avoid that rattrap as often as I can. I have a bevy of languages at my disposal, but not even emacs gives them to me as cleanly as, say, VS serves up C# code in a
Let's talk third-party libraries. I've heard many people say great things about the freedom open-source allows. I agree it allows freedom, but it less often feels like the freedom to accomplish my goals and more like the freedom to make my own burgers by slaughtering my own cattle. Microsoft's ActiveX architecture is probably one of the best ideas they've ever implemented, and neither Mac OS X nor GNU/Linux can serve up anything I know about that is comparable. The idea of standardizing the binary interface for library interaction is completely the right idea, in my opinion. OSX is also fairly good in this respect, and their bundle architecture is a vast improvement over both libs and dlls. The GNU/Linux side of the planet needs vast improvement, in my mind, to allow software integration to be as easy as the other two major OSes. Package managers are a brilliant idea that I'd like to see more universally integrated into Mac OS and Windows. But their existence in GNU/Linux points to a major failing of that system---in general, software does not just work. The idea of being able to ship just the source code is noble, but the practicality is that because the ABI is not standardized from compiler to compiler, any time I wander away from what is available via the package manager I often have to recompile vast swaths of my OS to install just one program that demands a library version slightly newer than what is installed. This is unacceptable. As the famous line goes, "The great thi
Take care,
Mark
There is a solution...
a Microsoft butt-boy.
Circa 1980.
I was writing code for the Air Force on my personal computer H8 from Heath using Microsoft Compilers and CPM 2.0. CPU clock speed was 2.0 MHz. By tinkering with the crystals and some of the 74xx series chips (replaced with 74lsxx series chips) I managed to boost the processor speed to 3.0 MHz. Big difference.
I had $2000 dollars worth of Microsoft compilers I was using and paid for by me. BASCOM, FORTRAN66, COBOL (Bet you did not know that Microsoft once released a Cobol compiler and boy can I tell you stories about that procudt), and MASM.
None would run. When I called Microsoft I was told that I had a single CPU license. By changing the crystal frequency on my machine I had (by their interpretation) changed the CPU. All of my licenses were now void, if I wanted licenses that would run a 3 MHz I would have to purchase the compilers all over again. They also told me that if I did not return all of the compilers that I no longer had the right to use they would sue me.
1. I did not return the compilers.
2. I have never written another line of code on a Microsoft Compiler with the exception of MASM which my University used (I was teaching Assembly Language programming but could not dictate the assembler the class would use).
3. I will never, under any circumstances, ever write another line of code for a Microsoft Compiler. I will starve first.
Thomas E. Wiles
Maj. U.S.A.F. Ret.
Can you spell "fucking moron?" Sure you can!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I hate Microsoft. Not just hate, but REALLY HATE. With a passion.
There was a time when the Amiga was the king of computers. It worked very well. It had a brilliant OS with some excellent applications and games. I could do everything I wanted to do on my A1200: Video editing, video capture, genlocking, sound sampling, music creation (using samples or with a MIDI keyboard), programming, printing, wordprocessing, spreadsheets, e-mail, internet, 3D rendering and loads more. It was nice to use. A pleasure in-fact. I could have several programs running all at once on multiple screens of different resolutions with 32Mb and a 1Gb hard Drive. I could even use CDs and Zip drives. Life was good.
Then Microsoft just shat all over the world of computing and we end up with badly written buggy bloated software that needs half a Gig of Ram and a 50Gb hard drive just to be able to do anything. We don't have proper multi-tasking, different screen resolutions, or even RAM drives. They start eating up any company that gets in their way (e.g. buying the company that made the best MIDI software on the Amiga, then killed it). If anyone brings out something better, they make it break by putting in checks for it (e.g. They put a check on the MS website for the browser you are using. If it was Opera, they sent you broken code to mangle your screen). They are arrogant, and ignore the HTML standards that have been set up to make browsing a hassle free experience, by inventing their own HTML tags that don't work on other browsers. The other browsers are then expected to "upgrade" their code to support the non-standard tags, but at the same time MS Internet Explorer is one of the worst browsers out there, with nowhere near the functionality that the superior browsers have. Of course, the general population doesn't bother to choose something better, they follow the great Microsoft like sheep, because they don't know any better.
I stuck with the Amiga until December 2001. At that point I had to get a PC to be able to do the things I wanted to do. That was a bad day.
The computing world is now dominated by MS. Their applications software and OS is everywhere and the hardware is even made to support their software. This isn't good for us, it's only good for MS to make more money.
I have never bought anything by Microsoft, and I never will. I don't care what console they bring out, I won't be buying one. I won't buy a game, a mouse, or a paper clip off them. I have bought computers in the past that used their version of BASIC, but that's as close as I have got to giving them any money.
The world of computing is something that I have grown up with, from the days of the Atari VCS and ZX81, to the C64 and Amiga. Those were fantastic times, but now it's all gone. I could get a Mac, or run Linux, but I wouldn't have the choice to run the things I want to run, because everything is made for Windows with the other platforms getting a selection of some of the software, or incompatable software that can't be shared with the vast majority of people using MS products.
I'll finish up with my favourite Microsoft quote:
"There's nothing wrong with Linux. Microsoft pours hundreds of millions of dollars into Windows marketing every year to make it the operating system of choice. If only the Linux community would do the same instead of wasting their time writing and testing code, they might get somewhere" - Microsoft Spokesman. Says it all really...
What makes Microsoft so easy to loathe:
1. Microsoft doesn't want anyone else in the computer industry.
If Microsoft wants something, it buys it or takes it or backstabs someone for it, or ends up in court for it, etc. It isn't, as someone suggested, that Linux fanbois assume that anyone who likes Windows wants to have sex with Bill Gates. The simple fact is that getting into bed with Microsoft is an invitation to get royally fucked by Microsoft, and Microsoft isn't there to see that its partner has a good time.
To Microsoft and its leaders, the only proper goal (despite the fact that this is illegal) is 100% market penetration. This means that Microsoft will work to destroy anyone who could compete against Microsoft, and as has been proven time and again, it doesn't matter what it takes to accomplish this.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and continues to try to be a monopoly doesn't matter one iota to anyone at Microsoft.
Which brings me to:
2. Microsoft has no qualms.
Individual Microsoft employees tend to be decent people. But put them under the influence of Microsoft senior management, and there's no dirty trick that someone or other cannot be enticed to perform.
Which brings me to:
3. Microsoft cannot compete on the merits.
Microsoft's products take several versions to make "decent" status. Microsoft's flops would have killed any other company that lacked one or two distinct monopolies. Microsoft, however, manages to exist solely because it has these monopolies, and it uses licensing tricks and threats and pressure and paybacks to maintain its monopolies. If Microsoft's products were undoubtedly the best (usually they're not), then Microsoft wouldn't need to play these games.
But just take Internet Explorer as an example. Once Netscape was basically destroyed, Internet Explorer languished as a product for years. Now that broswers are back in development (with Microsoft not active in the field, it was "safe" to work on them again), here comes IE7, but IE6 was it for a long time.
The only reason for Internet Explorer was to destroy Netscape. It wasn't about bringing the Internet to the people; it wasn't about making a superior product; it was simply about destroying Netscape, and once Netscape was destroyed, there was no longer any incentive for Microsoft to continue work with it -- especially since it was "given away free" and then subsequently "integrated into the OS", basically forcing IE as a choice on the user, anyway -- not competing on the merits, but using its existing monopoly to force the choice on the user.
Which brings me to:
4. Microsoft lies.
Anything official that Microsoft publishes is just so much spin. Microsoft has been caught in lies and continues to lie. Whatever Microsoft does, it does it exclusively for the benefit of Microsoft, and any other reason given is just another lie.
Microsoft employees, particularly the marketing types, don't even realize they're lying when they come up with ways to spin whatever they've been ordered to sell. "How can we market this?" is really asking "How can we lie to people to make them accept what we're telling them?" And while this is modus operandi for advertising in general, Microsoft ranks up there with politicians for lies per mouthful.
For example, Windows Genuine Advantage. Microsoft wants to make sure that we're getting the real Windows Experience, or so Microsoft claims. More lies. It's all about profit, and these exercises in spinning it any other way is an insult to the intelligence of users. Does anyone really buy it? Probably. And maybe Microsoft is justified in holding its users in such contempt simply for the fact that they do buy it.
In summary, if Microsoft could compete on the merits, not abuse its monopoly position, quit lying, and start caring about more than its own corporate self, it could actually be something worth supporting. As it is now, however, it's merely a tolerated evil, a 30-some-year-old tantrum-throwing selfish infant of a corporation that cannot play nicely with others.
Most people I've met that speak like this are just massively ignorant, not dishonest. Could be either. Let's hope he's not too proud to learn.
Help for mouse problems requires the mouse!!!
Try this - unplug your mouse. Attempt to use the keyboard and work through the mouse troubleshooter. Can't be done. stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'm still mad that my Logitech C-Series mouse stopped working with Win95 - bastards all of them!
I hate Microsoft because things that should just work, never do. Here's an example that no one can refute: I put an Ubuntu Linux cd into the drive and boot up the computer. Everything works great running from the CD. I don't have to spend 20-30 minutes trying to find drivers to get my hardware to work. On the other hand you have Windows. I put a WinXP disk in the drive and boot, and it tells me I need a floppy drive installed so I can use my RAID array. That doesn't make any sense. I need an obsolete slow, disk drive to use my fast, modern RAID? You'd think they'd at least support loading drivers from a CD. Oh, and in reply to people who believe I have nothing to be proud of in Linux because I don't provide code. I spend lots of time in the Ubuntu forums helping people learn to use their computer. That builds community, and it also makes more people aware of how their computer works, so maybe they can make an informed decision next time they buy a computer.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
- Bloat - I can interchange all sorts of "core" programs in the typical Linux distribution to suit my needs for each type of computer I'm building. If I want a server, no need to run X; if I want a MythTV media center box, no need to run bloaty Gnome or KDE as the desktop interface. Microsoft Windows FORCES me to use its 1 interface, 1 web browser, 1 file system manager, 1 scheduler, etc. whether I like Microsoft's programs or not. Sure, there's lots of "replacements" to overlap some of those programs, but at the heart of Windows it's still running those programs in the background, and a vast majority of 3rd party vendors rely on those programs so much so that I *cannot* ever recompile or change the programs to something that I like better. Granted, I do usually use the defaults set for me by the particular Linux distribution I'm using, but at some point Windows' programs will drive you crazy with one little nuance, but too bad, you can't change that program to something you would like better.
- Security - Is it hard to get a virus, trojan, worm, or bit of spyware on a Windows computer? NOPE! Is it hard to get one on Linux or MacOSX? Yep! Why? Because Linux and MacOSX are based on the original BSD way of doing things, which is to segregate users from the 'system' and 'root'. Therefore, unless you know my password to login as root on my Linux or MacOSX box, good luck trying to destroy it! (And this goes for automated script-kiddy level cracking - not the manual cracking that true hackers are so good at that defeating nearly any running computer system poses little problem to them.)
- Investigative Ability - Linux has all kinds of logs, you can look at the code that is generating the errors (if it's not proprietary drivers from nVidia or ATI), and if you're so inclined, you can go about correcting said errors. With Windows you get cryptic error messages about core OS programs failing, but half of the time you just have to reboot the thing.
- Stability - While it is easy to bomb a Linux box through any number of foul-ups (I know because I've done it myself numerous times), there is usually a pretty easy solution to fixing the problem once you find out what the problem is. Granted, Windows XP was far superior in the stability dept. than any of its predecessors, but ESPECIALLY when I'm using it for hard-core gaming it likes to get all f-d up, and then comes the reboot! At least with Linux I can look into problems that are occurring and seek out the answers to those problems, or track the progress others are making towards eliminating those problems as more and more users report such errors.
Lastly, I think it's important to remember that there are programs in the Windows world which are far superior to what you can find on MacOSX or Linux. Likewise, there are programs in MacOSX or Linux that are far superior to Windows programs. 99.9% of all video games in Windows kick the ass of any game that can be run in Linux, for instance. But there are a great number of low-level "OS maintenance" type programs in Linux that can do so much more than similar Windows 'functions'. (VI, grep, syslog, etc.) I think the people who tend to despise MS Windows are the type of people who like to have limitless boundaries of learning when it comes to computers, and when they start to hit the wall of learning that is proprietary software, they get upset. It's a barrier that need not exist (in their opinion), and it aggravates them.this thread is huge, I just had my mind blown! its gonna take me days to read everything, but it'll be so hilarious!
"Primarily because the dev tools are written by the same people who write the OS, the IDE is tightly integrated against the documentation that's available. Windows has hundreds of thousands of API calls, but the autocomplete features make them easy-to-find."
Umm no. Totally unrelated teams that don't really talk that much. At least when I worked as a dev on the windows team, no-one used visual studio for debugging. WinDBG/NTSD all the way.
Autocomplete works against the public header files, so devstudio gets credit for a good autocomplete engine, and the windows team gets credit for good headers, but the two don't have much overlap.
Hate might be a bit of a strong word but I was pissed with Microsoft in the early days for the underhanded way they made them a monopoly. In the early days of PCs, about the time of Windows 3.0 and 3.1 Windows was shipped on approximately 100% of PCs. People didn't mind because it was free, or so they were lead to believe. This lead to the situation we have today Windows is used for the simple reason it is 'the supported standard' without regard to it's technical merits. Of course now most users know it's not free but I'm guessing many still don't know it is often the most expensive part of the system they just purchased.
;-)
Of course those were simpler times, without the part suppliers, which is why it was possible to hide the cost of Windows. 16 Bit Windows was a truly horrible product for mission critial applications as it was so prone to crashing etc. Having suffered though that, as a programmer, I started watching what Microsoft did. I switched to OS/2 only to see the way Microsoft did things to irritate me further.
With Windows 2000 they finally introduced an OS one could actually use in a commercial environment but subsequent version seem to be more focused on owning the user and making life more difficult for the user.
I course big companies make an easy target for kicking
I don't hate Microsoft as a company. They are no more evil, arrogant or faulty than any other big software/hardware vendor. However what I do hate is the reliability/usability of their consumer software (excluding the XBox). Bugs and bad/overly complex UIs in appliances/devices such as phones are also huge reason that many people I know steer clear of Microsoft's offerings. I'm sure there is a middle-ground between Apple's sometimes naive lock-down of simplicity and Microsoft's penchant for inappropriately consistent UI's and their over complication.
Blue Screen(s) Of Death and, before autosave exist, ms.office throwing your work to a black hole for no reason (just another crash) may be enough to hate M$. On the other hand, i see MS.Office (till 2003 edition, not 2007) as one of the best software packages ever developed. Not perfectly programmed, but they filled a big gap that existed before. Now, every ofimatic package is just a clone.
Simple. Microsoft's products are just stupid, well really just their OS. I hate it how their help has screenshots and explanations of screens that don't appear, it just crashes at random and the fact that their install CD contains a virus (found this running AVG). Also, once I had to restart my computer at some stage due to some updates which I wasn't too interested in so I say that I will do it later and go back on with my game which just happens to be a full screen one. So several times before I do end up restarting my computer, Windows tells me that my computer will restart in 4 or 5 minutes and I can cancel it if I want and say I will do it later. Should I really have to tell my computer several times that I don't want to restart it yet. Also, with their new software like Word 2007 and IE7, although they look all lovely and shiny, they have also tried to start being unique, however they have done it in the wrong way and although being totally different, they have made their software loads harder to use. So now, either they copy everything off Apple and other OSs or create some totally new which is near-impossible to use efficiently.
Why do I hate Microsoft... 1. They stole the kernel for the 32 bit version of OS/2 and created NT out of it. 2. After IBM created a new kernel for the 32-bit version of OS/2, MS invested a lot of money to ensure that OS/2 was killed. They blackmailed companies to keep them on the DOS and Windows bandwagon even thou OS/2 was by far a superior product. 3. They integrated their inferior Web Browser into the OS, so as to force people into not using other browsers, especially Netscape. 4. The are/were one of the secret backers of SCO fraudulent claims against IBM and Linux. And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.
- Dragonlord Warlock (aka Dion) "So many computers.... so little time...."
Ok it's late in the game and I'm getting sucked into this blatant troll, but anyways...
I hate Microsoft because it has become immensely rich and powerful by selling mediocre to poorly
designed product to masses of people who don't know any better. And that makes me mad because
it illuminates something sad about the human condition.
I hate Microsoft because they popularized the piece-of-shyte computer architecture that was the
early x86 computer. This architecture was a nightmare of incompetent, inelegant hardware design.
The ONLY thing it had going for it was that the plans were somehow made public so they could
be copied by offshore pirates to give us all dirt cheap computers. That was the first real case of
open source, I suppose. But still... Segmented memory architecture, non-orthogonal instruction
set... supplemented by bizarre hacks to make programs fit into memory. Gads...
Oh and wasn't it cool how Microsoft assumed that everyone would surely only want to run
one program from one vendor on their computer. If you had more, they'd stomp on each
other's shared libraries. Perhaps if we had, say, an OPERATING SYSTEM, it could sort things
like that out for us, hmmm?
And of course only one hardware device too, because if you wanted more, chances are they'd
stomp on each others' interrupts with the OS blithely ignorant of this and the subsequent lock-ups.
Oh and how about the cool way they asphyxiated Java on the client by distorting it and
refusing to adhere to standards, and refusing to make it easy to get a java program running on
your computer.
Software is a field where there are few constraints on making incredibly elegant solutions that
will constrain complexity and lead to easy to understand and easy to improve software, and
yet, and yet...
Microsoft has held the field back to banal, wart-ridden, C++ implemented ugliness for generations
now.
But hate is too strong a word. Queasiness is more like it. And a tendency to RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
whenever you have an opportunity to use anything other than it for any serious computer
work.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Well, here is one guys fairly well constructed opinion (not mine): http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS. html
Is it perhaps anything to do with hours wasted on bugs, viruses, crashes and bloated registries? If our cars behaved like Windows would we put up with it or switch to another brand? I Often wonder what the worldwide value of all the time wasted on these issues would be - say for the last 20 years since the Macintosh appeared on the scene. A large number? If our cars also had to inter-operate with other vehicles and the roads on which we drove or were subject to strict corporate purchasing policies and came complete with specific routes for the journeys we mostly needed to make then we'd all be in the same pickle that we are with PCs.
What it really comes down to, for me, is control and the power than comes from it - whether overt or as a byproduct of other factors. My hatred, per se, is not specific to Microsoft in this regard but I will focus on then for you in this instance.
In the case of Microsoft, I "hate" them not because of their success - which would be the closeted reason for many of those on Slashdot with socialistic leanings, who would rather see Microsoft owned by the commons - but it is, to a degree, associated and similar to that success. It is their success, combined with their near-complete domination of the software marketplace, uncooperative and monopolistic behavior, and general lack of adhersion to standards which further make things difficult for everyone else.
As a side effect of their monopolistic hold on software, they've managed to monopolize a sizeable amount of societal mindshare as well. For the most part, when someone mentions computing, people automatically think "Microsoft". Not a problem in and of itself, but when you take into light the fact that computing
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I hate MS because its products just SUCK. I like Office 2003, but Visual Studio 2005 needs some work (think Code::Blocks) and Windows XP really has some dopey things in it. If MS had better quality testing, I would like it more. By the way, I use Linux as often as I can.
I didn't really say everything I said -Yogi Berra
Well i DON'T hate Micro$oft, that doesn't mean i like them.
I am building my own Linux distro, so i no the in's and out's of Linux.
I use Mac's on a regular basis, so i no a fair bit about them.
My main machine is runnning Windows Vista, it is the most stable machine i have used YES better than OS X.
I ran XP since it was released, NEVER had virus, only crashed 5 or 6 times, ALWAYS been on line.
I run AVG Free Anti-Virus and Spybot, so i have never paid for Anti-Virus softwear.
All i have done is BE CAREFUL at what i look at and download on the internet.
As far as over pricing is concerned have any of you ever seen an Ipod, last year i paid 120 for a 20gig mp3 player,you couldnt even get a 4gig Ipod for that.
Hi, new here. I have despised Microsoft for so many years because they treat us like we are stupid. Then again, I remember the days before pc's and monopolistic operating systems. It takes a monopoly to standardize. Then, I think, capitalism should allow free and open competition. No dirty tricks.
There needs to be a free market in software. Microsoft keeps the market from being free by cheating, such as by breaking the law.
We (Lotus) were on the receiving end of a number of unfair practices (unfair in the sense of a business using a near-monopoly in one area to push domination of their other business - in this case using Windows to push Excel, Word, and Powerpoint). My own experience had to do with undocumented win API calls: Whenever a new version of a MS Office product came out, we'd get busy with our debuggers to find all the new cool stuff that MS had added to win (but not bothered to document) so their apps could run faster and be smaller (size was still an issue at the time).
As well, they'd engineered visual basic for apps (VBA) so that, although it would run when called by any app, it would run a lot slower for non-ms apps. We (Lotus) ended up having to build LotusScript, a VBA compatible app language.
BTW, these first two were being investigated by the DOJ - but the investigation was quashed when the Reagan administration came in.
Then there was MS's proclivity for implementing network standards in as proprietary a way as they could do it. If there was a standard, or if Novell already had a protocol, MS was sure to do it a different way.
Then there's the hidden/undocumented format of data files for their Office products, so if you wanted to inter-operate you had to reverse engineer (although this may simply have been so that they could force thir corporate/enterprise customers to upgrade completely to the newest versions as soon as some PCs had those versions). BTW, ever notice how early versions of Word could read and write WordPerfect files, but , somewhere along the way, they forgot how. Not just WP files - pick your competing product and notice how the competing MS product is compatible until they're dominant (IMHO the "extinguish" part of "dominate and extinguish")
Then there was the whole "windows tax" thing where computer suppliers got one price for windows if they committed to putting it on every box they sold - and a much higher price if they didn't commit.
Then there was the whole Netscape / IE thing, which IMHO was simply another MS "engulf and destroy".
And there's more - some of which I never got full details on. For instance, there was at least one instance of a couple of ex-Loti going out and building an OS for handhelds. MS employees signed NDAs and were supposed to be working on MS apps for that platform - but instead MS introduced a competing platform - using (perhaps coincidentally) many of the same ideas. Not totally sure what happened there and I'd love to get the whole story.
So... I'm not sure hatred is the right word, but I'd guess that a large proportion of folks here have been up against at least one of these issues. When you realize that it's on purpose, it's like realizing that, say, an opposing football team is deliberately injuring your players as a way to win (as opposed to out playing them). It engenders a bit of dislike - even if they're the leading team and you have to play them.
Now, there were a couple of places where the MS locomotive could have been derailed (imagine if OS|2 wasn't released in a crippled format so it could run on the 286 - and imagine if Steve Jobs had, instead of making Next a "next-mac" company, instead went head-to-head with MS's OS business - NextOS for PC hardware. It was good but hobbled by expensive hardware. But that wasn't your question...
They cannot distinguish between "End" users (i.e. Joe Sixpack) and developers. Hence they build a product like Access, assuming all end-users are clever enough to build their own applications. Joe Sixpack becomes a "database designer" and before long works on "mission critical" apps, where he really stuffs it up. Then some poor tech has to un-fix everything and try to explain to the PHB's that little Access databases and macro-infested Excel spreadsheet do NOT make an Information System. PHB's don't believe the tech, and then appoints Carol Clueless, another "Access Expert" (TM), and the some ol' starts again. MS's biggest sin, to my mind, is fostering the clueless image that point-n-click == systems design.
I lived through DEC/VAX, Sun Workstations, the first MacIntoshes, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, etc., etc. I find it ABSOLUTELY AMAZING that no one gets why Microsoft is successful REMEMBER that Sun (and every other UNIX vendor) REFUSED to ship their advanced OS on standard processors and hardware. Oh yeah, and so did Apple. THAT led to the rise of Microsoft. LOGICALLY we should all be (and should have been for years) running UNIX on Intel processors (hmm oh yeah, that's what Linux is--and why has it taken so long for THAT to roll out?--because of the GREED AND SHORTSIGHTEDNESS of the hardware-addicted box manufacturers! Oh yeah, and by the way, Microsoft has been RELIGIOUS about maintaining backward compatibility with their prior gen products--no STRANDING users of apps on prior OS'es like Mac. Oh, and that MIGHT be what has made an investment in their products a better return over the years--and why their are so many security holes in the product--and why it takes so long to rev the OS. When you start from scratch you can always build a better product--but corporates would much rather have that backward compatibility. It may seem naive and overly simplistic, but Microsoft literally carries the weight of the corporate development budget every rev. They HAVE to get it right... I KNOW that they can be: contemptible, mean, pushy, feature-bloating, etc... but they ARE WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE CUSTOMERS CHOSE THEM... now i know that the customers chose them almost too much--now they have to live with them. and there is choice--and many with choices still choose msft...
Link here. Make of it what you want. http://toorg.blogspot.com/
We need to a point in time.
Let start when Apple II+ was the king.
Wow, it would be forever.
Nah, two years and the IBM PC took the reign,
That lasted longer so for sure it would be forever.
Nah, Compaq took over.
Compaq would be here forever.
Nah it is Dell now. One day Dell will be goner too.
There was Lotus 123, there was No question that it would stay forever.
Nah, it is Gone.
WordPerfect where is it
Well Microsoft would be gone one day too, but not because of the
Biased Dogmatic site like Slashdot, and not because of Linux.
Something else that is not yet around would do it on its own Merit.
They DO have responsibilities, and ARE punishable.
Punishments include fines, sanctions, and so on - up to and including breaking them up and/or revoking their articles of incorporation.
For example, Western Electric was prohibited from competing for profit in the computer software market (the original availability of the UNIX operating system source code was as a direct result of this, as were the license terms that resuled in Berkeley UNIX and the Lyons book out of the University of New South Wales).
For other crimes, coprorations can be held responsible in the persons of their corporate officers, just as HP is currently being held accountable for obtaining the same information about a number of its board members and news reporters.
The example of the PG&E poisoning the groundwater with Chromium in Hinkley, CA (a small town near Barstow, CA), settling for $333M to 650 plaintiffs (the basis of the movie "Erin Brockovich"), and again in 2006 to another 1,1000 plaintiffs in other rural areas is another good example.
It's very rare for a corporation to have its articles of incorporation revoked However, breakups can and do occur; the A&T breakup was a court ordered punative action under the Sherman Antitrust Acts for the illegal use of monopolistic powers.
The entire point of Microsoft fighting the DOJ in the action that resulted in them being declared a monopoly under the law was to avoid such punative action.
I don't have a ready example of a total disassembly of a corporation, but "the death penalty" is available as a punishment, and is technically capable of being applied by the secretary of state in the state in which the company is incorporated. This would most likely that the form of an action brought by the state attorneys general of that state, resulting in a court order to that effect.
-- Terry
I believe in the value of standards (even de facto standards which is what MS has often created), which tempers my MS hate. That said: 1- While explaining to an unsophisticated user why I had recently changed to a Mac, this slipped out: "The most important part of a computer is the Software. The Mac's software is based on Unix, which was designed to work well. The PC's software is based on Windows, which was designed to make money. Both got succeeded. 2- If it weren't for innovators (that keep the MS, "tail light chaser," busy) MS might have gotten some of their programs to work pretty well by now. 3- Their legal strategy (count on the slowness of the courts to allow them to do whatever they want, so that by the time the courts move, MS has already won), is a perfect workable strategy in high tech. I have to admire them for having used it so effectively, but it makes me hate 'em all the more. 4- I have great respect for both Ethics and simplicity. The result is paradoxical that that I love/hate them for their clear statement of Ethics, which is given in the following quote " ".
If I have trouble with Windows I can pick up the phone and get support. That can't be done with many Linux distributions.
End User Evaluation of Windows Security: "Your Programming Is Inferior."
Windows response to End User: "Flesh is a design flaw."
That seems to about sum up people's view of MS, and perhaps the MS software's view of people!
I do not hate Microsoft. ....
I merely strongly dislike their practices, arrogance, bad software, WGA, activation, security holes, etc., etc., etc.
What I really, really DO hate is spam.
You see, I am not only a helpless and iritated user, I am also mail server administrator and I have to listen to dozens of pissed off users. And I have to spend considerable effort in order to limit the amount of spam. (No. Greylisting is not an option for our server, unfortunately)
And where the most of the spam originates?
Right.
Virus/spyware infested WINDOWS computers.
If Microsoft did its homework right, there would be only a fraction of spam we see today.
In the last "spamthru" botnet there are more than 50% of XP SP2 computers.
I don't hate microsoft as such, I hate what they stand for. Their business strategies are although sound on the outlook are actually disgraceful in practice. I don't understand, fully, why microsoft will not be touched by the government.
I always have an aversion to upgrading to newer microsoft products, this is why I never upgraded from windows 95 to 98 when I was still using 95 in late 2000. Although, nowadays, win2k is fine for me and I won't be upgrading anytime soon. I have used windows 98 and XP and found them to be a load of tripe. 98 for being very unstable and crashing badly. XP being to worst, since microsoft sold it on the premise of better security and "oooh look, pretty windows"....ahem! It took them still service pack 2 to sort out some of the security problems wrong with the system - a common occurance over the last few OS's, although I can excuse windows 95 with it stepping from win16 code to win32 code!
Then I saw concepts of the vista vision and microsoft's usual of eye candy and promise of yet more better security plus a whole load of other features that have been slowly whittled away to another version of windows. The only other selling point I can see of this version of windows (vista) is that halo 2 will only play on windows vista (a very annoying fact for most including myself) due to the better features like video/media streaming exclusive to the system. I have had people say, in response to this, Why not get an xbox/360? Why should I?? It's just a strip down pc made as a console - another attempt by microsoft to corner a market for profit! IMHO I can't see Halo 2 ever being ported to the PC's (esp. Vista) mainly as microsoft's habits of saying that their release of windows has a certain amount of features and then taking them away, plus if people want to play halo 2 so badly, well why not get the 360??
I do use microsoft products for programming and gaming, and to be honest, sometimes i prefer using my pc to consoles on a gaming matter. They do have better graphics (although I'm not of those types to have grpahics over gameplay), for example, my ex-housemate had GTA 3 for his PS2 when he saw the graphics on the pc (and I was using an ATI 7000 at the time, and still am) his response was "Wow, nice graphics". PC's (graphics cards with CRT/TFT monitors) will always win over consoles (graphics chips with tv sets/plasma screens).
"Hey here's a thought. Play games on your consoles, and stop using that as a reason for using Windows."
As soon as they start supplying the mouse for those, all RTS, FPS etc are PC-only.
why dose everyone Hate Microsoft. Because everything they make suck but now not as mutch xp is one of the best thangs they made but just barily and the only people who know that are the people that run red hat like my self. I know this comment is going to screw me but... the only thing microsoft will ever make that wont suck is a vaccume cleaner.
King Of My Own Little World.