Microsoft

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Well that's the one arguement I always object to nishantp.
MS has never FORCED anyone to use any of their products. Yes they were forced onto my harddrive, but nothing has ever made me use it. Like Media Player. It may be on my harddrive, but do I have to use it for MP3's. Heck no. Nothing stopped me from downloading Winamp.

One thing that Ms bashers do not realize is that because of MS, we are where we are today. They are always the first implement new technologies. If they hadnt, many of these would probably still be dead in the water going no where. For isntance XML. And now everyone is implementing XML capabilites and is becoming widely used.

And speaking of standards. Have you guys ever heared some of these people spouting off 'how dare MS remove the Java standard form Windows!' What I want to know is, since when was Sun a governing standards body? And they accuse MS of making its own standards.

---

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I must object. Microsoft forced users by wiping out competition. Why would users use other software, if everyone is using MS? Microsoft also slowed development with their monoply. Since they planted themselves firmly with Windows 95, what have they really accomplished? Not much? Since everyone switched to it, they slowed down. Remember back with DOS and early verisons of windows? There were new products coming out all the time. Dos went through versions faster than Italy goes through governments. More products emerged than Bill Clinton can lie in 10 minutes. Now, I'm not saying they havent done anything, that would be wrong. But I am saying that due to their monopoly Bill Gates has taken so much vacation and spent so much time building his new house and entertainment system, that he forgot where he could find a decent barber.

But seriously, once they had the world in its grasp with Windows 95, Microsoft slowed down. Only recently, has the rush started up again, and that's because of new competition arrising. If not for the lack of competition, we would be alot further. Instead of spending time making cool animated toolbar buttons, MS and its competitiors would have been fighting to come up with decent industry standards. We would have had an XML equivelent years ago (I think we did, it's called INI:D:p), and cross-platform development would be standard.

Quote:

---

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.:)

---

I cant argue with that but..
It was not just MS alone. It was the Home PC market which demanded an easy to use OS. The other options for this was so small that had it not been for MS the home
Pc market may have died out. This in turn caused everyone, mostly MS, to focus on the home user and ignore the improvement of tehcnology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
I cant argue with that but..
It was not just MS alone. It was the Home PC market which demanded an easy to use OS. The other options for this was so small that had it not been for MS the home
Pc market may have died out. This in turn caused everyone, mostly MS, to focus on the home user and ignore the improvement of tehcnology.

---

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

I'm sorry, but the home PC market (or any market for that matter) won't die out because there is no vendor for it. If Microsoft wasn't around, Linux wouldn't have taken so long to become popular, because there would have been a demand for it. Whenever there is a demand, there is money to be made, and people will try to satisfy that demand. Without the demand, MS would have never been able to do what they did. The difference between MS and its competitors is that Bill Gates is a business genius. It's not the quality of the software, but rather how it is marketed. With his business knowledge (and by bundling packages), he was able to convince people that his product was better when in fact it is no better than the next thing out there. Without MS, Linux and other OS's would have matured much faster, thereby introducing cross-platform tehchnologies years ago.

WEll i know that Unix is way more efficient than Windows in pretty much every way. Much better organized. First of all the guy who programmed the software you hacked at the airport(:D nice job!!) was a moron. It IS possible to write foll proof software for simple applications for Windows, having done so myself (not sure about win 3.1). I realize that in that situation Unix may have been a better option, but you shoudn't judge Windows based on some stupid programmers. The fact remains inspite of Windows failing and its inherent instability that it was something the general public could use easily. Most of us are programmers and thus we have much more knowledge of computers and software than the average user. With that in mind, Bill Gates made his software look good and easy to use which attracted more users. Not only did he meet that demand that was there but he created more by demontrating how easily people could use computers. At a time when people thought that computers were complicated and for pros only, he demontrated otherwise. Igf he hadnt, perhaps someone else eventually would have, but he thought of it first, and now were stuck with him whether we like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I must object. Microsoft forced users by wiping out competition. Why would users use other software, if everyone is using MS?

---

Exactly!! In the end Microsoft is in it to make a buck (aside from Gates's plans of world domination). If you want to survive in the business world, you have to crush your competition if you have the chance. It just so happens that Gates found and made opportunities to do that a lot more than most (anyone). Its true that that probably slowed development, but they had by far the best business strategy of any of there competitors, so they succeeded. Any they arent going anywhere in the near future so we might as well get used to them.

What i meant when i said they forced people to use there software if that well they make it hard not to. Sure you can use Winamp instead of Media PLayer. But that doesnt mean anything to them. Your still doing it on Microsoft Windows. If you decide not to use that, where are you going to go? Software for other platforms isnt nearly as vast as it is for Windows. In this way, they force (ok...coax) people into using there software.

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
[BMost of us are programmers and thus we have much more knowledge of computers and software than the average user. [/B]

---

I DO NOT think that most users are gurus as can plainly be seen above:rolleyes: Bill Gates knew that!! Thats why he made his software look user-friendly on the outside even though it was a mess on the inside. This strategy is waht kept Linux (among others) from generating any significant interest. The only reason that its gaining momentum now is because with releases such as Win98, which is a mess with too many small features that make it very unstable, people are starting to realize that Microsoft software may not be hte only user friendly software out there. Also, there strategy somwhat fell apart because they added so many features to make it look all nice and beautifil without a stable base that the cracks are starting to form even on the top (crashes are MUCH for frequent, etc.) But it will take years if not decades for there to be any significant change in their market share.

The only reason their market share isn't falling (much?) is because the market is still growing, and almost all the new users start out with Windows whatever's-out-now whether they like it or not. It comes with the system.

How many Linux users move over to Windows do ya think?

How many Windows users move over to Linux?

Same question goes for Windows and any other OS.

While the market is still growing Microsoft will appear to be doing well because they have the newbies fooled. That may not last.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain and simple.

---

once again u are wrong. Linux was being developed by amateurs, for free. why? because of the ms monopoly, there was no market for anything else! everyone was using windows! the only way to market linux was to offer it for free. it was extremely hard. luckily, it started to catch on. it opened peoples eyes to the possibilty of an OS that does not crash twice aday and does not swallow resources. Now, it is at a stage where it is starting to shape up. very soon, there will be desktop versions out that are as easy to use as windows. There are even major games and other apps for linux onthe market now. It is slowly building. The reason they could not do this until now was that there was no money in it. Nobody was paying them. Technology is not a magical thing that just appears. Like any industry, there must be demand. Without that demand, nobody wanted to pay for linux. by doingg what they did, they slowly introduced a demand, forcing MS to start improving (well, whatever).

AT&T in the 80's had a monopoly on phone companies (until the govnm't broke em up). Remeber that period? No extra features, all plans were horrible. The technology for caller ID and call-waiting and 3-way was out there, but AT&T didnt offer it because they didnt have to. Only now, with a bunch of smaller companies regualted by the FCC, we are constantly getting new plans, better service, and advanced features. It is no different than MS. With competition, u improve. Without it, u dont feel a need to, so u dont. :rolleyes:

Well generally you dont have many if any linux to Windows. :P But there are plenty that use both like me. You use what is appropriate. Because of my job I use Windows to program becuase what the user base of my programs is on. For games I use Windows for obvious reason. But that will eventually change if the continue porting great games to Linux. And finally I use Linux and Windows for hobby programming. I dont just throw out a OS or blindly follow another becuase I was told to by Bill Gates, Anti-MS media, or Department of Justice.

I use what I want to use when I want to

Quote:

---

once again u are wrong. Linux was being developed by amateurs, for free. why? because of the ms monopoly, there was no market for anything else! everyone was using windows! the only way to market linux was to offer it for free. it was extremely hard. luckily, it started to catch on. it opened peoples eyes to the possibilty of an OS that does not crash twice aday and does not swallow resources. Now, it is at a stage where it is starting to shape up. very soon, there will be desktop versions out that are as easy to use as windows. There are even major games and other apps for linux onthe market now. It is slowly building. The reason they could not do this until now was that there was no money in it. Nobody was paying them. Technology is not a magical thing that just appears. Like any industry, there must be demand. Without that demand, nobody wanted to pay for linux. by doingg what they did, they slowly introduced a demand, forcing MS to start improving (well, whatever).

---

again you are going off in another direction. Demand is a moot point here. the fact is Linux was NOT a viable option versus windows for any average home user. Although it is closeer these days with the Gnome and KDE desktops, it is STILL not a viable option. I do admit that Linux is getting there. It needs a couple more years and MS being forced to ease up on what it does.

Also spetnik no offense but you need to get your linux history facts straight., That is not why Linux is free. It is free because it is based on Unix code which was forced by the government to be free open source when it was deemed that it would create a monopoly many years ago. Go figure..:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Demand is a moot point here. the fact is Linux was NOT a viable option versus windows for any average home user.

---

But the reason it was not good is because there was no demand for it. Because there was no demand, there was not much moneyt in it, and investors were unwilling to throw money into it. Now, without money, not many programmers are willing to do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Also spetnik no offense but you need to get your linux history facts straight., That is not why Linux is free. It is free because it is based on Unix code which was forced by the government to be free open source when it was deemed that it would create a monopoly many years ago. Go figure..:rolleyes:

---

u may be right. but so what? If not for being free, there would have been no way to license it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


But the reason it was not good is because there was no demand for it. Because there was no demand, there was not much moneyt in it, and investors were unwilling to throw money into it. Now, without money, not many programmers are willing to do the job.

---

Linux is also still too difficult for the home user to use. Whenever you hear "edit your configuration file" or "recompile your kernel", it would scare you away. While Linux has been getting easier, Windows is, unfortuntately :rolleyes:, still the better OS.

And MacOS X still kicks ***. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by filburt1


Linux is also still too difficult for the home user to use. Whenever you hear "edit your configuration file" or "recompile your kernel", it would scare you away. While Linux has been getting easier, Windows is, unfortuntately :rolleyes:, still the better OS.

And MacOS X still kicks ***. :)

---

yes, :(, unfortunately, you are right. But they say it will not be long until there is a LINUX shell that's great for the home user.
"And on that day LINUX will shall be one, and it's name shall be one" :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


yes, :(, unfortunately, you are right. But they say it will not be long until there is a LINUX shell that's great for the home user.
"And on that day LINUX will shall be one, and it's name shall be one" :D

---

Free is good, open source idea is good, but it still leads to lack of official support from a company, and difficulty. I hate to have to support Microsoft (I read your signature, spetnik), but their support actually isn't that bad, and since *cough* everybody *cough* :) pays for their products, they are also buying support. And the GNU licence does not guarantee support. :(

Also, I really doubt that the majority of open source users actually seriously read the source and try to add features or fix bugs.

well, im talking about companies like RedHat which will support a licensed version.

But then it's not free. And usability is no different from Mandrake or other distributions.

i never said free is an issue. it was an issue at the beginning, but now people know about it. As soon as it is ready to be used by home users, it will hit the market big.

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong:D."

Hey, I didn't pay for Windows 2000, but I have it. :D

*suits from MS enter*
No, it wasn't me! I was framed! Help! Tell the people!
*one of the suits hits filburt1's shell and knocks him out*

:D

Wow, it looks like I started a pretty heated discussion over microsoft, then again if it's about microsoft it's always heated :D . I like the fact that not too many flames are flying though... and good points are being made too. I've used both microsoft and linux... they each have their good points. Microsoft with the fact that it's easy to use, good for games, lets you use VB =], and the fact that most people know how to run it now makes it good for the everyday normal user and gamer. Linux's speed, the fact that it never crashes and never needs to be rebooted, and the fact that it's starting to catch up makes it a great choice for programmers, power users, companies, and servers. They each serve a good purpose in my mind. Later,

-zer0 flaw

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zer0_flaw
Wow, it looks like I started a pretty heated discussion over microsoft, then again if it's about microsoft it's always heated :D . I like the fact that not too many flames are flying though... and good points are being made too. I've used both microsoft and linux... they each have their good points. Microsoft with the fact that it's easy to use, good for games, lets you use VB =], and the fact that most people know how to run it now makes it good for the everyday normal user and gamer. Linux's speed, the fact that it never crashes and never needs to be rebooted, and the fact that it's starting to catch up makes it a great choice for programmers, power users, companies, and servers. They each serve a good purpose in my mind. Later,

-zer0 flaw

---

zer0, I pretty much agree w/ u. (Although there are versions of vb for linux).

At home, I actually run a dual boot between Win98 and 2K Server(pirated, but then again, i barely use it except for FTPing to it over my 56k while im at work]). I hope to get a couple new machines, one dedicated for 2k and one for linux.