Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:58 am
by BDKR
Microsoft have advanced computing, it is because of there good business practice
Prove this! Good business and technical innovation are two different things. One can have
an affect on the other, sure. But otherwise, they are different.

BDKR

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:09 am
by mikeq
BDKR are you a journalist? :lol:

Its amazing that when you take something out of context how different it looks.

The complete statement was -
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.
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)

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

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:54 am
by BDKR
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.
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.
A 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.
Perhaps it has something to do with momentum and the fact that IBM seemed to treat
OS2 like a stepchild. OS2 was not aggressively marketed or supported. However, many believe it's every bit as good, if not better.
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.
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.

But, companies with monopolies are well know for doing things that are contrary to the idea of fair business practices. To simply say that MS has a monopoly becuase they are creating good products is ludicrous and ignorant.
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.
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.

Besides, if MS get's it the way they want, it won't be long before we're plunged into another dark age.

BDKR

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:59 am
by BDKR
mikeq wrote:BDKR are you a journalist? :lol:

Its amazing that when you take something out of context how different it looks.

The complete statement was -
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.
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)

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
I've heard it all now :!:

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 10:10 am
by BDKR
mikeq wrote:BDKR are you a journalist? :lol:

Its amazing that when you take something out of context how different it looks.

The complete statement was -
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.
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)

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....
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

Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 3:04 pm
by mikeq
The abreviated quote implies the same thing that the full one does
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. :cry: I implied that MS has forced others to advance computing through their good business practice.

I can't prove number 2, it is my opinion on the current state of computing, can you disprove it?

Do you have another opinion on advances in computing and the cause, or do you think computing hasn't advanced at all?
simply say that MS has a monopoly becuase they are creating good products is ludicrous and ignorant.
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.

I actually do not think MS has a monopoly. The BT monopoly mentioned earlier is a good example of a monopoly, BT own all the exchanges and no other company could provide telephone services because BT controlled all of it. I do not believe MS control everything, if other companies wish to produce software/OS for a PC they are free to do so. If they decide that they either can't compete against MS products/marketing or decide to sell out to MS is that really the fault of MS.

Whilst these comments may be ludicrous and ignorant this may be in part due to my lack of knowledge in these matters, but I have yet to hear any convincing arguments to the contrary.

Bear in mind that these are opinions that I have, and opinions can be changed.

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2002 3:22 pm
by BDKR
Hi Mikeq,
Bear in mind that these are opinions that I have, and opinions can be changed.
I'm going to keep that in mind. Sorry for going for the throat there. As I said before, I
equate the unchecked practices of MS (and many others) as marching towards a second dark age. As a result, I get a bit excited.

I promise, I won't let it happen again. oops:

Cheers,
BDKR

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2002 3:07 pm
by mikeq
Don't worry about it BDKR, I expected this discussion to get a bit heated :wink:

But everythings cool 8)

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 10:16 am
by Crashin
Wow, what a thread!

I'm not comletely pro or anti MS, but that's irrelevant. I'd like to point out something that's been overlooked, though. MS is huge, rich, and powerful. They are this way because they've sold A LOT of product. To whom did they sell this? The VAST majority of people who use MS products are not CS majors, programmers, network admins, or even vaguely related to the field of computing. They are ordinary, everyday people who want to get something done easily and quickly on their Gateway or Compaq or whatever they own.

Make *nix (or any other OS, excluding Apple) easier for the layperson to use, market it properly, and it will take some of MS's market share away. But, until that day comes the millions of people pumping fuel into the MS machine will continue to do so because they don't care whether MS quashes competition or not. They just want something that works for them.

Regarding the argument that MS prevents other OS's from competing in this market share, it is a false claim. As far as I know Apple is the only other OS that has the ease of use that MS provides to the layperson on the street. What's stopping another company/organization/person from developing an OS that the layperson can use? As far as marketing dollars, yes, MS is invariably going to be able to outspend this said start-up OS. But, I guarantee that there would be many willing investors who would pony-up some bucks if such an OS were to become available, and it would then be a matter of pinning the blue ribbon on the better OS. If MS's coding practices are as bad as so many people say they are, then the new OS would succeed in stealing market share over time.

Again, this is theory...so, let the carnage begin. :)

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:00 pm
by Coco
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

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:56 pm
by Silent-Chaos
Very interesting read. However, have to interject when someone referred to the problems of getting help with installation, etc; The linux community (IMHO) is 10x that of the MS community in terms of an actual community. OpenProjects.Net is a fantastic Open Source-type IRC community (and only one example) network. Channels such as #linuxhelp, #linux, #redhat, etc; all 99.9% have eager and willing to help people get you rolling and fix whatever problems it is you may have. Someone made a good point on when you start something new, it does take time to learn. Linux is kinda weird like that... you sort of have to take everything you learned from Windows and throw it out the window. Do I hate Microsoft? Yes. I do hate the way they do buisness, but at the same time, they are simply doing what a good majority of Americans would probably do if the role was switched. Its *very* money driven, and if you cant see that, theres a problem. Linux is a great kernel with quite a few fantastic distributions (I use it as well, gg Gentoo Linux). Nvidia has definitly been supportive of the 'others' by providing excellent drivers for their line of gfx cards (made me a 100% nvidia groupie). Sorry if I may have been incorrect in anything I said (hopefully not), however these are just merely opinions... and you know how that goes, opinions are like @rseholes, everyones got one ;)

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:59 pm
by Silent-Chaos
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
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)