Are you kiddin? When 98 was all the rage [e.g. when cameras equally sucked in Linux] you needed drivers to do even the most basic of tasks. Windows comes with an abundance of drivers now. Guess what, cameras work just fine in Linux too.
My point though was that it's not a failing of Linux if they don't support it [or god forbid they agree on a standard].
They could just have a disclaimer "You waive tech support if you CHOOSE to install WinLite" or make a diff support contract for it. Make sure you label it on the box so they know beforehand and boom.
Also what's so hard about putting your windows CD in to install new hardware [or software].
You're kidding right? How about having one computer service the applications? Why should I install and run Office on my laptop when my overpowered, underutilized 300Wh desktop can run it [twice no less] without blinking an eye.
Or how about you're on the computer and I gotta get a file or something off it.
Or how about the other myriad of multi-user tasks [remote shells anyone?]
Finally, how many Linux users would develop on VS on linux?
Quite a few actually. when I say "VS" I mean the IDE and RAD tools and not the compiler. Look at kdevelop, it's largely attempting to clone VS. Seems there is enough draw for it.
Yeah, because having a tool work on more than just one platform would make it worth less than it already is.
I dunno about you but us OSS folk are professionals. I'd buy a copy of VS for Linux [provided it let me choose to use gcc over a MSFT compiler] mostly because the IDE is actually a decent piece of product. Look at other tools though. IBM ports DB2 to a variety of platforms [and not just their own UNIX] and imagine this, it does very well.
The problem is the various departments at MSFT that work on different tools [e.g. windows, office, devel] should be MORE independent. That would spark real innovation.
I mean as a VS developer your only job is to find ways to make Windows more prevalent. How sick is that?
Your argument lacks any sort of technical merit though and that's the trouble.
It's like asking why people drive such horribly inefficient cars. It's just the way things are. Yeah, ok, but that doesn't answer the question. Efficient cars are just as practical to build and accomplish the same goals.
Same thing in the OS world. A good Linux distro like Fedora, Ubuntu, Knoppix or Gentoo can do all the same desktop tasks the vast majority of windows users seek but does it with less memory, less cpu power, less cash out of pocket and more choice. People don't use windows because it's the better choice, they use it because they think they have NO CHOICE. They honestly believe that if it weren't for Microsoft the world as we know it would crumble and that absolutely no alternatives exist.
Put it another way, if Windows was so good then Microsoft could put front page ads for Linux on every paper on the planet for a week and still not lose any market share. The truth is for the vast majority of computer users they're just held in a nice bubble of ignorance supported by a lot of other players. Like Dell, HP, Compaq [the same now I guess], Sony, Acer, Asus, etc...
If people had Linux thrown at them as much as Windows you'd start seeing way more people waking up to the choice they already have.
No, we don't care for you people who already made up your mind before sitting down.
Will changing to Linux take time and money? Yes. Show me any business process change that is free. Too many people give up without trying then blame us who do the hard work for their inadequacies. I mean you had to LEARN how to use Windows right? Or are you saying any 5 year old can be a sysadmin [and if that's the case why are sysadmins paid more than 6 bucks an hour?]. So why is learning Linux distros so bad?
UNIX has been capable of remote users, redundancy, roll over, etc for a long time. Linux has inherited much of the tools that have made that possible. So citing AD as this huge plus over UNIX like OSes is just ignorant and annoying trolling.
If I want a select subset [a group if you will] of users to have access to a directory or file I'll put them in a "group" and change the permissions on it. If I want a select group of people to be able to do something I can always use a hardened [e.g SELinux] kernel, etc, etc.
quotas? Got that.
expirations? Cron job with a perl script. [there probably is a nice way to do that...]
And really, if you hate config files use webmin. It lets you admin your servers with a nice web interface [which you can do remotely, ooooh spooky].
Yeah I know the feeling. In my previous job we used whatever got the job done. A few used Windows because they liked the feel and got work done and the most used some Linux distro [I of course used Gentoo but there were debian and redhat boxes]. Point is we were productive because we had a CHOICE.
My current job pretty much mandates I use Windows. We're [apparently] big enthiastic fans of Windows and can't wait to use the next abomination of a tool. This feeling of course is [sarcasm] perfectly well shared amongst all employees emphatically and univerally. Needless to say we wrestle Windows annoyances on a frequently [too frequent] enough basis. And even my own box has had viruses [like the DWL one] despite the fact I use a anti virus scanner [it wasn't picked up by the common scanners until much later].:-(
I was fairly certain the Home edition of XP lets more than one user log in at a time. It would seem odd that only Pro supports it, since usually Pro is part of a domain (and when it is, doesn't let more than one user at a time login.. but this makes sense).
You'd be wrong. When another user remotely logs in, it logs anyone sitting at the terminal off.
Are you asking why MS doesn't port it to Linux? I'd think the answer to that is fairly obvious.
Really? What is it? I thought the VS teams job was to promote the use [and purchase] of VS and not prop up Windows sales.
How is this different to poor driver support with Linux? Doesn't the blame go to the hardware manufacturers? Isn't that who's always blamed when Linux doesn't support X device? This claim doesn't back up the '64bit windows is a joke' theory.
Good point. However, to say that Win64 is better than Win32 would require you to say Linux is better too than win32 [for basically the same reasons].
As for the "costs". It creeps up. When you need site licenses for Windows, Office, VS, etc, etc, etc you end up paying millions of dollars a year.
The linux driver situation is not a mess. You just bought a product where the developer doesn't care about you, the customer.
There is no technical reason why the camera doesn't work in Linux. It's not the job of OSS developers to be on the leading edge of every device on the planet. If your device manufacturer doesn't want to write drivers and doesn't want to document the interface how is this a failing of Linux?
btw with libgphoto a lot of USB cams work just fine in Linux [including the Canon Powershot series].
Not less than Gentoo though. I have an XP+Word2003 image that I use for writing and the disk space usage is about 5.1GB. Mind you I have firefox, adobe reader, AVG, putty and gaim on there... so maybe it's about 4.8GB or so.
That's a LOT OF CODE for just a kernel, WM, bug ridden web browser and crappy shell. I mean think about it. That's about 4.8 BILLION bytes of code to let me run concurrent tasks with privileges, show me a fairly standard GUI, present me with a shell that can't do much, etc.
Now think, QNX had a demo that had full networking, browser, shell, a REAL TIME MULTI-USER MULTI TASKING KERNEL and other tools in 1.44MB.
There is no reason why a barebones install of Windows is anything more than 50MB other than bloatware and "let's throw everything under the kitchen sink in [except useful end user programs]". Like do I care if there is MS JET or DirectX support? Hell no. Do I need ACPI support? No. Do I need device drivers for every device on the planet [except the ones I buy of course]? etc...
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions. Other editions let you have users but not all logged in at the same time [even though the kernel would support it].
As for VS2005... why doesn't it work in Linux?
As for SMB... um use NFS in Linux. It's a single line to setup [on either side] and handled natively in the kernel.
As for win64... if you have 64-bit drivers. Many proprietary [the standard for Windows] drivers are not yet ported to win64. The win32 thunking layer is barely functional.
If you ever have to re-install a copy of Windows [from the CD] you will likely have to call India to get a new product key. At least that's been my experience.
As for ghosting, yeah I never said you can't ghost in Windows, I said you had to pay for it. In OSS world you can just rsync your disk to filestore somewhere else. Free tools that are work perfectly... hmm...
My point wasn't that they SHOULD bundle. It's that Vista is 8GB and DOESN'T COME WITH THEM.
As in, what the F!@# is taking up 8GB of my disk?
My Gentoo install with all those tools takes around 2GB [2GB to 3GB is a good estimate, right now I have loads of other stuff that isn't Gentoo specific so it's hard to be exact without doing an indepth du scan].
So if I can have all those tools in 1/4 the space what is MSFT doing to service me, the customer?
The problem is if you piss off enough people by stupid lockin tricks you lose customers.
The only big reason I like Linux distros [in particular Gentoo] is because *I* have control of what goes on. I don't have to install bloaty software if I don't want. I can backup my OS as I choose. I can tweak my kernel [and I have actually done that on occasion].
Whenever I install windows, it takes 2-3 hours [to go from SP1 to fully patched], have to deal with license keys which may or may not work [even though I buy shrink wrapped copies], don't get any development tools, research tools and the thing still takes more than 2GB.
I mean really think about it. In your install of XP what do you have that makes you able to work as any sort of professional? There are no office tools, no development tools, no media tools [other than the shitty WMP which you have to download anyways], no research tools, nothing but solitaire and WGA. Hell even the shell [cmd.exe] is total shit.
It's only a matter of time until more and more professionals wake up and make the move. And what does MSFT have to answer that with? Oh look, an Aero like GUI in Vista! Please...
I'd be totally willing to stick with Windows for my desktops [the ones I control at least] if they took their field seriously.
Let's see, do I want a cross-platform Office suite, or another Clippy update?
Do I want a competent shell? Or a.... well nothing.
Do I want a standards compliant compiler? Or C# which has limited support anywhere but on Windows.
Do I want etc...
Even people who ONLY say do office work can appreciate the benefits of OSS tools. Not just in the sense you're not paying huge license fees but in the sense that your documents are not locked into some tool chain. In 10 years your OpenOffice files will be just as free to be opened and moved around as they are today. Can you say the same about your WinXP files? You think Windows Vista2010 will let you install Office97?
Even if that was true I'd still rather have a proper UNIX environment anyways. Not to mention a real multi-user OS without shelling out huge dollars. Oh and the development tools and...
If you buy Windows to run AMP servers... you're wasting your money. Linux and BSD are more efficient to work with in server contexts, work better with 64-bit processors [Win64 is a huge compatibility joke atm] and don't require you to call India each time your HD breaks and you need a re-install. Heck, in BSD/Linux doing a ghost of your system is as simple as burning a tarball to a DVD. No need for 3rd party ghosting tools and praying that Windows lets you "get away with" using your OS...
The price of Windows has been climbing since it was first released. License keys as introduced in Win95 didn't make it cheaper. More stringent keying in 98 and XP didn't make it cheaper. WGA with SP2 didn't make it cheaper, etc. It isn't like MSFT hasn't been raking in billions in profits.
If anything WGA and the like only piss off PAYING CUSTOMERS since it seems "the evil pirates" always get around it [hence the excuse for higher prices].
What would it take? A lot more than a couple benchmark figures. The tools would have to be portable [like OSS tools are]. The tools would have to be competitively priced, etc, etc, etc.
I don't care if C#.NET is 10% faster than Java if it locks me into using Windows. There is more developing web applications than the OS it runs on. Java would let me choose a different OS [avoiding license cost]. Would let me have source code [e.g. to the kernel, tools, etc] so I can fix things as required [yeah I'm one of those nutballs that builds things from sources], etc.
There is more to computing than vendor lockin and shiny GUIs.
Here's a tip, they serve their shareholders by serving their customers. It's short sighted and ignorant to assume that a strangle hold will last forever [hint: it won't]. They got greedy and instead of developing more universal products they decided to do what all good crooks do, screw their customers.
Think of how many Office users they'd have if it ran in Linux and BSD?
Similar for Visual Studio (which is a very good tool even though it's coupled to a non-standard C compiler).
How about Direct X?
Or even the Windows Media tools?
Look at how many people use ipods. Do they work only in MacOS? Didn't think so.
You're saying "no matter what they do they get slammed". That's because MSFT rarely does anything in the best interests of the customers. It isn't because I'm a zealot (4 out of 5 computers at my house run Windows, a couple by choice the rest by force). Sure I like Linux but hell if Windows came with a decent shell, portable standard libs and compiler I'd love it just as much.
Look at Vista, they originally planned on cramming tons of features, like "shiny GUIs" and "tiered Direct X" and other bullshit. Who wants to buy a copy of Vista that can't run their games? Or who really cares about 3D shiny see through GUIs [and why is that OS specific?].
Does Vista come with an Office suite? Development Tools? Research tools? etc... No. Then why is Vista 8+ GB in size? They cram in shit that is superficial AT BEST then take out anything that could possibily be useful [like Monad originally, though iirc it's going to ship right?] My Gentoo install is ~2GB and includes office, development and research tools.
As for your Nintendo comment, you buy a Nintendo to run Nintendo games. You buy a PC to run anything, you buy their tools to be in control, not to be controlled. I should OWN my word documents. That means I should know the exact format if I want to. I should be confident that my C compiler adheres to the standards so MY products can be as portable as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kiddin? When 98 was all the rage [e.g. when cameras equally sucked in Linux] you needed drivers to do even the most basic of tasks. Windows comes with an abundance of drivers now. Guess what, cameras work just fine in Linux too.
My point though was that it's not a failing of Linux if they don't support it [or god forbid they agree on a standard].
Tom
They could just have a disclaimer "You waive tech support if you CHOOSE to install WinLite" or make a diff support contract for it. Make sure you label it on the box so they know beforehand and boom.
Also what's so hard about putting your windows CD in to install new hardware [or software].
Tom
Give them time. The file FORMAT may be a standard [or become one] but the interpretation may change over time.
You just wait and see. You'll see incompatibilities between versions of Office in the future if the HISTORY of the company is any sort of indication.
Tom
for 2 users to simulatiously use the computer?
You're kidding right? How about having one computer service the applications? Why should I install and run Office on my laptop when my overpowered, underutilized 300Wh desktop can run it [twice no less] without blinking an eye.
Or how about you're on the computer and I gotta get a file or something off it.
Or how about the other myriad of multi-user tasks [remote shells anyone?]
Finally, how many Linux users would develop on VS on linux?
Quite a few actually. when I say "VS" I mean the IDE and RAD tools and not the compiler. Look at kdevelop, it's largely attempting to clone VS. Seems there is enough draw for it.
Yeah, because having a tool work on more than just one platform would make it worth less than it already is.
I dunno about you but us OSS folk are professionals. I'd buy a copy of VS for Linux [provided it let me choose to use gcc over a MSFT compiler] mostly because the IDE is actually a decent piece of product. Look at other tools though. IBM ports DB2 to a variety of platforms [and not just their own UNIX] and imagine this, it does very well.
The problem is the various departments at MSFT that work on different tools [e.g. windows, office, devel] should be MORE independent. That would spark real innovation.
I mean as a VS developer your only job is to find ways to make Windows more prevalent. How sick is that?
Tom
Your argument lacks any sort of technical merit though and that's the trouble.
It's like asking why people drive such horribly inefficient cars. It's just the way things are. Yeah, ok, but that doesn't answer the question. Efficient cars are just as practical to build and accomplish the same goals.
Same thing in the OS world. A good Linux distro like Fedora, Ubuntu, Knoppix or Gentoo can do all the same desktop tasks the vast majority of windows users seek but does it with less memory, less cpu power, less cash out of pocket and more choice. People don't use windows because it's the better choice, they use it because they think they have NO CHOICE. They honestly believe that if it weren't for Microsoft the world as we know it would crumble and that absolutely no alternatives exist.
Put it another way, if Windows was so good then Microsoft could put front page ads for Linux on every paper on the planet for a week and still not lose any market share. The truth is for the vast majority of computer users they're just held in a nice bubble of ignorance supported by a lot of other players. Like Dell, HP, Compaq [the same now I guess], Sony, Acer, Asus, etc...
If people had Linux thrown at them as much as Windows you'd start seeing way more people waking up to the choice they already have.
Tom
No, we don't care for you people who already made up your mind before sitting down.
Will changing to Linux take time and money? Yes. Show me any business process change that is free. Too many people give up without trying then blame us who do the hard work for their inadequacies. I mean you had to LEARN how to use Windows right? Or are you saying any 5 year old can be a sysadmin [and if that's the case why are sysadmins paid more than 6 bucks an hour?]. So why is learning Linux distros so bad?
UNIX has been capable of remote users, redundancy, roll over, etc for a long time. Linux has inherited much of the tools that have made that possible. So citing AD as this huge plus over UNIX like OSes is just ignorant and annoying trolling.
Tom
19 years with MacOS ... you mean with Macs right? It was called System$NUM before MacOS [e.g. before the move to the BSD kernel].
Care to revise your post?
System6 rocked.
Tom
Except for the fact it's huge, uses proprietary formats and doesn't typeset.
:-)
Real professionals use \TeX{]
Wrote one book in LaTeX [was a joy] and currently writing another in Word. I cry myself to sleep nowadays.
Tom
Groups? ACL? Gah?
If I want a select subset [a group if you will] of users to have access to a directory or file I'll put them in a "group" and change the permissions on it. If I want a select group of people to be able to do something I can always use a hardened [e.g SELinux] kernel, etc, etc.
quotas? Got that.
expirations? Cron job with a perl script. [there probably is a nice way to do that...]
And really, if you hate config files use webmin. It lets you admin your servers with a nice web interface [which you can do remotely, ooooh spooky].
Tom
Yeah I know the feeling. In my previous job we used whatever got the job done. A few used Windows because they liked the feel and got work done and the most used some Linux distro [I of course used Gentoo but there were debian and redhat boxes]. Point is we were productive because we had a CHOICE.
:-(
My current job pretty much mandates I use Windows. We're [apparently] big enthiastic fans of Windows and can't wait to use the next abomination of a tool. This feeling of course is [sarcasm] perfectly well shared amongst all employees emphatically and univerally. Needless to say we wrestle Windows annoyances on a frequently [too frequent] enough basis. And even my own box has had viruses [like the DWL one] despite the fact I use a anti virus scanner [it wasn't picked up by the common scanners until much later].
I was fairly certain the Home edition of XP lets more than one user log in at a time. It would seem odd that only Pro supports it, since usually Pro is part of a domain (and when it is, doesn't let more than one user at a time login.. but this makes sense).
You'd be wrong. When another user remotely logs in, it logs anyone sitting at the terminal off.
Are you asking why MS doesn't port it to Linux? I'd think the answer to that is fairly obvious.
Really? What is it? I thought the VS teams job was to promote the use [and purchase] of VS and not prop up Windows sales.
How is this different to poor driver support with Linux? Doesn't the blame go to the hardware manufacturers? Isn't that who's always blamed when Linux doesn't support X device? This claim doesn't back up the '64bit windows is a joke' theory.
Good point. However, to say that Win64 is better than Win32 would require you to say Linux is better too than win32 [for basically the same reasons].
As for the "costs". It creeps up. When you need site licenses for Windows, Office, VS, etc, etc, etc you end up paying millions of dollars a year.
Tom
I dunno DOS 5.0 worked fine with me and 6.22 was ok too. I did a lot of Turbo Pascal development in both.
... ah the good old days.
Of course back then the "kernel" [so to speak] was an open book
Tom
No no no no no.
The linux driver situation is not a mess. You just bought a product where the developer doesn't care about you, the customer.
There is no technical reason why the camera doesn't work in Linux. It's not the job of OSS developers to be on the leading edge of every device on the planet. If your device manufacturer doesn't want to write drivers and doesn't want to document the interface how is this a failing of Linux?
btw with libgphoto a lot of USB cams work just fine in Linux [including the Canon Powershot series].
Tom
Not less than Gentoo though. I have an XP+Word2003 image that I use for writing and the disk space usage is about 5.1GB. Mind you I have firefox, adobe reader, AVG, putty and gaim on there ... so maybe it's about 4.8GB or so.
That's a LOT OF CODE for just a kernel, WM, bug ridden web browser and crappy shell. I mean think about it. That's about 4.8 BILLION bytes of code to let me run concurrent tasks with privileges, show me a fairly standard GUI, present me with a shell that can't do much, etc.
Now think, QNX had a demo that had full networking, browser, shell, a REAL TIME MULTI-USER MULTI TASKING KERNEL and other tools in 1.44MB.
There is no reason why a barebones install of Windows is anything more than 50MB other than bloatware and "let's throw everything under the kitchen sink in [except useful end user programs]". Like do I care if there is MS JET or DirectX support? Hell no. Do I need ACPI support? No. Do I need device drivers for every device on the planet [except the ones I buy of course]? etc...
Tom
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions. Other editions let you have users but not all logged in at the same time [even though the kernel would support it].
... why doesn't it work in Linux?
... um use NFS in Linux. It's a single line to setup [on either side] and handled natively in the kernel.
... if you have 64-bit drivers. Many proprietary [the standard for Windows] drivers are not yet ported to win64. The win32 thunking layer is barely functional.
... hmm ...
As for VS2005
As for SMB
As for win64
If you ever have to re-install a copy of Windows [from the CD] you will likely have to call India to get a new product key. At least that's been my experience.
As for ghosting, yeah I never said you can't ghost in Windows, I said you had to pay for it. In OSS world you can just rsync your disk to filestore somewhere else. Free tools that are work perfectly
Tom
You can rsync a NFS mounted volume and you can have multiple NIS providers [probably with LDAP too]
In short... you can have roll-over and redundancy in the UNIX world. I think they worked that out a while ago. k thx bye.
Tom
My point wasn't that they SHOULD bundle. It's that Vista is 8GB and DOESN'T COME WITH THEM.
As in, what the F!@# is taking up 8GB of my disk?
My Gentoo install with all those tools takes around 2GB [2GB to 3GB is a good estimate, right now I have loads of other stuff that isn't Gentoo specific so it's hard to be exact without doing an indepth du scan].
So if I can have all those tools in 1/4 the space what is MSFT doing to service me, the customer?
Tom
The problem is if you piss off enough people by stupid lockin tricks you lose customers.
The only big reason I like Linux distros [in particular Gentoo] is because *I* have control of what goes on. I don't have to install bloaty software if I don't want. I can backup my OS as I choose. I can tweak my kernel [and I have actually done that on occasion].
Whenever I install windows, it takes 2-3 hours [to go from SP1 to fully patched], have to deal with license keys which may or may not work [even though I buy shrink wrapped copies], don't get any development tools, research tools and the thing still takes more than 2GB.
I mean really think about it. In your install of XP what do you have that makes you able to work as any sort of professional? There are no office tools, no development tools, no media tools [other than the shitty WMP which you have to download anyways], no research tools, nothing but solitaire and WGA. Hell even the shell [cmd.exe] is total shit.
It's only a matter of time until more and more professionals wake up and make the move. And what does MSFT have to answer that with? Oh look, an Aero like GUI in Vista! Please...
I'd be totally willing to stick with Windows for my desktops [the ones I control at least] if they took their field seriously.
Let's see, do I want a cross-platform Office suite, or another Clippy update?
Do I want a competent shell? Or a.... well nothing.
Do I want a standards compliant compiler? Or C# which has limited support anywhere but on Windows.
Do I want etc...
Even people who ONLY say do office work can appreciate the benefits of OSS tools. Not just in the sense you're not paying huge license fees but in the sense that your documents are not locked into some tool chain. In 10 years your OpenOffice files will be just as free to be opened and moved around as they are today. Can you say the same about your WinXP files? You think Windows Vista2010 will let you install Office97?
hehehehe, cute.
Tom
Even if that was true I'd still rather have a proper UNIX environment anyways. Not to mention a real multi-user OS without shelling out huge dollars. Oh and the development tools and ...
... you're wasting your money. Linux and BSD are more efficient to work with in server contexts, work better with 64-bit processors [Win64 is a huge compatibility joke atm] and don't require you to call India each time your HD breaks and you need a re-install. Heck, in BSD/Linux doing a ghost of your system is as simple as burning a tarball to a DVD. No need for 3rd party ghosting tools and praying that Windows lets you "get away with" using your OS...
If you buy Windows to run AMP servers
Tom
The price of Windows has been climbing since it was first released. License keys as introduced in Win95 didn't make it cheaper. More stringent keying in 98 and XP didn't make it cheaper. WGA with SP2 didn't make it cheaper, etc. It isn't like MSFT hasn't been raking in billions in profits.
If anything WGA and the like only piss off PAYING CUSTOMERS since it seems "the evil pirates" always get around it [hence the excuse for higher prices].
Tom
LDAP [or NIS] and home directories over NFS. Wow, that's hard.
Only been doing that for the last decade or so...
Tom
What would it take? A lot more than a couple benchmark figures. The tools would have to be portable [like OSS tools are]. The tools would have to be competitively priced, etc, etc, etc.
I don't care if C#.NET is 10% faster than Java if it locks me into using Windows. There is more developing web applications than the OS it runs on. Java would let me choose a different OS [avoiding license cost]. Would let me have source code [e.g. to the kernel, tools, etc] so I can fix things as required [yeah I'm one of those nutballs that builds things from sources], etc.
There is more to computing than vendor lockin and shiny GUIs.
Tom
Here's a tip, they serve their shareholders by serving their customers. It's short sighted and ignorant to assume that a strangle hold will last forever [hint: it won't]. They got greedy and instead of developing more universal products they decided to do what all good crooks do, screw their customers.
Think of how many Office users they'd have if it ran in Linux and BSD?
Similar for Visual Studio (which is a very good tool even though it's coupled to a non-standard C compiler).
How about Direct X?
Or even the Windows Media tools?
Look at how many people use ipods. Do they work only in MacOS? Didn't think so.
Tom
You're saying "no matter what they do they get slammed". That's because MSFT rarely does anything in the best interests of the customers. It isn't because I'm a zealot (4 out of 5 computers at my house run Windows, a couple by choice the rest by force). Sure I like Linux but hell if Windows came with a decent shell, portable standard libs and compiler I'd love it just as much.
Look at Vista, they originally planned on cramming tons of features, like "shiny GUIs" and "tiered Direct X" and other bullshit. Who wants to buy a copy of Vista that can't run their games? Or who really cares about 3D shiny see through GUIs [and why is that OS specific?].
Does Vista come with an Office suite? Development Tools? Research tools? etc... No. Then why is Vista 8+ GB in size? They cram in shit that is superficial AT BEST then take out anything that could possibily be useful [like Monad originally, though iirc it's going to ship right?] My Gentoo install is ~2GB and includes office, development and research tools.
As for your Nintendo comment, you buy a Nintendo to run Nintendo games. You buy a PC to run anything, you buy their tools to be in control, not to be controlled. I should OWN my word documents. That means I should know the exact format if I want to. I should be confident that my C compiler adheres to the standards so MY products can be as portable as possible.
Everything MSFT does is about control.
Tom