> Thought this might get people going... can I ask WHY everyone hates
> Microsoft??? I mean give me one GOOD reason that Microsoft should be
> hated so VEHEMENTLY over other software companies? I don't claim to be
> in love with some of the companies business practices myself, but I feel
> that too many people hate/dislike Microsoft (or Micros0ft, or Microshit,
> or Micro$oft or whatever you insist on calling it...) and Bill Gates,
> simply because it's the trendy thing to do (or out of fear for getting
> flamed as I am sure I will :)...
Personally speaking I hate microsoft because the way things are they are
the industry standard when it comes to small PC's. I don't mind buggy
software etc.....as long as I don't end up having to use it. I think
there is a general feeling of resentment towards microsoft because they
adopt the practices that they do when they could very well turn around
and write good software etc
And no I'm not going to flame you or anyone else.
As for people hating microsoft because it is trendy, what can I
say....sheep will be sheep......people who don't know anything about
software and decide to adopt the good old "Kill Bill" attitude are
probably stupider than any microsoft employee.....still it doesn't take a
user long to encounter their first "inconvenience" (for inconvenience
read bug) in a microsoft app. Hell a lot of people out there have seen
win 3.1 crash a dozen times within a week of installing it (win 3.11 was
> Let's take a few points...
> Microsoft's products are expensive... So are Lotus, Wordperfect, etc,
> etc. Face it, office software is expensive.
I agree....Microsoft to date haven't been pushing the price up that
much....of course this is changing....it's the first time that a company
has charged consumers to use their BETA release OS.
> Microsoft's products are big and buggy... bugs are a fact of most
> software, I challenge anyone out there to write a major product and have
> it bug-free the first time. Minor bugs are acceptable in this sort of
> non-critical environment (different matter of course, when we get to
> embedded systems controling nuke reactors)... As for being large, well,
> all those features do take up some space ya know...
You forgot slow. Microsoft has a habit of rushing products through
without fixing small things like the 3 minute wait while something like
word takes to redraw the screen. Personally I don't think microsoft
products are incredibly large for what they do. The number of bugs and
the fact that they are in critical areas of the software microsoft
develops is what throws me. Microsoft seem to take good ideas and then
develop them quickly so that they can capture the market....what they end
up with is a mess....have you ever had even a quick look at the windows
API or the classes in Visual C++???? They're a nightmare come true for
most programmers. Meanwhile using their size and these practices
Microsoft have managed to put god knows how many companies out of
business by outdoing them in terms of the business side of computing. The
result is the user gets B grade software and because it is standard we
all have to put up with it! This is one of the main reason I think
computing people have such a strong dislike of microsoft....they have
seen better products but there is no use in learning about them because
everywhere you go people use the "standard" microsoft product.
> Microsoft's business practices are dubious. True. Take for example the
> whole MSN issue (uploading dir trees, etc). Don't log on to MSN, and you
> avoid this problem (which is probably just the product of some conspiracy
> theorists over active imagination). There is also the rumour/fact that
> most MS Windows apps use undocumented API calls, thus making Word6 run
> faster than Wordperfect, Excel faster than 123, etc, etc. The fact is,
> Microsoft writes the operating system/environment, it can publish as much
> or as little of the details as it wants... if third-parties don't like
> it, they are welcome to develop their own.
That's the point though.....3rd party OS's aren't going to take off while
microsoft are industry leaders. One thing I do admire is their BRILLIANT
marketing. As for wether or not someone has the legal right to do
something like not publish API calls, I say you're correct on this point
but what about MORAL and ETHICAL considerations.....now there is
something that microsoft could afford to improve in.
> Overall, Microsoft apps get the job done, and they do it quite well.
> Hell, Windows95 is not perfection, but neither is Linux, OS/2, etc, etc.
> For most people, an OS such as Win95 is perfect for doing the job. I
> think more people should think a bit harder about WHY they dislike the
Yes but when I boot my linux partition and load X-free I don't expect to
SEE the bugs we are talking about. Linux, though it is freeware is much
more stable than windows. If linux had become the standard early on and
perhaps some more user-friendly apps had been written for it I really do
wonder if microsoft would ever have gotten such a foothold.
I won't pretend I know about OS/2 etc. The fact is when it comes to being
a user I'm you're typical fussy user....I don't want to know why my
software crashed (well ok maybe I do.....) I just don't want it to crash
in the first place....and if the software stuffs up often enough I blame
those who wrote it.
If only Microsoft's might could be used for good instead of evil
Why flame when you can have a civilised discussion?!
* "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, *
* Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." *
* Hamlet Act I Scene V Catchya Later!!!!! *
* Sammy (firstname.lastname@example.org) *