Anti-Microsoft-ism
- Thread starter ScourgeOfHell
- Start date
Recommended Videos
At what point did I attack Bill Gates? At what point did I use anything other than a reason I do not like them? You need to calm down and not assume that just because someone doesn't like something you see as perfectly fine it isn't a personal or outrageous attack.Dense_Electric said:
This isn't a post about your crappy experience with Apple. Which is another company that cherishes their attempted monopolies as well.
This isn't about Vista. I have used and supported every one of their OSs back to DOS. I happen to like Windows 7. That doesn't mean I like the company. I have no choice but to use their product to do the things I need to do on my PC. That is the main reason I hate them. They have made sure I have no CHOICE. You have a choice of another MP3 player, yay! Try finding another OS to run that will play nice with programs I must have to work.
My point with you was not about Microsoft. My point was your dismissal of anyone that does not like the company and you cannot even figure that out. You can't even figure out that I didn't make comparisons of the company or the creator as being Nazis or the Antichrist. I have years of experience with their numerous products and practices to form my opinion on. You have your own experiences, they do not make mine invalid. If I had stated that Microsoft was Nazis or Bill Gates was the Antichrist I could see your points as being valid however all I see is a lashing out over something that has nothing to do with me. You need to reevaluate your reactions. People are allowed to hate things based on personal experience and it has nothing to do with you or calling names. Telling them that their hatred is invalid is being dismissive and unrealistic.
This post has further verified the level of your debate to me, enjoy.
Well, let's look at the options. I could either go Mac, and pay way more than I'd ever need to for a similarly capable PC, or stick with what I got. I'll stick with what I got.
As for OS. Vista has some annoying habits, but windows always allows for more customization than a Mac os which lets you do cosmetic changes and little else. I could go to Linux, but there's always that mixture of fear of fucking things up with can't be arsed laziness. So, I'll stick with windows and just run PC decrapifier every time I get a new one.
As for OS. Vista has some annoying habits, but windows always allows for more customization than a Mac os which lets you do cosmetic changes and little else. I could go to Linux, but there's always that mixture of fear of fucking things up with can't be arsed laziness. So, I'll stick with windows and just run PC decrapifier every time I get a new one.
The whole thing about "what if we had to program for different OS's" doesn't really hold water because a lot of companies (including Microsoft) build software for Windows and Mac, and now also for mobile OS. And for at least the last decade, many third parties have been building games to be played on platforms designed by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, each with different SDKs and capabilities. So it can be done.
It seems the two biggest groups of haters are those who use Apple products and love them, and those who use Microsoft products and have to deal with the endless frustrations. Apple cashed in on the latter with their "I'm a Mac/PC" commercials, poking fun at the exact things that frustrate Windows users the most.
But I think it's not so much that they control so much of the market as they have squandered their status as the de facto standard. People continue to tear their hair out dealing with the antiquated concepts of registries and libraries, but even with Win7 MS did not move away from them. I guess they had to stop using their IE engine to render HTML email in Outlook for legal reasons, but with Office 2007 they started using the Word engine instead, which is crap at rendering HTML. And despite it being one of the chief complaints of that version of Office, they kept it around in 2010. WTF!
So now people designing HTML email have to account for how crappy their email could look in Outlook 2007/10 in addition to normal design concerns. It mirrors the frustration of having to deal with the 8-10% of the world who STILL is stuck on IE6, and the small percentage still using IE7. So this rant kind of transitioned over to IE and their utter slowness to comply with HTML standards despite having a lot of pull with the W3C. I often have to design web pages twice: once for regular browsers, and then go back and tweak it to work in IE, sometimes even IE8!
Their UX is atrocious. As old as the menu bar was, the ribbon just made a bad thing worse. The story goes that, when designing Office 2007, they asked consumers what they would improve about 2003. A large number of the responses they received baffled them, for these were features already found in 2003! But people didn't know how to take advantage of the power of the program. That's one example but it's a pretty universal complaint that getting to the things you need just seems unintuitive all the way around.
On a side note, have you ever used Microsoft Expression? It's a mess, especially compared to Adobe Creative Suite, and they have all kinds of weird rendering issues. So not only is their software difficult to use, but it frequently acts funky and crashes... on their own OS!
Software editions are ridiculous. I know Adobe does it, but I can almost forgive them for trying to break down a $2500 program into smaller, more relevant chunks. And that's a SUITE of software: Windows is just one OS. There are no fewer than SIX different editions of Windows 7! And I can't speak for the differences in the modern versions, but I know that in XP, the key difference between Home and Pro was that networking was nerfed in Home, making it almost useless in nearly every environment in which I tried to utilize it. We had to use a null modem cable just to play Dungeon Siege back in the day, and we had no ability to share files at all. And whatever networking they got right in XP they broke afterwards; making VPN connections using my old boss' Vista laptop was an exercise in futility half the time, and the only thing the diagnostics would tell you is that your hardware wasn't broken. Thanks.
So yeah, other than their outdated software methodology, dragging web designers down by not applying the standards they help to write, charging way more for their software than competing products and not working nearly as well most of the time, nerfing their OS to sell in different "editions" that can just be unlocked by paying them more money, having crummy user interfaces and some of the worst marketing in recent memory among major corporations, no, there's not much wrong with them.
It seems the two biggest groups of haters are those who use Apple products and love them, and those who use Microsoft products and have to deal with the endless frustrations. Apple cashed in on the latter with their "I'm a Mac/PC" commercials, poking fun at the exact things that frustrate Windows users the most.
But I think it's not so much that they control so much of the market as they have squandered their status as the de facto standard. People continue to tear their hair out dealing with the antiquated concepts of registries and libraries, but even with Win7 MS did not move away from them. I guess they had to stop using their IE engine to render HTML email in Outlook for legal reasons, but with Office 2007 they started using the Word engine instead, which is crap at rendering HTML. And despite it being one of the chief complaints of that version of Office, they kept it around in 2010. WTF!
So now people designing HTML email have to account for how crappy their email could look in Outlook 2007/10 in addition to normal design concerns. It mirrors the frustration of having to deal with the 8-10% of the world who STILL is stuck on IE6, and the small percentage still using IE7. So this rant kind of transitioned over to IE and their utter slowness to comply with HTML standards despite having a lot of pull with the W3C. I often have to design web pages twice: once for regular browsers, and then go back and tweak it to work in IE, sometimes even IE8!
Their UX is atrocious. As old as the menu bar was, the ribbon just made a bad thing worse. The story goes that, when designing Office 2007, they asked consumers what they would improve about 2003. A large number of the responses they received baffled them, for these were features already found in 2003! But people didn't know how to take advantage of the power of the program. That's one example but it's a pretty universal complaint that getting to the things you need just seems unintuitive all the way around.
On a side note, have you ever used Microsoft Expression? It's a mess, especially compared to Adobe Creative Suite, and they have all kinds of weird rendering issues. So not only is their software difficult to use, but it frequently acts funky and crashes... on their own OS!
Software editions are ridiculous. I know Adobe does it, but I can almost forgive them for trying to break down a $2500 program into smaller, more relevant chunks. And that's a SUITE of software: Windows is just one OS. There are no fewer than SIX different editions of Windows 7! And I can't speak for the differences in the modern versions, but I know that in XP, the key difference between Home and Pro was that networking was nerfed in Home, making it almost useless in nearly every environment in which I tried to utilize it. We had to use a null modem cable just to play Dungeon Siege back in the day, and we had no ability to share files at all. And whatever networking they got right in XP they broke afterwards; making VPN connections using my old boss' Vista laptop was an exercise in futility half the time, and the only thing the diagnostics would tell you is that your hardware wasn't broken. Thanks.
So yeah, other than their outdated software methodology, dragging web designers down by not applying the standards they help to write, charging way more for their software than competing products and not working nearly as well most of the time, nerfing their OS to sell in different "editions" that can just be unlocked by paying them more money, having crummy user interfaces and some of the worst marketing in recent memory among major corporations, no, there's not much wrong with them.
Also, anybody who reads pages on the Xbox support forums knows that Microsoft tech support is about as reliable as a bridge made out of marshmallows. Some of the support mods are useful and nice, but usually they just quote policy and never end up being able to do anything for you. And that time I posted a topic on there, a mod came in, immediately told me what the policy was regarding an issue that was SIMILAR to mine but very clearly not the same, and arrogantly marked his answer as the right one even though that's my decision to make, not his. And yes, he did indeed lock my topic as soon as he answered. At least I was able to un-mark his answer as "correct" and change the topic to "Not answered." That was my last move in protest. No, you did not adequately answer my question, you arrogant selfish lazy prick who can't even be bothered to read the opening post. And then when I wrote him directly about it, he said nothing.The_root_of_all_evil said:
The online is the best part of their support though. It only goes downhill when you get on the phone. Check the Xbox forums for issues with Xboxes updating. You'll find tons of threads about Xboxes being bricked by updates. And in almost every thread, the people tell you about Microsoft phone support either flat-out refusing to fix the console because it's out-of-warranty, or demanding a large amount of money to fix it, even though Microsoft IS THE ENTITY THAT BROKE THE CONSOLE IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH THEIR UPDATES. By the way, when you, the company, break your customer's product, you ARE responsible to fix it. Even if the warranty is expired. If YOU caused the damages, YOU have to fix it. That is the LAW. So not only is Microsoft unreliable, they actually break the law.
Remember that News article on The Escapist about Microsoft giving out free new-model Xboxes with a 250-gig hard drive to anybody who's Xbox disc reader was bricked by a recent update? Hahaha... right. And then they engineered bacon that's good for you. And developed a breast-enlargement procedure that doesn't result in back pain. Here's the thing: Even if your Xbox was rendered unable to read discs by that update, Microsoft support does everything in its power to deny there's a problem. They try to blame you for every glitch that occurs, and if you read the topics on the forum, you'll even find accounts of people being blamed for modding their consoles in spite of the consoles never ever being modded. Did anybody in here actually receive a new-model replacement for a console that was bricked by the update? Anybody? Yeah, that's what I thought.
They'll also release anything even if it's shit. The first release of the 360 literally eviscerated discs if you left them in after turning the console off and turning it back on. Also, Red Ring of Death. Oh, and releasing a console without wireless internet only to release a peripheral that costs 100-freakin-dollars. And releasing the Play N' Charge kit, which is plagued with issues too. And releasing Windows Vista, rather than burying it a mile deep underground in a locked chest just underneath a snake nest where it belongs. Then they even started a marketing campaign to make Vista look like it was better than it was.
Also, license transferring. Enough said. But I'm gonna say more anyway. If you want to play your DLC that you paid for and own, while offline, you better be using the same console you bought it with. It doesn't work on other consoles unless you're online because it's "licensed" to the console you bought it with, even though you're using your same account. But if you don't like that answer, you can go to Microsoft's website and transfer the licenses to your new console using their special "License Transfer Tool". Oh, and you can only do this ONCE A YEAR. The answer they give for this? "The license transfer tool was not designed to transfer more than once a year." No shit Sherlock. We know THAT it wasn't. What we want to know is WHY it wasn't. We want to know WHY you didn't fire the guy who designed it and get somebody else to code one that actually accounts for the fact that Xboxes sometimes need replacing more than once in a year because they're so faulty! Why wouldn't you provide a license transfer process that allows more than one use in a year, or more than one console at a time? Sony did. And any decent company would.
Why? Because Microsoft never does anything a decent company would.
And yet I'm probably still going to give them my money in the future, because I have such a strong, completely platonic love for Master Chief.
Microsoft has an monopoly thus people hate it.
Steam has a monopoly but people defend it.
Apple has a monopoly but people sell kidneys for their products (which aren't that amazing IMO TBH).
People are hypocrites (in a nice way). I'm not super techie so the reasons why other more tech savvy people dislike Microsoft don't matter to me but it seems people will happily grab their ankles and applaude like the sheep they are when Apple reveal the 'new' amazing thing the iPhone can do ("So innovative!") that other mobile phones have been doing for a couple of years.
But maybe I'm just a bitter jaded 20 something....
Steam has a monopoly but people defend it.
Apple has a monopoly but people sell kidneys for their products (which aren't that amazing IMO TBH).
People are hypocrites (in a nice way). I'm not super techie so the reasons why other more tech savvy people dislike Microsoft don't matter to me but it seems people will happily grab their ankles and applaude like the sheep they are when Apple reveal the 'new' amazing thing the iPhone can do ("So innovative!") that other mobile phones have been doing for a couple of years.
But maybe I'm just a bitter jaded 20 something....
Because their operating system and the vast majority of their programs are generally grap, and unless I explicitly get an apple (much better [/sarcasm], especially when they're telling their tech support to deny a problem exists) I am forced to pay for windows whether the computer actually has it or not.
And then there's microsoft's constant setting of standards (that IT usually doesn't follow) as a way to force out competitors. You know like that game for windows live with it's stupid X-box for windows controller.
If so many of my games didn't require windows, I'd use linux as my sole OS.
And then there's microsoft's constant setting of standards (that IT usually doesn't follow) as a way to force out competitors. You know like that game for windows live with it's stupid X-box for windows controller.
If so many of my games didn't require windows, I'd use linux as my sole OS.
because they charge $100+ for a disc you would only use once and is required to make your PC run all the software developed for it.
Oho..you haven't seen Vista's definition of "security". UAC doesn't catch shit; many of the same hacks, buffer overflow attacks and holes in the last build of XP work in Vista even today.Dense_Electric said:
Hell, I recall finding two gaping holes in Windows XP (post Service Pack 3) that could cripple your system that weren't even given minimal security (deleting one of two certain unprotected folders would cause Winduhs to forget where certain files would go during the boot sequence and it didn't even have a mechanism to to create or rebuild those folders from archive...such amazing ineptitude in design).
But back on topic:
My hatred of Microsoft stems primarily from their actions in the 90s. Actions like when they would buy out stock in a new computer tech firm, take their name and products, then fire all the original employees to keep them out of the business.
This is what we called "torpedoing", and it's about as underhanded as business gets without resorting to corporate espionage and sabotage.
Microsoft was doing this on a near-weekly basis during their heyday.
I've no doubt that it would have gone well out of control if Microsoft hadn't been called before congress on anti-trust claims.
Wow. It appears that this is sliding rapidly into a Microsoft flame-fest. Lovely. I suppose I should be surprised that we got past one page before we started to get into the anecdotal 'crimes', spurious claims, and self-focus.
Microsoft deserves more credit than they've received for their support of homebrew, going as far as releasing an SDK for Kinect within months of the device's release. Meanwhile Sony takes you to court if you color outside the lines, Nintendo is making their next portable instantly and remotely brickable, and most game companies are stepping up DRM and withholding content from used the used and even non-preorder markets. In recent history MS has actually been one of the more pro-consumer companies as far as gaming is concerned.
I suppose if your young enough or haven't been following computers for very long you wouldn't know.ScourgeOfHell said:
Microsoft isn't hated for one reason. It's a combination of things they have done. One of the big ones has of course been their monopoly on operating systems and computer technology and the tactics they were using to prevent competition. This has involved things as simple as web browsers with Microsoft acting to ensure it's own browser was the only one that worked properly on the Internet. Microsoft was confronted by the goverment, and over a period of time was forced to relent. In recent years they haven't been as bad, but a lot of people don't forget the things they have tried to do.
Then of course there is the whole issue of Windows Vs. DOS. MS DOS (various versions) gave users a lot of control over their systems. While Windows simplified things and allowed more casual people to get involved with computers, this came at the expense of the power of the individual user.
On top of this, you might not know it but Bill Gates and Steve Jobs used to be buddies/partners. Bill allegedly stole a lot of the stuff that made him rich FROM Steve. While Steve Jobs is a piece of work in his own right, especially nowadays, you have to understand that this is also why a lot of people don't like Microsoft. It goes back to the time when you had the first DOS based computers and Apple II systems in schools and such
and so on... Today it's hard to really see Steve Jobs as being a victim, but well, he was viewed as one for a very long time. I believe they even did a movie about all of this called "Pirates Of Silicon Valley".
Overall, Microsoft kind of deserves the reputation it has. Of course for kids growing up now who associate Microsoft with the "X-Box" and have never known anything but Windows, and have probably never seen an Apple/Apple II computer... it's not surprising they might not "get it". The same applies to various casual users who are new to computers.
I'll also say that among gamers there is some nationalism involved as well. Microsoft is our local, American super villain where Sony is Japan's. The duel between them has had a lot of people rooting for their "home team" so to speak, and getting caught up in it to the point where people forget that both of these groups are villains and really, really corrupt and greedy in their own ways.
Correction. Hating on Microsoft is so 1990.Boris Goodenough said:
Gates stole much of MS DOS tech from Digital Research, and the Windows design from Xerox (so did Apple, by the way, with the Mac OS).
Windows is full of sabotage devices to ensure your distributable software won't work on it, unless you know where these devices are, and how to circumvent them, which requires a development kit, requiring an expensive (3-4 digit) subcription.
Then there's standard windows testing and signing if you don't want the suspicious software flags appearing whenever someone downloads your software. More money to MS.
And then they don't tell you everything, so that Microsoft's own titles have that competitive edge over yours.
Oh, and then there's Windows Genuine Advantage, which set the stage for all the DRM devices that you get to tolerate today like parasites attached to your system (e.g. persistant online connections, activation, required accounts, phoning home, privacy surrender licenses, publisher-end kill switches, steel-studed sand-encrusted wide-gauge dildoes.) And with Zune, Microsoft showed it was okay revoked your media licenses whenever Big Micro felt like, namely when they upgraded music DRM, or ultimately when Zune failed. This is why EA feels right keeping your licenses valid only for a year.
The latest crap, such as monetizing Windows Live!, Bing, Windows 7 idiot-proofing, buggy, buggy, buggy, buggy releases and such are the sparklies in the frosting... on the sauce... in the pudding... the cake was before most of you were born.
Microsoft isn't just evil. Microsoft set the standards of evil that other evil corporations follow to this day.
238U.
PS2 is my favorite console of all time, but Sony's recent behavior is just unacceptable; unless they start operating drastically different they've permanently lost me as a customer. MS is not as customer friendly as it could be, but compared to the maker of the other 'core' console there's a world of difference, which I got into with the post above yours.Therumancer said:
Valve is the most consumer friendly of the large game companies in my opinion, but I would rather leave it at the rather than derail the thread.
Care to explain how the homebrew developers who made the numerous free software programs I use were all able to afford that kit and subscription?Uriel-238 said:
Well, to counter that argument. How will anything get better if there is only one real operating system. I can tell you right now. Almost every new thing Microsoft has for Windows 7 was on Mac OSX or Linux long before. If it wasn't for those two other operating systems, we would be stuck with crap.ScourgeOfHell said:
