"People who choose Microsoft do so because it is simply the best solution in today's workplace for productivity." Oh, pathetic. Best solution because Office is a standard forced on many people, or best solution because it's actually usable? And yes, there is a difference. MS's solutions are RARELY actually usable, and typically _are_ forced on people by head-in-the-sand IT managers or just-below-competent middle managers who learned Windows, never tried anything else, can't change, and therefore think that everyone should use what they do. I guess MS's products _could_ be considered the best solution for productivity for today's generation of VXers and script kiddies... that's true enough... and for anti-virus vendors...
"As an aside, I am tired of these endless criticisms of windows. It was never marketed as an über-secure or über-robust system. So stop complaining and understand that it is a relatively inexpensive and user-friendly OS"
Heh? You're kidding, right? Windows has ALWAYS been marketed as robust and secure--ESPECIALLY Vista. You can't possibly listen to any MS exec or marketer all the way up to Bill Gates talk about it without hearing repeatedly and almost desperately about how this is the most secure Windows ever. Pure deception, of course--self-deception naturally, but nonetheless the marketing spin du jour...
And what on earth can you possibly mean by "relatively inexpensive"? Compared to what, starting from scratch and developing your own OS? Certainly not compared to MacOS X, _absolutely_ not compared to most Linuxes. Upgrading to Vista can cost the better part of $600... Not relatively inexpensive in the least--two installs could have gotten a lovely Macbook instead... with a truly user-friendly, secure, robust OS and some truly useful (and highly usable) programs--including many *NIX tools--thrown in FOR FREE.
Go back to astroturfing somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
"People who choose Microsoft do so because it is simply the best solution in today's workplace for productivity." Oh, pathetic. Best solution because Office is a standard forced on many people, or best solution because it's actually usable? And yes, there is a difference. MS's solutions are RARELY actually usable, and typically _are_ forced on people by head-in-the-sand IT managers or just-below-competent middle managers who learned Windows, never tried anything else, can't change, and therefore think that everyone should use what they do. I guess MS's products _could_ be considered the best solution for productivity for today's generation of VXers and script kiddies... that's true enough... and for anti-virus vendors...
"As an aside, I am tired of these endless criticisms of windows. It was never marketed as an über-secure or über-robust system. So stop complaining and understand that it is a relatively inexpensive and user-friendly OS" Heh? You're kidding, right? Windows has ALWAYS been marketed as robust and secure--ESPECIALLY Vista. You can't possibly listen to any MS exec or marketer all the way up to Bill Gates talk about it without hearing repeatedly and almost desperately about how this is the most secure Windows ever. Pure deception, of course--self-deception naturally, but nonetheless the marketing spin du jour... And what on earth can you possibly mean by "relatively inexpensive"? Compared to what, starting from scratch and developing your own OS? Certainly not compared to MacOS X, _absolutely_ not compared to most Linuxes. Upgrading to Vista can cost the better part of $600... Not relatively inexpensive in the least--two installs could have gotten a lovely Macbook instead... with a truly user-friendly, secure, robust OS and some truly useful (and highly usable) programs--including many *NIX tools--thrown in FOR FREE. Go back to astroturfing somewhere else.