Anti-Microsoft-ism

[Pumpkin_Eater]

Ok, Im not a fanboy or anything, but what is it with the wave of anti-Microsoft sentiments these days. What unforgivable sin has Microsoft committed. I mean, I know we accuse it of being monopolistic, but can you imagine the state of the world if everyone used a different OS. Imagine the burden on software developers to have to program for 50 different OS's. What do we all hate Microsoft for??

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.

Agreed. Competition spurs innovation; this is the best, but not only reason that the existence of multiple widely used OS's is a good thing. I would like to point out though, that optimization and performance boosts are the two real reasons to use 7 over the previous two versions, not the new features.

 

[Flac00]

Ok, Im not a fanboy or anything, but what is it with the wave of anti-Microsoft sentiments these days. What unforgivable sin has Microsoft committed. I mean, I know we accuse it of being monopolistic, but can you imagine the state of the world if everyone used a different OS. Imagine the burden on software developers to have to program for 50 different OS's. What do we all hate Microsoft for??

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.

Agreed. Competition spurs innovation; this is the best, but not only reason that the existence of multiple widely used OS's is a good thing. I would like to point out though, that optimization and performance boosts are the two real reasons to use 7 over the previous two versions, not the new features.

I don't think that is software though. PC's are inherently stronger than Mac's, hardware wise. An entry level mac is weaker than an entry level PC. So even though they both might be able to run at the same speed on the operating system (theoretically), that would mean the Mac operating system is better optimized. An example would be with Vista. Many people had to upgrade to a new computer just to run it. On the other hand, I have not upgraded my Mac since tiger or leopard or some large cat, and it runs OS X fine. Some features do not appear (like having 2 simultaneous working screens, but that is optimizing for you.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Create Halo game>console exclusive>No Pc version>hate

Make a half-decent OS>Make new OS with unnecessary, hogging features>Make DX10/11,IPv6 OS exclusive>make new OS from old OS build then sell at full price>Make newer OS designed for children>geeks get angry

...Halo may not be perfect (far from it) but I would still like to play it. Well that's my grind so far.

Halo 1 & 2 are available for PC.

Neither were originally, and halo 2 and 3 were released as brand new console exclusives (and stayed that way for a while).

Basically a lot of reasons, but I'm just going to say the 360 and Vista for now.

Oh and locking people in with ever 'newer' office versions.

They just seem like greedy money grabbers to me, though apple isn't any better and sony very close behind them.

But many people have put forward many of the other valid reasons.

And yeah, people have hated microsoft for literally years now. For various reasons, possibly starting with apple fanboys, but the hatred HAS been there 's all I'm saying .

This website has a hatred for all consoles, in order I would say they hate nintendo the most, then microsoft, then since the network crashed they started hitting on soney. Handheld games dont count as games here and the PC is an omnipotent god. Thats basically how I have come to understand this website.

Huh? What's wrong with Nintendo? They run their own quirky side of the gaming industry, and play fair from my point of view. Not to mention the N64 with goldeneye among others.

 

[Flac00]

Because it's cooler to like the underdogs for some people.

I like my Microsoft products and I don't care about the company itself. Whatever Bill Gates did, he still revolutionized ..stuff

And what would an example of that be? Most of those "innovations" were made by other companies, and improved by them. Microsoft just had more diehard (and somewhat ignorant) fans, and better marketing.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

I don't think that is software though. PC's are inherently stronger than Mac's, hardware wise. An entry level mac is weaker than an entry level PC. So even though they both might be able to run at the same speed on the operating system (theoretically), that would mean the Mac operating system is better optimized. An example would be with Vista. Many people had to upgrade to a new computer just to run it. On the other hand, I have not upgraded my Mac since tiger or leopard or some large cat, and it runs OS X fine. Some features do not appear (like having 2 simultaneous working screens, but that is optimizing for you.

Around the time of Win7's release a lot of groups did benchmarking tests between XP, Vista, and 7 on things like boot up time, networking tasks, passive memory usage, etc. Win7 tended to win these tests, even on older machines that didn't have the hardware for Vista. MS overhauled Windows to be more modern with Vista, but it proved to be bloated and unusable for many people; the development time between Vista and 7 was mostly devoted to optimizing code, trimming memory waste, and stabilizing the OS. You could almost think of Vista as Win7's beta.

 

[Flac00]

I don't think that is software though. PC's are inherently stronger than Mac's, hardware wise. An entry level mac is weaker than an entry level PC. So even though they both might be able to run at the same speed on the operating system (theoretically), that would mean the Mac operating system is better optimized. An example would be with Vista. Many people had to upgrade to a new computer just to run it. On the other hand, I have not upgraded my Mac since tiger or leopard or some large cat, and it runs OS X fine. Some features do not appear (like having 2 simultaneous working screens, but that is optimizing for you.

Around the time of Win7's release a lot of groups did benchmarking tests between XP, Vista, and 7 on things like boot up time, networking tasks, passive memory usage, etc. Win7 tended to win these tests, even on older machines that didn't have the hardware for Vista. MS overhauled Windows to be more modern with Vista, but it proved to be bloated and unusable for many people; the development time between Vista and 7 was mostly devoted to optimizing code, trimming memory waste, and stabilizing the OS. You could almost think of Vista as Win7's beta.

Kind of an expensive beta though....well then on that note, almost everything since mac OSX original has been a beta, they did the good version of the yearly iterations.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

Kind of an expensive beta though....well then on that note, almost everything since mac OSX original has been a beta, they did the good version of the yearly iterations.

Releasing an OS on a set cycle is not the highlight of their business model; I was one of those people whose system wouldn't have been able to handle Vista so I skipped it (according to a friend's desktop widget the OS alone was capable of chewing up more RAM than I had). Win7 turned out to be a great OS though; I have my doubts about 8.

 

[silasbufu]

Because it's cooler to like the underdogs for some people.

I like my Microsoft products and I don't care about the company itself. Whatever Bill Gates did, he still revolutionized ..stuff

And what would an example of that be? Most of those "innovations" were made by other companies, and improved by them. Microsoft just had more diehard (and somewhat ignorant) fans, and better marketing.

At the end of the day, Microsoft has the biggest numbers and I would think that's what any small, medium, large company aims for. I'm sure most major succesful companies are run by people who we consider to be assholes, but that's the world we live in ( shareholders need their pockets full ).
What you say about Microsoft fans makes Mac fans , for example, to seem pretty smug. Sure, Mac may be better in some ways, Linux OS may be better than Windows in some ways, but I preffer Windows because I don't give a crap about the details and I'm just an average PC user and that's where Microsoft won the audience I would believe, being more user friendly.
So I prefer people thinking I'm ignorant, than smug, elitist, fanboy etc.

 

[Arafiro]

Personally, I hate how Microsoft is still pushing the garbage that is GFWL and isn't just letting it die in a hole like it should.

Finding out that a game is GFWL based often puts me off purchasing it entirely because of the hassle.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Do you mean just formt he sony boys, cause you could flip that question around quickly

me personally, id ont have anything wrong with their computers. I like them better then apple. its just thier game consoles I cant stand.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Considering it came from DirectX which covers DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D... Basically it's a whole bunch of M$-specifically made Sound/Video API's made to compete against Open Source opponents such as OpenGL and M$ generally does what amounts to corporate blackmail to keep all Desktop gaming (aka: Windows Gaming) locked into DX with kickbacks and threats of no future kickbacks if a gaming company doesn't use M$'s code in the game (even if the game servers such as Blizzard's WoW servers run fucking LINUX)...

I don't think you quite understand how this works. In the old days of DOS, programmers communicated directly with the hardware in order to make stuff run. There was no need for a layer of abstraction because the technology involved was relatively simple. Today that is unfortunately not the case. Direct X is the product of thousands of man years of development that can be used for free in most cases and it simply serves as an abstract layer a programmer can use to make various hardware calls saving them from having to write such code themselves. What's more, such software makes the product more portable as it gives all parities involved a known place to aim for with features and command sets.

Just because DirectX isn't open source doesn't mean it isn't extensible and thus the one seemingly notable feature OpenGL has to its credit is more or less irrelevant. Sure, OpenGL has a place on platforms without billions behind R&D, but DirectX did not come to dominate the PC space because of strongarm tactics; rather, it was because it was simply the best choice for the job. Hell, most people forget the first five versions of DirectX were laughed at. As were the first two attempts at the project all together.

Wait a fucking minute! That sounds awful like the under-table antics of M$ when dealing with DELL & HP to try and prevent the OEM's from installing Linux on the systems instead of Windows, by threatening to stop selling them the OEM licenses at such low prices (a fifth to even a tenth of the Off-The-Shelf price for the "complete" version which you pay out the nose for a different CD key to unlock stuff hidden on EVERY FUCKING DISC PRESSED).

Do you have a source for this accusation?

Is it any WONDER the geek/techie community hates Microsoft's guts, and the marketing weasel that is Bill Gates (Paul Allen was the TRUE tech behind Microsoft, Gates was the marketing head).

Actually, it is a great wonder. What are your options?

Linux? Sure it's free if you don't mind having zero professional support. Sure it's open source but that only matters if your an experienced programmer. I use Linux on my work machine precisely because of strengths that appeal to a limited number of people. I use Windows on everything else because when I'm not doing work, I want things to be easy while having ready and reliable access to things that are fun.

Apple? They're even more closed than Microsoft. You get every nasty thing that comes with Microsoft and get the pleasure of paying more for the same quality of hardware because there is only one manufacturer.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Oh and locking people in with ever 'newer' office versions.

One doesn't often actually need to update their versions of office. In a past job as Tech Support, I saw people running Office XP long after Office 2007 was released. I'd be willing to bet you'd find more businesses running Office 2003 than you will any of the later releases combined. Hell, when I left my company a year ago, most people were still using XP for their operating system and the limitations of that software had long started to show.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Oh and locking people in with ever 'newer' office versions.

One doesn't often actually need to update their versions of office. In a past job as Tech Support, I saw people running Office XP long after Office 2007 was released. I'd be willing to bet you'd find more businesses running Office 2003 than you will any of the later releases combined. Hell, when I left my company a year ago, most people were still using XP for their operating system and the limitations of that software had long started to show.

But if someone HAS the updated version, and they save in it, the others interacting usually need to update too.

Ok, office isn't as bad because you can save as previous versions, but solidworks is horrid for it for example :/

 

[vxicepickxv]

They're not perfect, but their anti-competitive practices made the PC as cheap and affordable as it is.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Oh and locking people in with ever 'newer' office versions.

One doesn't often actually need to update their versions of office. In a past job as Tech Support, I saw people running Office XP long after Office 2007 was released. I'd be willing to bet you'd find more businesses running Office 2003 than you will any of the later releases combined. Hell, when I left my company a year ago, most people were still using XP for their operating system and the limitations of that software had long started to show.

But if someone HAS the updated version, and they save in it, the others interacting usually need to update too.

Ok, office isn't as bad because you can save as previous versions, but solidworks is horrid for it for example :/

Actually, if you ignore the tiny handful of new features in a .docx (the ability to better express mathematical equations for example) you'll find that there are plenty of middleware applications designed to convert to a previous version available for free. Beyond that, most companies can simply request documents sent do them be in the legacy .doc format, something most companies I dealt with did anyway as a courtesy for any of their associates who had not upgraded.

There is no pressing need to update and, in my experience at lest, it was difficult to convince any company to do so. If there is one constant rule of technical support it is that people are more afraid of a new product than anything else in the world.

 

[Asti]

I don't normally question the tastes of a fellow user but, seriously, KDE? I tried using Kubuntu on my netbook a month back and it was such a cavalcade of fuck ugliness and hassle that I switched it out for Unity in the end. Honest to God, Unity. I like the Ubuntu family of distros but I have to say that Kubuntu is really the ugly stepchild of the family.

Still, I heard it (KDE Plasma) sets itself up differently on a PC than on a netbook. Does it still have that tacky feed page and launcher page?

I guess it's really a matter of what you're used to. I switched to Ubuntu with Unity desktop on my other PC and I found it godawful. I switched it out for the classical view (or whatever it is called, the thing without the terrible - I can't stress it enough - terrible sidebar) and I still hate the whole "trying to be apple" thing about it. Personally, I especially enjoy the applications that are associated with kde like amarok (especially amarok!), akregator, KBibTex and so forth. I used a flux box for a while, but I sometimes prefer the fanciness of kde.

 

[Flac00]

Because it's cooler to like the underdogs for some people.

I like my Microsoft products and I don't care about the company itself. Whatever Bill Gates did, he still revolutionized ..stuff

And what would an example of that be? Most of those "innovations" were made by other companies, and improved by them. Microsoft just had more diehard (and somewhat ignorant) fans, and better marketing.

At the end of the day, Microsoft has the biggest numbers and I would think that's what any small, medium, large company aims for. I'm sure most major succesful companies are run by people who we consider to be assholes, but that's the world we live in ( shareholders need their pockets full ).
What you say about Microsoft fans makes Mac fans , for example, to seem pretty smug. Sure, Mac may be better in some ways, Linux OS may be better than Windows in some ways, but I preffer Windows because I don't give a crap about the details and I'm just an average PC user and that's where Microsoft won the audience I would believe, being more user friendly.
So I prefer people thinking I'm ignorant, than smug, elitist, fanboy etc.

I'm not being elitist, nor did I say anything about you or any other Windows user directly. I can understand why people use it. HOWEVER, that doesn't make Windows better by any sense. Plus, "user-friendly" kind of has been the mantra for the Mac. It might not be as powerful, or as game friendly as the PC. But it is much easier to use. Every action requires simple dragging, one button press, or a logical shortcut.
My point was never that Bill Gates is an asshole (in fact I think the opposite because of how much he donates to charity), instead that Microsoft did not innovate to get were they are today. They instead used good business sense. Apple lacked that (especially when they fired Steve Jobs), and suffered for it. It is only now that they are gaining entrance into the market after their mistakes.
My point was instead that the simple things we take for granted on the computer: graphics, a mouse, folders, laptops, touch interfaces for the laptops (instead of that stupid green ball thingy), the dock, widgets, email, internet, etc. All came from other companies. Not Apple only, but also xerox, Intel, and other weird ones that I don't know.