Wow! Three breakers of Godwin's Law in 10 minutes!headshotcatcher said:
OT: I can spell Micro$oft however I want, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Can we STOP spelling Microsoft with a "$" PLEASE!!!
- Thread starter martyrdrebel27
- Start date
OT: I can spell Micro$oft however I want, and there's nothing you can do about it.
$ony fits the dollar sign more than Microsoft does.
Bill Gates is the most generous man in existence by the way. Look it up.
Compare the failure of $ony products vs Microsoft for the win!
Can you count the ways?
Microsoft is more popular and more accepted..... that explains all the ridiculous hate.
Those who hate, hate. Really a simple explanation there.
Bill Gates is the most generous man in existence by the way. Look it up.
Compare the failure of $ony products vs Microsoft for the win!
Can you count the ways?
Microsoft is more popular and more accepted..... that explains all the ridiculous hate.
Those who hate, hate. Really a simple explanation there.
Technically, Microsoft isn't being greedy. It's being a business. I think people need to learn the difference there.
OT: It's bothered me a bit as well. I mean, no one is calling Blizzard greedy, although they "squeeze" money for the SAME GOD DAMN REASON!
And, know, that Microsoft company leader Bill Gates has promised to deal out his infinite wealth to charity.
Is it really that bad? To spend money on a product, knowing that a part of it will go to somewhere good in the end, at the difference of any other console with no such promises?
Really, we're talking about idiocy here. Full complete idiocy.
OT: It's bothered me a bit as well. I mean, no one is calling Blizzard greedy, although they "squeeze" money for the SAME GOD DAMN REASON!
And, know, that Microsoft company leader Bill Gates has promised to deal out his infinite wealth to charity.
Is it really that bad? To spend money on a product, knowing that a part of it will go to somewhere good in the end, at the difference of any other console with no such promises?
Really, we're talking about idiocy here. Full complete idiocy.
When M$ stops charging for Online Multiplayer (which doesn't even pay for dedicated servers), opens up their peripheral market for far more third-party products (bring prices down), and stops being such cheapskates with their First Party developers which they have UTTERLY neglected.
ONLY THEN can they ever hope to stop being called M$
Also, $150 / £130 for Kinect... a camera peripheral... WHAT DA FFFUUUUUUUU-
A complete Wii console costs less than that!
ONLY THEN can they ever hope to stop being called M$
Also, $150 / £130 for Kinect... a camera peripheral... WHAT DA FFFUUUUUUUU-
A complete Wii console costs less than that!
Welcome to 2010!iLikeHippos said:
Bill Gates stepped down as executive of Microsoft in January of 2000, in 2006 he was only working part-time there and severed all ties with the company in mid-2008 - he has NO POWER AT ALL! Ironically when he left with his PERSONAL WEALTH it seems all sense of decency in Microsoft left with him.
The company is led by Steve "the other Steve" Ballmer. This is the FIRST search result I got searching for just "Steve Ballmer" on youtube:
Yeah, HE is running the show.
This is a guy who snatched an iPhone out of one of his employees hands and gestured to stamp on it. Was he being cruel or was it just a retarded joke, I don't think even he knows, the guy is a madman! He set targets and decides what is acceptable and is immune from most criticism as MOST PEOPLE STILL BLAME BILL!
Bill Gates has taken early retirement.
I'm no Mac fanboy, I run Windows VISTA of all things and love it (mainly because many outside vested interests (including business) have made windows a very open operating system with M$'s "hands off" the running) but do I own an xbox 360 and FUCKEN HAET IT! GRRRR! Worst console since the 3DO in my opinion.
#1 Bill Gates stepped down as executive on Microsoft in January 2000. Severed all ties in 2008.NotSoNimble said:
#2 even if Gates was still CEO, an individual donating his personal wealth makes no difference if the COMPANY is using exploitative and monopolistic business practices to succeed in business
#3 Sony failing doesn't make them greedy. Incompetent, maybe.
#4 Microsoft's Xbox 360 is barely more popular than Sony's PS3 and that is not factoring in:
-How Soy also has PSP and PS2 STILL in production and on sale while M$ dropped Xbox like a sack of crap and never bothered with any handheld
-How many Xbox 360's were bought to replace consoles that RROD out of warranty, that indicates numbers sold is less proportional to market penetration
-ignores how Nintendo Wii and DS are by far and away the greatest success stories this generation outselling by double what either of the competition do.
#5 that bullshit "those who hate, hate" is the height of arrogance; dismissing genuine misgivings and criticism as mere prejudice. It's not a "simple explanation", it's the logic of a simpleton.
Greed is good. But the customer doesn't care about that if they get their money's worth out of a company.Billion Backs said:
I suppose when people write "M$" they mean they care about money MORE than pleasing their customers, in that they will resort to exploitation and trickery than providing genuinely good products and services.
Companies should be ruthless... to their COMPETITION. Not to the people who are giving them money, not to their customers. Otherwise they'll go somewhere else!
Microsoft is greedy, Sony is greedy, Nintendo is greedy, Activision along with Blizzard, EA, Nike, Coca-cola and every other big world-wide company are greedy too. And they all have their own share of nasty practices and shady manipulations coupled with milking their customers for a sub-par service. And yet we love them, use and buy their products, and chant their names in religious fashion whenever they bring us shiny new toys.
Don't blame companies for stupidity of their customers. They are there to make money, preferably lots. Don't like it - go open-source, use only free software, buy a cow and plant some carrots so you can feed yourself too, and make your clothing out of grass you gather form your own lawn.
Don't blame companies for stupidity of their customers. They are there to make money, preferably lots. Don't like it - go open-source, use only free software, buy a cow and plant some carrots so you can feed yourself too, and make your clothing out of grass you gather form your own lawn.
For a forum that comes across all bitchy, when it comes to grammar and spelling, I'm surprised that anyone uses the $ in that way here.
Hope this clears up some misconceptions people are having.
The old reason at least for the M$ thing was because the company was built moreso around businessmen than engineers and developers. This is still true to some point, Ballmer himself has a Harvard business degree rather than computer science or some such related.
MS were also the real contributers to the "make the hardware free (as in free to be whatever you want) and pay for the software". This is what gave them the edge over Apple, a predominately "Hardware" based company, selling whole, steady computers, designed to not need to be altered. With this in mind however they need to sell their software at heavy prices and have always had pretty crummy ways of wrapping around companies and forcing them to upgrade software, such as a MS Word 2007 file not working with a Word 2004 copy, Windows XP server accounts not working with Windows 7 or selling different versions of their OS such as Home Premium/ Office etc., charging nearly double for one or two key differences.
MS work around making the old incompatible with the new and charge stupid amounts for an upgrade, hoping for a wave effect across companies who'd need to upgrade 100 or so computers.
This gets them a bad enough rep, but what's causing them to grow really old in the tooth is their hostile attacks on services like Linux, a completely free OS, and Google, who sell their software for free, with the intent to get money of the users through ads later from using the internet. A good example being OpenOffice, a freeware Word alternate that can read and create .doc files and can do many of the things Word can, but has been stamped out of major public eye by MS wanting to earn a profit on their product.
Many computer users then would argue that MS have such then been throttling the continuing development of computers, business and personal, by using low and dirty tactics and developing their monopoly on computers around the world. Rather than trying to creating "the best product" and charging high prices for such, like what Apple does, they get charge a small price for the computer and then trap people and companies into a cycle which is difficult to break free from and also very expensive to continue on.
The only real place where they've done good in are in the games development, primarily because other developers (like Apple) turned up their nose at such mediums, but even then their programming languages are among the most archaic and ill-developed, only holding onto them because it was their standard back when originally developed.
In a final bit:
MS are no worse than Coke or McDonalds *as a business*, but the market for computers has changed so dramatically over the past two decades that many would agree we need to move on in certain fields. This is something that requires brains, not just money, and while Google and Apple are continuing on their own, MS' resilience to letting go of their archaic monopoly is what most would argue is stunting the growth of computers as a whole.
Hense the why people tend to refer to them as M$.
The old reason at least for the M$ thing was because the company was built moreso around businessmen than engineers and developers. This is still true to some point, Ballmer himself has a Harvard business degree rather than computer science or some such related.
MS were also the real contributers to the "make the hardware free (as in free to be whatever you want) and pay for the software". This is what gave them the edge over Apple, a predominately "Hardware" based company, selling whole, steady computers, designed to not need to be altered. With this in mind however they need to sell their software at heavy prices and have always had pretty crummy ways of wrapping around companies and forcing them to upgrade software, such as a MS Word 2007 file not working with a Word 2004 copy, Windows XP server accounts not working with Windows 7 or selling different versions of their OS such as Home Premium/ Office etc., charging nearly double for one or two key differences.
MS work around making the old incompatible with the new and charge stupid amounts for an upgrade, hoping for a wave effect across companies who'd need to upgrade 100 or so computers.
This gets them a bad enough rep, but what's causing them to grow really old in the tooth is their hostile attacks on services like Linux, a completely free OS, and Google, who sell their software for free, with the intent to get money of the users through ads later from using the internet. A good example being OpenOffice, a freeware Word alternate that can read and create .doc files and can do many of the things Word can, but has been stamped out of major public eye by MS wanting to earn a profit on their product.
Many computer users then would argue that MS have such then been throttling the continuing development of computers, business and personal, by using low and dirty tactics and developing their monopoly on computers around the world. Rather than trying to creating "the best product" and charging high prices for such, like what Apple does, they get charge a small price for the computer and then trap people and companies into a cycle which is difficult to break free from and also very expensive to continue on.
The only real place where they've done good in are in the games development, primarily because other developers (like Apple) turned up their nose at such mediums, but even then their programming languages are among the most archaic and ill-developed, only holding onto them because it was their standard back when originally developed.
In a final bit:
MS are no worse than Coke or McDonalds *as a business*, but the market for computers has changed so dramatically over the past two decades that many would agree we need to move on in certain fields. This is something that requires brains, not just money, and while Google and Apple are continuing on their own, MS' resilience to letting go of their archaic monopoly is what most would argue is stunting the growth of computers as a whole.
Hense the why people tend to refer to them as M$.
I never said evil, but greedy? Hell-yes, their policies, their general cheapness and the fact that most CEOs earn in a month what many towns do in a year, it all proves that they are greedy. Big corps get that way in often not entirely nice ways, they are cheap and shrewd by very nature, that's how they do well, business sense and greed tend to go very well together. But I didn't say they were evil, nor did I imply that they murder baby animals, but they are definitely greedy, hence they've earned the little $ symbols in their names.Calhoun347 said:
Wow. Just wow.headshotcatcher said:
OT: I don't think you should make a huge thing out of this. It's literally just one letter being replaced in one word.
