Anti-Microsoft-ism
- Thread starter ScourgeOfHell
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Flac00 said:
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 ).Flac00 said:
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.
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.
me personally, id ont have anything wrong with their computers. I like them better then apple. its just thier game consoles I cant stand.
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.ElNeroDiablo said:
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.
Do you have a source for this accusation?ElNeroDiablo said:
Actually, it is a great wonder. What are your options?ElNeroDiablo said:
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.
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.Bigfootmech said:
But if someone HAS the updated version, and they save in it, the others interacting usually need to update too.Eclectic Dreck said:
Ok, office isn't as bad because you can save as previous versions, but solidworks is horrid for it for example :/
They're not perfect, but their anti-competitive practices made the PC as cheap and affordable as it is.
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.Bigfootmech said:
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.
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.Generic Gamer said:
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.silasbufu said:
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.
Ok fine, I admit a lot of relevant points have come up, but I still think people hate Microsoft too much. Any other company in their position would do the same to stay in power. And lets admit it, the IT world pretty much revolves around Windows. Imagine the burden on Offices, if they were forced to switch to Linux based OS's.
Nearly all of the European govos have said "Screw you!" to MS and gone Linux for every computer they have in the past 5 years.ScourgeOfHell said:
Then again, that's from the fuckers who pretty much forced Microsoft to make a version of each Windows 7 edition just for the European market where the installer can install Firefox or a host of other browsers during setup instead of being left with JUST Internet Explorer (the engine of which forms the Windows Explorer "program" to give you that nice fancy GUI), lest Microsoft be basically BANNED from selling Windows in the EU.
Changing from Windows to Linux ain't as big a step if you take measures before changing completely, such as dumping MS Office for Open Office or Libre Office, finding free or cheaper alternatives to the bulk of the software you use in the corporation (unless you HAVE to use a fancy piece of software that you can't get away from without starting from scratch, but that's fair enough). Use Photoshop a lot? GIMP is your answer.
The IT world actually runs on Linux and BSD, as in servers and the like. The only reason why end users have Windows is because they refuse to change, which is dumb because Microsoft licenses are super expensive, and Linux is free. Plus, every Windows office application has a free equivalent.ScourgeOfHell said:
I do have to give Microsoft credit for one thing though. They make it easy for a network administrator like me to restrict what you do on your machine. I can turn everything off with ease and there is nothing you can do.
