Prove this! Good business and technical innovation are two different things. One can haveMicrosoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice
an affect on the other, sure. But otherwise, they are different.
BDKR
Moderator: General Moderators
1) Microsoft have made loads of money - must be due to a good business practice (I'm not saying it is the correct/ethical business practice, just a good one)Microsoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice that people are incensed with them and therefore have the 'I'll show them attitude' - this is what has advanced computing, everyone has had a good kick up the jacksie.
What is sad is that people will condone the continuance of business practices that when left unchecked ultimately have a very bad effect on a given industry. Especially when it's simply because that company or corp makes things easy for he or she. Nobody has a problem with ones right to make some dosh, but there is a reason that there are laws aimed at leveling the playing field in a given industry.mikeq wrote: MS gave me my start in life as a programmer, the first development tool I used was MS Access and I used that to learn about databases and coding, it was readily available and relatively cheap. If it hadn't been for its availability and ease of use I probably would not be where I am today. Today I do not use any MS development tools, I use Borland's Delphi for Windows applications and I use PHP/MySQL/Oracle for browser based corporate applications. I do not use MS development tools because I do not like their development tools and it has nothing to do with my view on the company.
I like the company and I wish I had been as lucky as Bill Gates, yes it was luck, right place, right time and he took the risk. The way they do business is the way they have always done business, when they bought the complete rights to DOS for $50,000(or whatever the sum was) which then found its way into every PC ever produced they made a packet. So how can the man at the top even consider doing business another way when buying up the competition has worked from day one.
Perhaps it has something to do with momentum and the fact that IBM seemed to treatA good book on the IBM story is 'The fall of big blue' (I think) can't remember the author but it makes interesting reading. There is also a good bit in it on the IBM/Microsoft partnership to produce a GUI, which eventually became OS2 and Windows and why the partnership did not work. So why did Windows become successful and OS2 fail miserably? they both came from the same egg, hhmmm.
A perfect example is Netscape and the idea that they needed to completely re-write the code for the browser. What is Netscape 5 (in Linux) and 6 (in Windows) is completely different code base than version 4. It cost them three years.I think it is so easy for other companies to blame Microsoft for their own failings rather than taking a closer look at home, if their products where really so wonderful I don't think MS would have the 'monopoly' that it does.
While I agree that taking care of oneself and family is a fair and respectable quest, if you support the business practice of MS, I certainly hope you don't become the next MS.My main goal in life is to make money so that I can provide for my family and I am comfortable, to do that I am lucky enough to do what I enjoy the most and that is software development. If people wish to give away their software then that is their choice, I however want to make money from things that I create or improve upon, and you never know maybe I'll be running the next Microsoft.
I've heard it all nowmikeq wrote:BDKR are you a journalist?![]()
Its amazing that when you take something out of context how different it looks.
The complete statement was -
1) Microsoft have made loads of money - must be due to a good business practice (I'm not saying it is the correct/ethical business practice, just a good one)Microsoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice that people are incensed with them and therefore have the 'I'll show them attitude' - this is what has advanced computing, everyone has had a good kick up the jacksie.
2) Due to this business practice people feel fuelled/angered/whatever enough to try and prove they are bad people and as such have advanced computing, I wasn't saying that MS have made many advances in computing but forced others to do so.
Is this what they call 'cause and effect'.
Mike
You know what, I am going to reply fully to this. I didn't take that out of context, you moved the target. You said one thing, then later came back with a "I meant this....". You implied (is that better?) that MS advanced computing through good business practices. The abreviated quote implies the same thing that the full one does. Then you say....mikeq wrote:BDKR are you a journalist?![]()
Its amazing that when you take something out of context how different it looks.
The complete statement was -
1) Microsoft have made loads of money - must be due to a good business practice (I'm not saying it is the correct/ethical business practice, just a good one)Microsoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice that people are incensed with them and therefore have the 'I'll show them attitude' - this is what has advanced computing, everyone has had a good kick up the jacksie.
2) Due to this business practice people feel fuelled/angered/whatever enough to try and prove they are bad people and as such have advanced computing, I wasn't saying that MS have made many advances in computing but forced others to do so.
Is this what they call 'cause and effect'.
Mike
2) Due to this business practice people feel fuelled/angered/whatever enough to try and prove they are bad people and as such have advanced computing, I wasn't saying that MS have made many advances in computing but forced others to do so.
That's a bit different than MS advanced computing by/through (insert "how' here).
But tell you what, let's forget all this and just prove number 2.
BDKR
Sorry BDKR, I still do not think that it does but maybe that is because I knew what I meant when I wrote it and I am just not articulate enough to get my point across.The abreviated quote implies the same thing that the full one does
Sorry again, my ability to get the point across seems to be failing me. I was trying to say that no other company had produced a product that equals (at the time of release) or was better than the MS offerings that the consumer appeared to want, therefore the majority bought the MS products and this has caused the apparent monopoly that MS has.simply say that MS has a monopoly becuase they are creating good products is ludicrous and ignorant.
I'm going to keep that in mind. Sorry for going for the throat there. As I said before, IBear in mind that these are opinions that I have, and opinions can be changed.
Its really not a matter of being thick. Its a matter of trying something new and breaking the habbits that another OS have given you. Remember, Linux is quite a different *OS*, new things, new rules, etc; Obviously you cant come into Linux knowing how everything is going to work. How does Linux compensate for this, by one hell of a community that simply cannot be out done. (didnt mean anything directed at you, btw... generalization)Coco wrote:that was roughly what i was saying, i couldnt get linux to work, and i might be thick compared to alot of people but when it comes to computers im at least above average...
windows is made for the masses, so it makes masses