Page 4 of 5

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:35 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
To be fair, before Windows Vista, XP had one of the simplest user interfaces (outside of a Mac). It may be Fools Gold, but it did look very shiny ;).

I don't understand the defrag thing either. Back when I had a 512MB drive and we were FAT maybe, but in this day and age I just ignore it. Why would I want to defrag a 200GB drive anyway? Sounds kind of dangerous to be putting the poor thing under that much stress.
Comparing Windows to Linux is even among "power users" a sensitive issue.
I suppose we all use enough different OSs and are able to admit the flaws on either side. Makes for a more reasonable discussion.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:22 am
by superdezign
As much as we all like to diss Microsoft, they've done a lot for the computer industry, just like IBM, Intel, and nVidia. They all face a lot of competition, but they are a part of the reason that their competition is even successful. If it weren't for them, there would be no market to compete within, anyway.

The majority of software is programmed for Windows because the majority of customers have Windows. Nothing is perfect, but Windows is successful. There's no denying that, ever.


I love Microsoft, in a corporation-that-I'd-like-to-somehow-steal kind of way.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:56 am
by Charles256
Let's compare notes superdezign. Together, we can do it. :) ( steal the corporation that is)

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:39 am
by The Phoenix
superdezign wrote:As much as we all like to diss Microsoft, they've done a lot for the computer industry, just like IBM, Intel, and nVidia.
From a raw economics point of view, there is a strong argument to be made that they've done more harm to the industry than benefit.

They've forced out of market several serious competitors - even when the market, users, and their own department heads admitted they had inferior products (Netscape, Novell networking). Thats a net market harm, going against the needs of users, and its a trend they've continued.
superdezign wrote:They all face a lot of competition, but they are a part of the reason that their competition is even successful.
In fact, the exact opposite is true - they were only driven to be competitive by their competition, and chose not to do so UNTIL forced to do so by their rivals. They didn't want IE to have any substantial functionality, but Netscape forced them to. They didn't want to update Internet Explorer, until Firefox (and others!) forced them to lose users due to stagnation. In many cases, their competition has had to work many times harder to compete (bundling), and work harder to make things better for users (interoperability).
superdezign wrote:If it weren't for them, there would be no market to compete within, anyway.
This presumes computers would have never been successful and wide-spread if it weren't for Microsoft, which is really amusing to me. If Microsoft hadn't provided a defacto monopoly, do you really doubt that users would be using computers for the majority of their work today?

Put another way, imagine Windows stopped working tomorrow, and Microsoft was out of business. Do you really think everyone would stop using computers?

No. Thats not a construction of Microsoft, thats users finding value in computing. Microsoft was in the right place, at the right time, and did every possible wrong thing to maximize the return on that luck - including breaking the law, manipulating markets, and destroying competitors.
superdezign wrote:The majority of software is programmed for Windows because the majority of customers have Windows.
Once upon a time, that wasn't true, and yet, Microsoft got in that position. How? By listening to users first, and developers second. Once they got the dominant market share, then they started applying pressure to developers of competitive products.

The majority of software is programmed for Windows due to a inertia and a long-tail response to a company listening to customers.. over a decade ago.
superdezign wrote:Nothing is perfect, but Windows is successful. There's no denying that, ever.
I completely disagree. Windows, the operating system, is definitely not successful by a number of criteria. It is exceptionally poor at managing memory, providing services to users, preventing security disasters, and any number of other issues. It provides an extremely poorly documented development environment where if you make a truly successful product, they will likely crush you (Novell, Netscape, soon anti-virus vendors). It even destroys choice by eliminating competitors through bundling, and predatory monopoly practices.

From a software point of view, and from an economics point of view, Windows is a travesty. Now, if you want to speak to Marketing, sure, I'll agree that its successful. But then again, marketing by definition is convincing you that something is good - regardless of whether it is or not. ;)

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:57 am
by Charles256
It was a business that made money. In my opinion that qualifies as a successful business. In that respect I fail to see how you can "completely disagree". On that note I want to express that Windows has been great for gaming and windows development needs for many years.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:48 pm
by The Phoenix
Charles256 wrote:It was a business that made money. In my opinion that qualifies as a successful business. In that respect I fail to see how you can "completely disagree".
Because they had to break the law to do so. Repeatedly, in findings from both national and international governments.

By some accounts, they continue to do so.

They made money - on that I'll agree. The difference is in whether their methods to make that money was a net positive or not.

By that definition ("A business that made money") so are drug dealers, arms merchants, and the slave trade industry. But I don't think we'll be holding them up for praise often.
Charles256 wrote:On that note I want to express that Windows has been great for gaming and windows development needs for many years.
Both are selectively true and false. It was only great for gaming after Windows 98, honestly. In Windows 95, it was almost always better performance to drop to dos instead. Even in 98, most games were better in OpenGL mode, and consequently were worse on Windows than on Linux (as long as they ran on Linux, they often performed better on it). That still gives them almost a decade, but then you have to factor in whether DirectX was a net good.. there are many who argue effectively that DirectX has been a curse on the gaming industry because it suffocated OpenGL and forced single-platform (or dual, if you include Xbox as a different platform) development.

But being great for windows development is a bit comical.. its the OS itself, so I would hope so, and yet, it crashes, has networking problems, adds dozens of useless security warnings, and more.. hardly ideal for development in my opinion.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:17 pm
by Charles256
No crashes on my side. Networking works wonderful in my home network environment. I prefer the security warnings but if you don't I can show you how to turn them off. No performance issues on my machine either. Giving examples of people with horrible experiences doesn't change the fact that many people have wonderful experiences.

The new XNA framework Microsoft is working on is wonderfully easy to use. If OpenGL would release a similar framework that was anywhere near as easy I'm sure they'd get even more developers working on it.

You're right, drug dealers do run a successful business in the U.S. Ethical? No. But darn right successful. :)

All this is to say, relax. Just because you hate Windows doesn't mean we all do. Just because you think they're evil doesn't mean we all do. So, you speak for yourself and I'll speak for myself and there's no reason to argue because I think you're off base and you think I'm off base. Nothing worth getting upset about there,true? :)

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:27 pm
by Michael A
There isn't any question about whether or not Microlimp repeatedly violated the law or whether they have engaged in predatory business practices - they certainly have. Not only that, but it was systematic, in-your-face and plain as day. The sheer cojones it takes to operate like they have, for years, is astouding. But, Bill G. is nothing if not audacious. The man has a brass pair of huevos, that's for sure.

I gotta say, though, I'm sure glad the behemoth that is MS is here in the states. Can you imagine if Bill Gates and MS were Chinese or Russian or from some country that reallyhates us? I realize it might be a fallacy to imagine that MS could have evolved anywhere but here in the states. However, just for the sake of argument, imagine if all that wealth and power was anywhere but here? I don't like that thought very much, to be honest. Even if it was to rest in some otherwise amiable European country.

Maybe I'm wrong and it wouldn't make any difference at all. But, if there has to be a MS in this world, I'm happy it's in Redmond, WA and not in Pyongyang, N. Korea! 8O

See what I mean?

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:58 pm
by RobertGonzalez
Ok, first and last warning about this... do not let this get political or this thread gets locked.

We all have our sentiments about various companies, tactics, people and styles. We are all entitled to our opinions and are free to share them here so long as the rules are followed.

Thanks.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:13 pm
by Kieran Huggins
I wish MS were in the Yukon, because then at least there would be something in the Yukon.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:13 pm
by shiznatix
im not os-ist, i hate them all equally. no seriously, i do.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:20 pm
by Weirdan
Can you imagine if Bill Gates and MS were Chinese or Russian or from some country that really hates us?
So you assume the Russians hates you? Now that's funny =)

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:24 pm
by Kieran Huggins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Code: Select all

replace('brittany',array('Microsoft','Russia','China','Sony','Your Mom'));

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:33 pm
by RobertGonzalez
Kieran Huggins wrote:I wish MS were in the Yukon, because then at least there would be something in the Yukon.
I thought there were gangstas in the Yukon 8O

/ dude, you know that was some funny shiznit

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:43 pm
by Kieran Huggins
8O :? :lol: :rofl: :bow: