Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 An Essay on Microsoft

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 30, 2001
 Comments:
The 1995 launch of Microsoft's revolutionary new product, Windows 95 was the biggest event in computing ever.

People used to the clunky (although usable) interface of the even-then-antiquated 3.x series of Windows and its poor stability and 8-bit legacy resource limits of just 64KB (64 thousand bytes, about enough space for a small image) were wowed by the new product's stability, appearance and intuitive interface.

justice

More stories about Justice
Seeking a Sensible Tomorrow: The Media Marketing Accountability Act
The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Dungeons and Dragons: Don't Let it Happen to Your Kid
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Arriving in Ethiopia, West of Somalia
Newsflash! America's holy war begins!
Twelve Steps Towards Eradicating Terrorism
Expanding equality under the law
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
New Crimes, New Punishments, A New America
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
Repeal the Drunk Driving Laws Now

More stories by
kip

Newsflash! America's holy war begins!
Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer - the mass-market computer, Microsoft truly brought computing to the masses. For the first time, the elderly, the young, and the technically illiterate were empowered to use computers. Although computers still betrayed some of their arcane origins of a time when computing was the real of those with genius IQs and degrees in mathematics, the computer was now almost as much a part of the home as the television and the microwave.

This was achieved by always providing what the market needed. The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap. This formula was applied again and again over the years, slashing the price of software until everyone could afford it. Microsoft's success came through out-maneuvering the competition. Revolutionary was the approach that said that a spreadsheet, which at one would have cost over a thousand dollars, could be sold for a fraction of the price. This approach drove the computing revolution of the 80s and the net revolution of the 90s. Microsoft's aggressive approach made computing far more affordable, leading to today's society, where we truly can afford to have a computer on every desk.

While competitors floundered - as IBM pursued their lumbering corporate path, as Apple chose to marginalize themselves by charging a premium for their product, and as the Unix vendors were tied to standardization committees and relics from the 60s - Microsoft recognized the potential of computing for the masses. By the launch of Windows 95 (at which time Linux was little more accessible to the masses than the punch-card computers of the 1950s), Microsoft's approach of providing the product the market wanted right now had made Bill Gates richer than Croesus, and the youngest billionare in history.

Since that time Microsoft have continued to pursue their agenda of expedient computing, empowering thousands of small businesses, often without the funds to employ dedicated IT admin staff, to manage their own computer networks and to sell themselves on the web, via Microsoft's standardized point and click administration interface. Similarly, Microsoft's masterful integration of the internet within Windows means that for most people the internet MEANS Internet Explorer.

This typifies the Microsoft approach - to first bring down the cost for the consumer (in this case to zero - it is now bizarre to think that web browsers could cost money), and to subsequently consolidate their position by making their product vastly superior to the competition. This brilliant formula has never failed - the consumer sees that he is benefiting and is happy to acquiesce.

Over the past two decades, Microsoft have driven the computing revolution, generating billions of dollars in revenue, not just for themselves, but for the companies, small and large, who were able to compete thanks to the low barrier to entry erected by Microsoft.

Fast forwarding to the present day and the imminent launch of Microsoft's new product, Windows XP, described as an end to frustration for the millions of computer users, who, unlike most of the readers of this article, have neither the time nor the inclination to discover the highly logical (but also deeply complicated) way that computing systems such as Windows or (especially) the *nix family of operating systems, work. Millions of dollars of research, of observation, funded by Microsoft's amazing success and commitment to research and development (currently four billion dollars a year), have gone to create an operating system that is the most intuitive yet, especially for people new to computing.

For instance, Microsoft's testing uncovered the fact that 80% of users never discovered the functionality of the right mouse button, which has, since Windows 95, offered a variety of useful shortcuts to expedite common tasks. As such, the new operating system provides a new menu system replicating this functionality.

The millions of dollars of research have been used to find what people do with their computers, and attempt to empower them to do that in an intuitive way, making computers more accessible than ever before. The new operating system is the most integrated ever, pursuing the Microsoft vision of a truly cohesive entertainment and networking center - a product where computing is a natural experience rather than a painful one, with effortless remote maintenance and inter-computer interaction.

At the same time that Microsoft is on the brink of launching of a product that makes them feel 'super super excited', the competition is still hopeless, incapable of competing against the company that ensures its success by daring to give the consumer what he wants and at a price he can't refuse - Apple is still determined to occupy an overpriced niche, while the 'great open source hope', Linux, looks as far off as ever from being something your granny or a class of 11-year-olds could use. Particularly for Linux, the outlook looks bleak. No longer buffeted by the heady currents of the internet goldrush, Linux-based companies - which have never made any appreciable amount of money - appear to have reached their darkest hour yet. Just as the markets have started to recognize the absurdity of valuing websites with no apparent means of making money at billions of dollars, and are instead examining the underlying worth of companies, they are also recognizing that companies required by their underlying philosophy to give their product away, do not have significant revenue opportunities.

As a result, the development of the interface (the most important part of a system for end users) of open source products - without a cent to spend on research - relies on ideas stolen directly from Windows. Despite this blatant copying (seen in all the popular open source desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome) and enormous goodwill to shoddy workmanship and incomplete and buggy software (the likes of which would not be tolerated from commercial software), even in supposedly 'complete' distributions, these desktops seem but a pale shadow of the real thing. The in-fighting and lack of commercial rigor of the Unix and open source world has left a system of wild inconsistencies and rough edges, with little consistency between 'competing' 'toolkits' and 'desktop environments' making Linux an operating system suitable only for those with patience with computers, a good deal of computing experience, and a stubborn streak. For everyone else, Linux remains something that is frustrating to use, with its bewildering array of arcane concepts (file permissions, symbolic links and compilers to install software (something users used to InstallShield would find troubling)) and inconsistencies that, because of the lack of revenues to fund research, haven't been ironed out. And although use of Linux would certainly be painful for most people, administration would truly be a nightmare. The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel.

Despite all this, the overwhelming majority of those in the nerd and geek community - experts on computing who take joy in computing for its own sake - harbor deep-seated resentment of 'Micro$oft', peddler of 'Winblows', a resentment most ordinary people are unware of, and one that would they not understand if they were. The cause of the massive hatred of Microsoft is not entirely clear, but it appears to be a combination of factors.

The ultimate cause of it in many cases is probably human nature, as there is no doubt that we are programmed to be resentful of success and to be envious of those who succeed - the hatred directed at other successful people demonstrated only too well how personal insecurities and feelings of inferiority, and, ultimately, that the person has failed as a human being by not succeeding, manifest themselves in hatred of people who have succeeded. That these feelings should be directed at a company largely responsible for the massively improved levels of prosperity brought by bringing computing to the masses, and without which, the world as we know it would be drastically different, is of no consequence, since as humans are essentially selfish beings, personal reassurance is a far more important emotion than altruism.

There is no doubt that this is a very powerful emotion behind much of the Microsoft bashing - in the same way that other successful and life-enriching companies such as Starbucks have been attacked, apparently purely on the basis of their success, Microsoft's overwhelming success has also attracted it hatred.

But it is more than that. What many geeks object to is Microsoft's new broom approach. For instance, there is a great deal of resentment at Microsoft's 'replacement' of the Netscape browser with a free alternative. For the end user, for the consumer, this was an enormously positive event, just as the advent of the mass-produced Ford motor car was a positive event in the early years of the 20th century, or Kodak's affordable camera was a positive event for mass photography, providing access to a camera for just 5 cents, the overpriced products made obsolete by a high-quality mass-produced and, most imporantly, dirt-cheap replacement.

The resentment, which probably was in the past confined to those involved with the makers of the products that were made obsolete, now finds voice in a wider community of highly intelligent and articulate 'geeks', resentful in part that computing should become accessible to the uninitiated, thereby devaluing their skills, and in part too of the lack of regard for the old institutions - the willingness to boldly sweep away the archaic relics of the computing past, just as Henry Ford swept away the expensive and unreliable handbuilt cars with his production lines almost a century ago.

And all the while things continue - small businesses and stock traders with adoration for Microsoft, the ordinary person with blithe indifference, and the geek community with pure hatred.


Thats Right (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by CLaW on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 03:27:01 PM PST
Thats the sort of essay I've always wanted to write on Microsoft, but never found the time. It's nice being able to focus on the task at hand, instead of getting stuck in the details. I could not imagine using Linux for any sort of real work, except maybe something under the detail threshold I am willing to endure.


funny (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:10:58 PM PST
Moin

> I could not imagine using Linux for any sort of real work,

Now that's funny.
I, for my part, can't imagine using a Microsoft Windows operation system for any sort of real work...

--
Henryk Pl�tz
Gr��e von der Ostsee


I agree... (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 06:37:51 PM PST
Two days ago I upgraded my kernel (to another mandrake-packaged version) that didn't have the nVidia drivers I did "geeky" stuff to install (in other words, not everyone will do this), and X wouldn't start. With the help of a #linuxhelp-er, I quickly managed to revert to the old kernel. The funny thing is that windows will do that kind of thing without requiring any user involvement (an ease-of-use feature?), and since it is so closed even a well-trained sysadmin has limited power - if this had happened of windows, I probably would have had to start over. The point of this story is that to do something that will happen at random in windows, I have to actively mess with the system, and it's easy to fix and find help to fix. Also, since I didn't want to learn all the command line tools - I prefer to use it from X for low-level control - I played Max Payne and read slashdot all day.


backleveling (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:03:36 AM PST
Actually Windows and most other OSs allow you to use backleveling. This is done 2 ways.

1. Make a backup or image. Install the upgrade or update. If it doesn't work use the image or previously made backup.

2. Some upgrades (like Win95 to 98) will back up your the necesary files to revert back to a point before the upgrade.


 
Two out of three ain't bad (4.20 / 5) (#3)
by localroger on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 05:43:38 PM PST
The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap.

Not quite. It was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap regardless of whether they were finished yet or not. And nowhere was their failure to finish a product more obvious or odious than in the case of Win 95, shipped far too early in order to kick the legs out from under OS/2 Warp, which was finally threatening to be a better Windows than Win 3.x.

But this wasn't the first or last time Microsoft shipped beta code. They never really finished the 8-bit BASIC interpreter that was their bread and butter in the 70's, never doing even simple optimizations that could have brought 2x or 5x increases in speed. They never finished DOS, abandoning it just when it was starting to have enough functionality to be useful without third-party hacks. They never finished Win16, abandoning it to start on Win 95. They have arguably gotten 95 to a stable state with 98SE, depending on what you want to do with it, a mere 3.5 years after its release to an unsuspecting and gullible public.

And of course, they had to mess up NT first (having gotten real programmers to write it) before they could fix the problems they caused in 4.0 (trying to make it look like '95) with the release of 2000.

Nobody sane will argue that uSoft don't put effort into details of the user interface. What bothers the geeks -- or anybody who takes pride in his work -- is that the bastards don't care about security or stability and don't have a clue as to how to achieve these ends. The prettiest user interface in the world is useless when it blue-screens on you.


Your opinion... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by nebby on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 08:35:11 AM PST
..does not matter. All that matters is that people bought their product. You can bitch and whine all you want, but in a capitalist society, like it or not, money is the judge of value.. and Microsoft got theirs.




 
MS annoys the political loonies... (3.50 / 2) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 01:53:22 AM PST
...the libertarians, the Rand-ites, the anarchists, the right-wing nutcases that seem to infest the I.T. world.

The problem with their ideas is that people tend to form groups, including clubs, gangs and mega-corporations. If their ideas were ever put into practice, the world would end up being run by either Microsoft or the Hells Angels.

Microsoft offends them because it shows that the unrestricted free market produces bland, homogenous near-monopolies; and because it proves that the only beastie powerful enough to tame a mega-corporation is an old-fashioned democratic government.

Hence the hatred and the conspiracy theories.


But the world would be a better place if... (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 06:37:04 PM PST
is was run by the Hells Angels.


 
can I live in your world? (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 12:00:15 PM PST
Oh what it would be like to live in your world. A world with no innovation. Where MS is the only a company.

I want to be a uneducated consumer. Then I could spend a fortune every six months for the new MS operating system instead of simply downloading a Service Pack. There would be no other enitities to push each other to better their products.

I suggest you you do some real research about Linux and Microsoft. Look soecifically for quotes from Steve Ballmer. He is a MS CEO not a PR guy. So don't even attempt to say that he just some uniformed MORON. He's one of Bill Gates most trusted employees.


 
Crap (1.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 02:45:02 AM PST
Does anybody believe the above?

I use Linux Mandrake for almost all my work. The only time I boot Windows is to use my bank account program (and that is because it is not available for Linux).

I'm just happy that today I have a true choice because Linux has become so user friendly.



linux distros (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:54:41 AM PST
I use Red Hat Linux. I have also requested a copy of SuSE Linux LiveEval.

I can do all my banking from their website. No programs to install. It's all there.


 
Great advert, but... (3.00 / 4) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:03:37 AM PST
Alright, kip, time to come clean. How much were you paid for that advertorial?

Despite the gushings, Microsoft isn't the white knight portrayed in the above piece and to say any different would be to demonstrate a complete lack of historical knowledge.

While it is more than possible to write a piece on Microsoft without bashing it every step of the way, it is also far less possible to write such a piece without at least offering some criticisms, which this article (and I use that term in its loosest sense) has failed to do.

I wonder why the "Triple E" method that Microsoft uses to "Embrace, Expand and Extinguish" its opponents wasn't mentioned. Or how they published a page on the Windows NT website completely deriding Linux with lies worse than any statistics Mark Twain could think of. Not everything that is Microsoft is gold.

Code Red recently swept the net, threatening to use millions of Microsoft-powered websites as mass weapons against the Whitehouse website. Not that MS were at fault for the virus itself, just for the complete lack of security built into the software that they sell at high prices to very important clients. At the time, I thought it extremely lucky that the majority of the internet uses a flavour of Unix (including Linux) to run websites. Also on that note, Apache is free and is the most popular web server software in the world. I thought free software didn't work?

There are so many lies and inconsistencies in this advert that it would be foolish of me to waste my time in listing them all together with a counter-argument. However, I will say that the author is quote obviously a Microsoft fanboy and, should Microsoft ever be in need of a good PR guy, he would fit the bill quite nicely.



virii (2.50 / 2) (#9)
by Nobody on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:20:37 AM PST
It seems very shallow to criticise MS for the high-profile virii that can affect their operating system. How many programmers are going to bother writing a virus for Linux when they could write one for Windows, and therefore infect millions more PCs?

As with the "monopoly" issue, MS are simply a victim of their own success.


Viruses (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by finn on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:50:40 AM PST
virii


It's viruses...
How many programmers are going to bother writing a virus for Linux when they could write one for Windows, and therefore infect millions more PCs?


There would be fewer if Microsoft didn't make it's products so easily targetable. Compare the number of viruses for Microsoft's Outlook (Express) with the number for Eudora.
As with the "monopoly" issue, MS are simply a victim of their own success.


Microsoft are as much a victim of poorly-planned and poorly executed software as they are their success. When they do stuff right, it works (W2K, ignoring obvious recent problems). When they don't, Melissa, Sircam, Code Red, etc.
----------

Virii (1.00 / 3) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 06:07:20 AM PST
No, it's not "viruses" it's "virii". No-one would argue that the plural of "mouse" is "mouses" and not "mice", just becuase "mouse" has an alternative technical meaning. It's the same with "virus" - the word obeys the same grammatical rules as any other word ending in "-us".


Viruses (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 06:20:03 AM PST
It's viruses.


 
words ending in "us" (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by jsm on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 09:38:01 AM PST
If it obeyed "the same rules" as radius, focus and locus, it would be "viri", not "virii". In fact, it doesn't. Virus is a noun more similar to "prospectus" than either of the above, and thus the correct Latin pluralisation would be "virus", pronounced with a long u. But it's not a Latin word; it's an English one, and therefore "viruses" is much more nearly correct.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
Yes you can blame Microsoft for virii (or viruses) (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 05:21:29 AM PST
...because their default as-shipped security model stinks!

Considering their role in the industry, "stinks" is the most polite word that can be used, though perhaps "irresponsible" would fit. Finally WinNT and descendents (Win2k) have decent security capabilities - they have effectively delivered a house with steel door and a good lock. But that door is left in the basement uninstalled, and the front has only a screen door.

As you say, Microsoft has emphasized ease of use. You don't mention the "gee whiz" of their software, but it's there, too. But security hasn't been their priority. Further, it's hard to retrofit, as opposed to architect and design in.

The Linux world has an interesting lesson. A few years ago, the default out-of-the-box RedHat installation was terribly insecure. The market reacted. Today RedHat out-of-the-box is much more secure, and in fact will set up a default firewall.

The most fearful thing about Microsoft is that they are nearly immune to market forces, since they pretty much ARE the market.


 
Because MS is such an easy target (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 05:01:29 PM PST
I happen to know someone who writes quite advanced polymorphic/self learning VBA viruses. You probably wont of heard of him or his viruses because he doesnt release them (other than sending them to the AV companies), which is just aswell because they have the potential to do far more damage than "Melissa" or the "Love Bug" ever did. He doesnt do it for the fame, he doesnt do it to infect, he doesnt do it to cause destruction. He does it because for whatever reason he has to use MS products and he wants them to be secure.

As for the "linux virus" issue, there are actually quite a few. They tend to work along the same principles as a root kit, most will have a database of known local root exploits and use them so that they can carry on and infect whatever it is they want to infect. I'm surprised there hasnt been more attention on them personally, I mean sure the stuff I build from source is safe, but what if a Debian developer gets infected and I happen to download something they built from APT? The potential is definatly there and Debian, with its centralised distribution sources, could be hit quite badly if something like that were to occur.


 
Microsoft does do good software (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by nobbystyles on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 05:00:12 AM PST
Windows 2000 is an excellent operating system with stabilty, easy-to-use features and good graphics support. MS also produces excellent games software like the Age Of Empire series.

Whereas Linux is a sad reminder of the DOS 6.0/Win3.1 days with its poorly implemented GUI layer over an unfriendly command line type interface. Jesus, I have better things to do than fsck about with learning a load of obscure commands to do anything useful.

Thank god for MS as the alternatives leave so much to be desired. They may not be 'innovative' (Linux is *so* innovative, heh, heh) but at least their stuff allows me to program in a nice easy language like Visual Basic so I have more time to find out exactly what my users want rather than get blinded by geekery for the sake of geekery....


Microsoft doesn't innovate (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 11:14:43 AM PST
Read "Breaking Windows" by David Banks. It's admitted to in there that they don't allow free reign on innovation in their company. A lot of it is paid to a "strategy tax" and a lot of its developer left the company because of that. They couldn't stand it. They couldn't understand why they couldn't make Windows compete based on its merits. Mr. Gates constantly refused this because he always wanted a way to lock in the customer to Windows. If the feature didn't lock in customers, it was dumped. This is also what they do with open standards (and one reason much of the geek community doesn't like them.) They will say, and purposely (this too is admitted to in the book), that they embrace open standards, but really its to first gain a foot in that particular market, then, once they've gained a significant share, they will change their product so that it no longer conforms to the standard (this is why Sun sued them over Java, anyone remember?)


 
Windows is stable? (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 01:08:40 AM PST
Everytime MS makes the claim that there new Os is more stble than the last it seems that it easier to hack. They close one backdoor and another opens.


 
People hate microsoft because... (1.00 / 2) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 05:05:52 AM PST
Their software is difficult and frustrating to use, does unpredictable and damaging things to people's data, and there's no realistic alternative. They feel trapped.


For instance, where I work, the older folks in upper management curse Microsoft (especially Word) every day and wish for a replacement. But I also know that, Linux lover that I am, I cannot plop Linux on their computers without causing them trouble. Fonts? Printing? Working cut and paste? Consistent UI? Nope.


Enough of the OSS lies (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by theboz on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 06:43:59 AM PST
Their software is difficult and frustrating to use, does unpredictable and damaging things to people's data...

This is simply not true. Microsoft software is extremely easy. I get things done quickly with software running in Windows. With linux I have to do all sorts of programming and setting up make files just to install the stupid thing. And that usually requires downloads lots of other software that I probably already have newer versions of just to get it to run. No thanks.

As far as it doing unpredictable and damaging things to data, that is a boldfaced lie. While on rare occasions older versions of Windows crash if you install free software on it, Windows does not normally crash. With newer versions such as Windows 2000, it doesn't crash. And it has NEVER messed up any of my data. I think you are just talking out of your ass on that one, and perhaps you haven't used Windows before. Besides, if your data is messed up, that is most likely your fault for fat fingering your keyboard or something. Don't blame the OS because you don't know how to type.

and there's no realistic alternative. They feel trapped.

There are alternatives such as MacOS and even Linux for normal users. Plus AOL is working on either a GUI or a whole new OS (I forget which) but the point is that there are choises. Also, nobody in their right mind feels trapped. What do they need to use their computer for anyways? They want to use Word or Internet Explorer, right? Well they run on Windows. If someone wants to do things right on their computer, they use Windows. It's quite simple, not really a trap, just that it's a superior OS.

For instance, where I work, the older folks in upper management curse Microsoft (especially Word) every day and wish for a replacement.

Everyone knows that upper management, and indeed management in general, are morons. They curse Microsoft because they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. They don't lend any credibility to your argument.

But I also know that, Linux lover that I am, I cannot plop Linux on their computers without causing them trouble.

You have shown here your bias. You are a linux lover, and don't really know much about Windows except that it is superior to linux. It is good you admit that, but you should realize it doesn't have all the problems you claim it does.

Fonts? Printing? Working cut and paste? Consistent UI? Nope.

And there are many more things about linux that suck. You should try out the newer versions of Windows, you might actually like them. As I always say, Linux is now almost as good as Windows NT 3.51.
[Reply]

 
Entirely Ignorant of Reality (1.00 / 3) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:03:30 AM PST
<i>Linux, looks as far off as ever from being something your granny or a class of 11-year-olds could use.</i>

<br>You, sir, are a moron. Linux SEEMS hard to use because you have been using Microsoft products for so long. And the ONLY reason you have been using Windows and the ilk is because you were FORCED to. Yes, FORCED. Microsoft FORCES pc vendors to sell their OS, and as a matter of fact, they do not allow the PC vendors to sell any other operating system. Linux's unpopularity is not because it is harder to use but because it is hidden underneath a blanket of millions of dollars of Microsoft marketing. Hope you enjoy your check from Microsoft, whore.


Erm (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:25:12 AM PST
No one is forced to use MS OSes on their PCs. Vendors and OEMs use it because MS licensing is good value when you buy in bulk.

Dell has tried selling PCs with Linux preinstalled but there was no demand suprisingly...


nope (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:24:12 PM PST
The agreements with the OEMs specify that if a machine is to have windows on it it cannot have another operating system on it as well ... as in dual booting. My PC at home is dual boot with Win95 & Linux. I only use Windows at home these days for gaming. I find the Windows gui so primitive and limiting I don't really like using it unless someone is paying me. I am by the way a Windows / Unix programmer who started back in DOS 3 throught to Win NT.

I like Windows 2k (even though it is nowhere as stable as advertised) ... but to be honest Linux is better.




dual boot? (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 12:56:15 PM PST
Dell's linux desktop were Linux ONLY. They were NOT dual boot.


 
Dell drops linux (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:43:11 AM PST
Yes Dell did drop Linux from its desktop computer. Why because of people on this message board that don't know jack squat about it.

However, according to Dell, servers running Red Hat Linux outsell any other Netowrk Operating System they offer.


 
Obviously a troll... (2.25 / 4) (#20)
by Wiggy on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 09:31:37 AM PST
This reads like a troll - that sort of post that has appeared on adequacy.org recently that looks as though it has been written by the editor with the intent of it being controversial. These articles stick out for a couple of reasons; firstly, they're normally written by adequacy.org authors, secondly it's clear that their heart isn't really in it. Still, a comment it deserves...

Right, the actual real revolution was not the product of MS. It was actually Intel. Being able to go out and buy a relatively inexpesinve context switching multiprocessor (the 386) was the critical component. It allowed developers more freedom and provided them the ability to mimic larger more expensive machines (a la Unix).

I don't doubt that MS have done a lot of very good work, but their time was the early to mid 90's. They know, as everybody else knows, that the cost of software is about to drop to zero. This makes me laugh, as the way they got market dominance in so many areas was to remove the market - e.g. Netscape didn't have a product once IE was about and costing zero. Same with price comparisons with Word vs. Wordperfect.

Anyway, the point is, give it five years (Linux is only ten years old now, FreeBSD a year or two less effectively), and the effective cost of 'generic' software will be zero. A lot of companies know this - including MS. That's why they want you to buy 'services' not 'software'. MS is approaching this with .NET, but if you had done any reading up on this, you'd know the architecture is flawed at a technical level. Or at least, that's what a lot of people appear to be indicating, but I guess we won't know for certain until it's here.

As for the interface - well a lot of that will be derived from what access is required to what services. There is significant money being spent on UI research with the OSS community - Sun just released a report on GNOME which they are now adopting as their main windowing environment for Solaris. You also have to understand that if corporates aren't paying for it, doesn't mean it's not getting done - the budget of a project does not determine how much work is being done on it. The budget for existing open source OS' is minimal, yet there are in many ways (e.g. embedded device, network server, etc.) more functional and accessible that anything from MS.

If you still think MS isn't bothered by what it knows is about to happen to it, consider the Halloween documents, the recent Ballmer and Mundie FUD'ing, and so forth.

Anyway, this isn't Slashdot, this article doesn't belong here, and you're a troll. Not even a very good one.


It isn't a troll (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by bc on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:18:23 AM PST
If you think this is a troll, you don't know kip very well :)

Whats trollish about setting out the truth about microsoft? As far as I'm concerned, they produce easily the best Operating System on the market for my purposes (desktop user). The simple fact is that Microsoft has revolutionised the computing industry, and has done so vastly for the better of the average home user.

Right, the actual real revolution was not the product of MS. It was actually Intel. Being able to go out and buy a relatively inexpesinve context switching multiprocessor (the 386) was the critical component. It allowed developers more freedom and provided them the ability to mimic larger more expensive machines (a la Unix).

Uhm whatever. There have been many revolutions in the computing industry. But the 386, though a crucial moment, was only the catalyst. The actual meat of reaction was with microsoft.

They know, as everybody else knows, that the cost of software is about to drop to zero

Eh what? I certainly don't know this. Do you dislike Microsoft because they charge for their services or something? You get what you pay for. Microsoft provide what the market wants, and charge a fair price. Amen.

The budget for existing open source OS' is minimal, yet there are in many ways (e.g. embedded device, network server, etc.) more functional and accessible that anything from MS.

Uhh no. All Open Source software is a godawful overcomplex nightmare. Fiddling with /etc/X11Config to change my mouse type is not fun, with windows it just takes a few clicks. And the most amazing thing about windows is how fast and stable it is, compared to linux.

I have here a 64Mb Duron computer. It used to have Mandrake 8 on it. It was hell. Unbelievably slow, I could sit and watch the screen being redrawn line by line when I pressed alt-tab to change windows. Sometimes konqueror would take the system down (OH NO! Most definately not a crash, linux doesn't do that - it only frequently becomes totally and utterly unusable, such that I can't type anything in such is the strain, and I have to switch it off at the mains). I found Linux to be an utter nightmare of hell, that doesn't support normal standards and has shit browsers and editors and is clearly geared towards propellorheads who like everything to be nightmarishly hard and annoying.

Windows 2000, otoh, runs wonderfully well and fast, and I never ever need to listen to my hardrive churning anymore.

As far as this user is concerned, Microsoft are the most wonderful computing company ever. I don't give a shit about principles or 'Free Software' or all the political crap that others, too involved with computers, get wrapped up in, all I care about is that it works and works well. Hooray for Microsoft!


♥, bc.

hooray for microsoft? (none / 0) (#23)
by alprazolam on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 10:51:37 AM PST
it doesn't matter what kind of software (or licenses) they're pushing, any company that's trying to sell me a shitty 'technological solution' (basically all tech related companies, from microsoft, to southwesternbell, to redhat) gets a big fuck you far before a hooray. the whole reason the economy is gone to shit is because the fucking tech companies are managed by incompetent buffoons who can't predict markets and actually believe their own marketing hype. it's similar to pepsi thinking that their new drink is going to revolutionize the economy. so to microsoft, intel, sun, ibm, and all you other tech companies: fuck you.


Damn Right! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:48:16 PM PST
It's not about hating microsoft as a single company.
That's THE biggest tech related company and therefore represents the whole tech market.
America was supposed to show the success of a capitalist economy and harsh market which forces the competing companies to manufacture GOOD, QUALITY products and sell them to the consumer WITH A SMILE.
It's worked for most products, yet never applies for the tech market - all tech companies treat us like shit, sells crappy unfinished products and whenever you share your problems with tech support, all you get is a condesending attitude, as if you should be thankful for having been able to buy their crappy product. At best you would be told to reinstall/ wait for the next bugfix version which will be available at a full retail price (of course, your'e not entitled to an upgrade...)

As for their "Innovations", Microsoft have not simplifies computers, they have DUMBED THEM DOWN!
Now you get cryptic error messages that not even they understand instead of a system that was extremely complex but did make sense.

That whole industry can kiss my ass,
They're a disgrace!


I'm sorry, but..... (none / 0) (#30)
by mrbee on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:22:37 PM PST
You seem really bitter. Why?


 
economy is shit but why? (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:32:56 AM PST
The economy is shit right now not because of tech comapnies. It was because of all the Dot.coms that lived beyond their means and thought they would sit back and let the computer do all the work.

This meant thousands lost their jobs and less people were buying stuff. This in turn leads to a chain rection which is why the economy is the way it is right now.


 
THank you! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:20:41 PM PST
For some much-needed sanity. Windows XP is GOOD!



Only took 10 years (2.33 / 3) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 03:57:31 AM PST
Yes, and its only taken Microsoft 10 years to start producing "good" software. Was it really "worth the wait"? Is it really a good thing that the computer industry is running ten years behind, technologically?

The article reads as if the author has only ever used Microsoft software (but did try Linux for a half hour or so once).

Back in the mid-80s I used an Apple Mac. Windows 95 , ten years later, was the first Microsoft OS to even come close.

Microsoft is not a "victim of its own success" in the anti-trust trial - to claim that would be to blindly reject the overwhelming facts of the case presented in the court findings (and upheld by the appeals court). It is not illegal to have a monopoly - it is illegal to ABUSE your monopoly position - anyone with half a brain cell can figure out that Microsoft did just that.

And Internet Explorer is FAR from free. I pay R1000 for Windows98 crap, which is a LOT of money, and doesn't even include the "cheap" spreadsheet software that kip talks about. That money pays for IE - in one way or another, YOU PAY FOR INTERNET EXPLORER - I certainly don't see Microsoft making a LOSS on the software, do you? That money for development has to COME from somewhere, and it comes straight from software sales, DUH. You think the IE development team works for free? Get real.

This article neglects actual history and facts so badly its obviously a blatant troll.

I don't advocate Linux for mainstream desktop use, but why try map present to past? Microsoft wasn't competing with Linux when they gained dominance, DUH, so its stupid to say "Microsoft is winning because Linux sucks" .. back then, there was mainly Mac and OS/2, both of which were better than anything MS had. Apples systems were very cost-effective - despite what Kip thinks, Apple also realised full well that making things cheap was the way to go - Apple failed because their hardware was closed - nerds like intel systems because they were so configurable. And OS/2, well, (a) IBM had its own antitrust problems back then and were not too aggressive, and (b) Microsoft screwed IBM over, bigtime, with OS/2 - one of the biggest corporate backstabs ever seen. Kip needs to check his history books a bit.




Hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by John Milton on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 07:35:03 AM PST
Yes, and its only taken Microsoft 10 years to start producing "good" software. Was it really "worth the wait"? Is it really a good thing that the computer industry is running ten years behind, technologically?

Well, Linux just had it's 10th birthday. Ten years of development and it can't even get up to Win98's standard of usability. Oh, I guess it's alright to write crappy software if it's free.

And Internet Explorer is FAR from free. I pay R1000 for Windows98 crap, which is a LOT of money, and doesn't even include the "cheap" spreadsheet software that kip talks about. That money pays for IE - in one way or another, YOU PAY FOR INTERNET EXPLORER - I certainly don't see Microsoft making a LOSS on the software, do you? That money for development has to COME from somewhere, and it comes straight from software sales, DUH. You think the IE development team works for free? Get real.

IE is an added value to Windows. Do you think it would be cheaper if it was sold seperately? No. When I pay for Windows, I pay for a functional OS. Internet access is part of the basic functionality that any OS should have these days. Functionality means integration. I shouldn't have to hack out a shell script to get my browser and my mp3 player to work together. I pay Microsoft for one seamless architecture.

Apples systems were very cost-effective - despite what Kip thinks, Apple also realised full well that making things cheap was the way to go - Apple failed because their hardware was closed - nerds like intel systems because they were so configurable.

Apple systems are not cost effective. If they were cost effective, I'd buy one myself. The difference is not closed hardware or configurability. MacOS X is based on BSD and is just as configurable. Also, Apple has opened up their hardware standard for Linux. The difference is price and software. Not many people want to buy an expensive system with very little software that only has the claim of "I was once better than Windows."


-John Milton

10 years (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:23:44 AM PST
<<Well, Linux just had it's 10th birthday. Ten years of development and it can't even get up to Win98's standard of usability. Oh, I guess it's alright to write crappy software if it's free.>>

I believe he was referring more towards the robust NT software. Microsoft has been producing software for since the mid 70s (back when they were Micro-Soft, founded 1975) Paul Allen and Bill Gates formed their first company back in 1972 called Traf-O-Data. They had the resources even back then. They used a lot of IBM's money and code from OS/2 to produce NT. They simply reworked much of it so that it wasn't so resource heavy (that sounds weird).


 
MacOS and BSD (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:27:56 AM PST
MacOSX is not based on BSD. It is based on A BSD. In fact for the most part it IS FreeBSD. However, if you read the BSD license you would know that you can take BSD licensed code and use it anyway you want as long as you give credit to the who actually did the work. It is a very liberal license that does not protect developers.

MS uses code from FreeBSD for its TCP/IP stack.


 
Disagree (2.33 / 3) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:26:08 AM PST
Win2K running fine on a Duron with only 64MB Ram?

You, sir, are speaking out your ass. You've completely discredited your post with lies like that.


Look, astroturfer. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by nx01 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:31:14 AM PST
W2K works fine on my computer--a P2/333 with 64 meg of ram. No slower than those silly "KDE" "GNUome" windowing systems that linux people like to go on and on about.

Though for my real work, I find that Windows ME is more than sufficient.


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

f00king crock (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:13:37 PM PST
in all my experience with 2k, and i have run it on every type of computer you can imagine, it accepts 128 megs of ram, and need 192 mimimum. if you think that it is "running fine" with 64 megs, you need your standards elevated. buy more ram. you dont need a faster processor, 333 is perfectly fine for any type of office use, but unless you have a studly ultra-scsi raid array for a hard drive, then you are kicking your hd in the nutsaq every time you move the mouse cursor.


It does run fine (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by bc on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 06:50:56 AM PST
It runs very fast on 64Mb of ram. Currently I have MSWord2000, SecureCRT, Sonique and IE6 open and running. These are the only programs I ever use, and generally I use them all the time, especially word and IE. It doesn't swap, or slow down, or make me wait for so much as a microsecond at any time. Maybe if I was doing video editing or something, I would need extra ram, but as it is, it runs fast and well. So why bother getting extra ram? IE6 and Word are the only programs a user like myself needs.


♥, bc.

 
open source is unstable huh? (2.33 / 3) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:29:06 PM PST
If open source is so unstable, then why does Microsoft's own Hotmail service run FreeBSD? The last I heard is that MS continually denied using it until they were caught. I think ZDNet covered the story.
<BR><BR>
Please bring back the sanity.


Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by kip on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 06:25:16 PM PST
They bought hotmail, a pre-existing service, already running FreeBSD. They couldn't just replace this complex infrastructure over night. They updated it to Windows 2000 some time ago. Go look at uptime.netcraft.com for verification.


 
mice (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by shren on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:31:52 PM PST
Microsoft's testing uncovered the fact that 80% of users never discovered the functionality of the right mouse button, which has, since Windows 95, offered a variety of useful shortcuts to expedite common tasks.

Holy shit! My mouse has two buttons!


 
Another Perspective.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by mrbee on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:02:30 PM PST
As an MCSE with 5+ years of NT / Solaris / Linux Sysadmin experience, I have had the pleasure of watching NT mature from a half-baked Unix-wannabe to the scalable, robust platform it is today. A similar maturation process has taken place on the desktop; the abandonment of legacy cruft and the adoption of the WinNT codebase across the board is an excellent move whose time has come. Call me a troll if that resolves your inner conflicts ;) but I truly believe that admin and consumer alike will benefit from a more stable Windows.

I've been running Windows XP on my home PC for the last couple of weeks. The experience has been a mixed bag, but with a few caveats my overall impression is favorable.
First the negatives:

  • I had some problems with non-certified drivers for My AHA 2920 SCSI card and CD burner, but those were fixed with help from folks at this Win XP newsgroup. (PS: Thx guys, you ROCK!)

  • Albert Einstein is quoted as having remarked that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". In this regard, Microsoft has perhaps erred on the side of simplicity, as is their wont. The average, non-technical user will take this for granted, as most people are not interested in tweaking their systems beyond changing their home page. Geeks will be frustrated by a GUI which is as nearly as opaque as anything designed by Apple.

    Now on to some positives:

  • The GUI is clean, intuitive, stable, and visually intense without being overbearing; what at first looks cartoony and flimsy quickly grows comfortable - unlike previous versions, this looks like it was designed by, and for, humans. I have worked with Linux in the server room and admire its performance there, and I'm rooting for tux on the desktop (let's hear it for the underdog!), but I must make decisions based on my subjective experience, as the success or failure of an OS ultimately rests on the experience of the end-user. I find KDE and Gnome both to be kludgey and incomplete, they have never really "drawn me in" the way the Windows XP environment has. KDE has wrecked my fonts one too many times for comfort. M$FT spends ridiculously large amounts of money on Interface, and it shows!

  • So far I've focused on the GUI. I'd like to make a few comments regarding the underlying OS. First, if you're looking for a mature Journaled Filesystem, you need look no further than NTFS in its present iteration. I have abused the hell out of a Windows XP box set up at work for just that purpose. One remarkable example: I hit the power switch in the middle of a serious disk write, and after a quick check, the system was back up and running with nary a hiccup. Contrast that with the notoriously buggy ReiserFS, and you can see where the dream has fallen short of reality. Microsoft's innovative Encrypted File System is another area where the competition pales.

    While the Open Source model works great for smaller, task-specific projects, there is simply no substitute for a single-vendor codebase when it comes to integrating the OS and the GUI. Until the Linux evangelists face this unpleasant fact, Linux on the desktop will remain the province of hobbyists and the technical elite.

    Let's face it: Win XP is not perfect, and not for everybody, but in many ways outshines anything M$FT or its competitors have come up with to date. Throw 64-bit support into the mix - assuming it works ;) and you've got a real class-act. What's your opinion?


  • scalable (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by staeci on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 07:28:02 AM PST
    whether or not an OS is scalable depends on whose definition you use. MS's definition is the abiliity to run on (intel)machines with more processors as requirements increase. The definition of the rest of the industry use is the ability to run on more powerful hardware as requirements increase.

    AFAIK MS has dropped support for PowerPC and Alpha hardware. Linux runs on a wide range of hardware from i386 to Itanium, handheld PDA's, IBMs RS boxes, Apple Macs, Suns Ultra SPARCS, SGI machines and even Sony released a small number of PSX/2's running linux. Now that is scalable from PDA's and 386's to mighty SUN and SGI boxes. Nt/2000/XP don't do that.




     
    No one here has read Breaking Windows... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 10:56:58 AM PST
    It's a good read and somewhat gives you an idea on why much of the core Linux/OSS community don't like Microsoft. It's mainly because they won't compete on the merits of their operating system. It's always (and this is admitted to in the book) been about locking in customers to their OS, not about serving customers. The latter is the illusion that Microsoft always tries to put forth. This way, Microsoft can release unfinished products to the masses without having to worry about people complaining too much about bugs, security, etc. Even if people do, they won't be able to switch since most of their apps run in Windows.

    Few here seem to forget that "open source" has only been popular for the last two years (for that matter, the term "open source" has only been around since late 1998.) Before that, it was only the Free Software community who had very limited ideas on how software should be, and very few people, much less large companies, shared that view. "Open source" is extremely young and has not really been given its proper time. People here insult Linux and other "open source" stuff saying that it's beat by Microsft because Microsoft has the money to put into its OS, thus it can figure out what customers want, etc. If you ask me, the advancements in Linux and other "open source" software in the last two years have been pretty amazing and fast considering the little time they've been given, but yet no one here gives that consideration. Before insulting Linux and other "open source" stuff, give it some time. Microsoft has had quite a lead in this regard.


    picking apart Windows (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 01:18:57 AM PST
    MS doesn't innovate it STEALS! Everytime MS releases a NEW feature people forget that other companies have been doing it for 5-10 years.

    Oh look it's the Active Directory. It so NEW and INNO.....wait didn't I see that in Novell NetWare. I believe it was called the NDS.

    Take the logical representation of the NDS tree and turn it upside down and you have the Active Directory.


     
    Yep Microsoft is Adequate alright. (2.33 / 3) (#37)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 03:04:42 AM PST
    Unfortunately, that's all that it is. And since us Geeks demand something better then adequacy, we dislike it. When Microsoft makes a OS that is as easy to use as MacOS, and/or as reliable as Linux, I'll reconsider. Right now, it's adequately easy and adequately stable. No more. (And, yes, I've used Win2k-- everyday in fact. Definately a step in the right direction, but still a few miles to go, especially on the reliability front).



     
    Defending GNU/Linux and Free Software (1.66 / 3) (#38)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 11:46:03 PM PST
    I would like to take a minute to defend GNU/Linux and Free Software (what you folks call Open Source Software).

    Comparing GNU/Linux and MS Windows is easy. Really, there is nothing superior in Windows compared to GNU/Linux. However there are many things in GNU/Linux that you cannot have in Windows. I will give you some examples in a moment but note how your only real argument with these is that a) I don't care/want that feature b) there are too many options. If you think about it for a moment, neither argument makes sense.

    In GNU/Linux and not in MS Windows:

    * Virtual/Multiple Desktops
    * Real Desktop Themeing
    * Multiplatform (runs on the latest 64-bit chips, Macintosh, SPARC, Intel, etc.)
    * Much much support for programming right out of the box
    * Multiple desktop systems
    * Multitasking commandline enviroment
    * Easy to use user interface
    * Full host of free applications (with source code)
    * Much more that I can't think of now

    Now if you want to go on and talk about the applications, the this kind of comparison is harder. While GNU/Linux has free equivalents to most software found on Windows, GNU/Linux doesn't have as many as you may like. Microsoft software, of course, hasn't been ported. Keep in mind there are lots of sophisticated application suites available on the GNU/Linux platform that isn't available on Windows.

    Also note that many people are just afraid of trying something different. GNU/Linux is not a clone of Windows so you will have to relearn how to do many of the tasks you are used to in GNU/Linux. But if you are a firm believer that Microsoft has saved the world from bad interfaces and sub-par technology, then that isn't the fault of GNU/Linux, now is it? :-)


    Linux v Windows (4.50 / 4) (#39)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 12:01:45 AM PST
    If anybody ever caught me using Linux, I'd want them to shoot me on sight.

    "Virtual/Multiple Desktops"

    Pretty useless. You already have ALT-TAB in both OS's, there's really no need to divide running apps between multiple desktops.

    "Real Desktop Themeing"

    You're an artfag, aren't you?

    "Multiplatform (runs on the latest 64-bit chips, Macintosh, SPARC, Intel, etc.)"

    Windows runs on Intel's x86 platform, which covers 99.2% of all computers in the world. Not only that, but you don't have to select your hardware from a very, very short "compatibility list." You basically have to custom build the system if you want it to run Linux on it, and you can generally only use hardware that's greater than 1.5 years old but less than 4 years old. Windows has complete universal hardware support across the x86 platform, and hence will run on 99.2% of the world's PCs, whereas Linux weighs in at MAYBE 12%.

    I should also remind you that Windows NT runs on Alpha, PPC, and Itanium.

    "Much much support for programming right out of the box"

    Affecting a total of 2% of users, and inconveniencing the other 98% by forcing them to attempt to compile software rather than just being able to install and run it.

    "Multiple desktop systems"

    Not as good as one desktop system that works.

    "Multitasking commandline enviroment"

    Command-line? If you're inclinded toward that sort of masochism, open several Command Prompt windows, which emulate the familiar DOS interface which Linux was based on.

    "Easy to use user interface"

    Que Pasa, Amiga???

    "Full host of free applications (with source code) "

    But 1% of what's available on Windows, and the source code is useless to the vast majority.

    "Much more that I can't think of now"

    Translation: You have nothing else.

    Typical.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    uh, hello? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 08:13:58 PM PST
    Command-line? If you're inclinded toward that sort of masochism, open several Command Prompt windows, which emulate the familiar DOS interface which Linux was based on.

    DOS was based largely around VAX/VMS which was based around UNIX.

    Linux is not DOS. It is far from DOS -- it is a Unix workalike. Look into OS architecture you cad.


    cad? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:18:45 PM PST
    Calvin's A Dope? ahhhh, those were the days


     
    Had to reply to some of this. (1.50 / 2) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 03:08:15 AM PST
    > If anybody ever caught me using Linux, I'd want them to shoot me on sight.

    Your choice, of course. However, it sounds like you're not ready for linux anyway. Linux is for users who understand what their computer does, and what they want to make it do. In that sense, it's an operating system with a purpose - it's just a purpose you don't happen to be interested in. Fair enough, not everyone has to use their computer for serious activity.

    > > "Virtual/Multiple Desktops"
    > Pretty useless. You already have ALT-TAB in both OS's, there's really no need to divide running
    > apps between multiple desktops.

    There's no *need* for it, insofar as the computer can function quite well without it. However, the computer provides an operating environment for the user - and sometimes the user might want a virtual desktop. Are you saying that because you can't see a need for it, the feature is totally pointless?

    I use VD's all the time, to keep separate tasks separate. I browse and download on one desktop, use another for coding and checking documentation, another for system monitoring. It's not essential, but as an example, if I have four monitoring windows open, it's nice to be able to switch to the monitoring desktop and see all the windows laid out nicely. Without virtual desktops, I'd have to navigate through a mess of overlaid windows and tiny start-bar buttons.

    > > "Real Desktop Themeing"
    > You're an artfag, aren't you?

    I shouldn't laugh, but hee hee hee =) I hate desktop themes, personally. I especially hate those cocksuckers who attach the star trek door noise to *any* (every?) event on their system.

    > > "Multiplatform (runs on the latest 64-bit chips, Macintosh, SPARC, Intel, etc.)"

    > Windows runs on Intel's x86 platform, which covers 99.2% of all computers in the world. Not only
    > that, but you don't have to select your hardware from a very, very short "compatibility list." You
    > basically have to custom build the system if you want it to run Linux on it, and you can generally
    > only use hardware that's greater than 1.5 years old but less than 4 years old. Windows has
    > complete universal hardware support across the x86 platform, and hence will run on 99.2% of the
    > world's PCs, whereas Linux weighs in at MAYBE 12%.

    I think you may want to look into not making figures up. The x86 platform is certainly dominant, but that's only because it's cheap. It certainly doesn't make up 99.2% of all computers in existence. In fact, x86 is so unreliable that some companies are not interested in it whatsoever. They require solid systems that work, so they go for reliable hardware and reliable software.

    As for the linux compatibility list - there are hundreds of thousands of PCs out there that will run linux. Every x86 system past a 386 can run it, even without hardware support for the some brand new expansion card in it. Linux will also run on Alpha, PPC, 68k, IBM mainframes, Palms, fuck, even the DREAMCAST for christs sake. And you want to claim some bullshit about 12%? Please. That number, besides being completely meaningless, is clearly manufactured inside your head.

    > I should also remind you that Windows NT runs on Alpha, PPC, and Itanium.

    Perhaps I should remind you that Linux does also? Does this make a point? I'd say it makes the same point you just made - I'll leave it up to you to figure out whether it was worth the time.

    > > "Much much support for programming right out of the box"
    > Affecting a total of 2% of users, and inconveniencing the other 98% by forcing them to attempt to
    > compile software rather than just being able to install and run it.

    Why do you talk about something you don't understand? I'm not intending this to be a flame, but seriously: the existence of a compiler on your system is not forcing you to compile jack shit.

    It is the best way to install software, especially if you want to tout the advantages of supporting multiple architectures. If I buy Office 97 for Windows NT, I can't actually run it on Windows NT for Alpha. However, when I download FreeOffice 2.3.5, I can compile it for any architecture I am currently running linux on. THAT is true support for multiple architectures, just being able to run the base system on another chip does NOT qualify.

    > > "Multiple desktop systems"
    > Not as good as one desktop system that works.

    Err, no, but this is not a relevant point, as the desktop systems that I have available all work perfectly. Are you going to tell me that, no, in fact, my desktop environments crash all the time and I just don't realise it? What is happening when I get these GPF errors under Windows? Is THAT what a good desktop environment is supposed to do? Shit, and here I've just been getting on with my work.

    > > "Multitasking commandline enviroment"
    > Command-line? If you're inclinded toward that sort of masochism, open several Command Prompt
    > windows, which emulate the familiar DOS interface which Linux was based on.

    Hello! Education required. DOS is ripped off from an OS called CP/M. CP/M is a very poorly implemented (perhaps 'stripped down' would be more polite) ripoff of Unix. Linux is also an implementation of Unix (note, not dos, unix). Since Dos is emulating an emulation of unix, Linux is actually in a superior position. Linux is more correctly an ancestor of DOS, rather than the other way around.

    I'm starting to think your PC experience has exposed you to little else other than Microsoft software. I'm guessing you started learning about computers on your 386 running MS-DOS 5? Again, this isn't trying to be offensive, just trying to understand where your viewpoint comes from, and what background information you're lacking.

    > > "Full host of free applications (with source code) "
    > But 1% of what's available on Windows, and the source code is useless to the vast majority.

    1% is an interesting figure, but it has the ring of another one of your made up stats. Basically, since we've established that your numbers come from thin air, refuting this is a waste of time. I've already explained what use the source code is, and frankly, compilation and installation is, in most cases, such a trivial task that a novice user could easily follow the directions.

    Type ./configure
    type make
    type make install

    If nothing goes wrong, this procedure is painless. If something does go wrong, well that's what support and newsgroups are for. Not to mention the fact that installation from source is for the most part optional. Many apps are available as .DEB or .RPM, and you do not need RedHat or Debian specifically to use these packages.


    Umm (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by nebby on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 09:06:24 AM PST
    Fair enough, not everyone has to use their computer for serious activity.

    I use my Windows computer for "serious activity" I suppose.. whatever you define that to be. Coding, gaming, serving, surfing, multimedia, etc. And I've had Linux installed for months at a time after buying into the notion that it would somehow make my computing experience "better." What a crock of shit. You can do everything with Windows you can with Linux, usually with better software.

    There's no *need* for it, insofar as the computer can function quite well without it. However, the computer provides an operating environment for the user - and sometimes the user might want a virtual desktop.


    If you want Virtual Desktops, go right ahead and download any one of the number of third party apps to use them (as I have.) It's not a big deal, Microsoft decided that the majority of people would be too confused by them (and I'd tend to agree with that) and hence decided to not include them in their OS, a smart business move.

    Perhaps I should remind you that Linux does also? Does this make a point? [in regards to Alpha, etc.]

    No, it doesn't, since he was refuting YOUR point that Windows does not support multiplatform. A relatively small number of jobs in the tech industry force you to work outside of x86 and/or have interoperability between different architectures. Windows isn't designed to be a multiplatform environment anyway. It is the best platform for x86 desktop computing, by far, and by pointing to the multiplatform support of Linux you're not really taking away from Windows' ability to do what it's supposed to do.

    Hello! Education required.


    Not really, he was basically just stating that the command line interface in Linux is as neanderthal a concept as it was back in the days of DOS. And before you go screaming at me, I use the CLI occasionally for complex commands, but for most tasks a GUI is just simpler and more powerful, believe it or not.

    I've already explained what use the source code is, and frankly, compilation and installation is, in most cases, such a trivial task that a novice user could easily follow the directions.


    It's not as easy as point and click. It's also a bitch to uninstall. And, what if "configure" fails? Time to resolve dependencies (and in turn resolve other dependencies, ad infinitum) and read some man pages for a few hours, good times! Oh, and don't try make installing and using a package system at the same time (since the latest version of stuff is always available in source first!) since that will fuck EVERYTHING up!

    Finally, for the record, I will say that Microsoft has done some sneaky and underhanded things (and are still doing so.) They operated illegally and should (and I think will) be punished. However, the ridiculous claim that their product is inferior to Linux for x86 desktop computing is fucking absurd. Get off your high horse and go install Win2k with cygwin and watch your computer go faster, be easier to use, with support for applications that the rest of the real world is using.


     
    No it doesn't (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 12:53:19 AM PST
    I should also remind you that Windows NT runs on Alpha, PPC, and Itanium.

    Others have covered most of your other points, but the Alpha and PPC ports of NT have been dead since the mid 90's. Also, the Itanium port is new, so we don't know if MS is really goint to drop it like the others.


     
    mouse buttons (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by staeci on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 06:48:19 AM PST
    So 80% of people never realised how to use the right mouse button?
    And the solution to this is to create a different menu system?
    Why no just tell them how to use the mouse button? Oh thats right we need new 'ease of use' features make upgrading more attractive.to sell more product.

    I just spent a year working in an internet cafe and the one thing that it taught me was that people are not stupid. They've just been conditioned to not try to understand computers and to resist learning. Its amazing how happy a 60year old can get when you teach her that she can use ctrl-P and ctrl-V to copy/paste.

    http://members.fortunecity.com/darien



    and their menus (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by finn on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:25:02 AM PST
    I just spent a year working in an internet cafe

    And this means that you are qualified to comment for the rest of the population because...?
    the one thing that it taught me was that people are not stupid.

    Not only are people stupid, they're lazy as well:
    So 80% of people never realised how to use the right mouse button?
    And the solution to this is to create a different menu system?
    Why no[t] just tell them how to use the mouse button?
    Oh thats right we need new 'ease of use' features make upgrading more attractive.to sell more product.

    Maybe, if people don't use the right-mouse-button menu, there is a fundamental flaw in the design of the GUI. A computer is a tool; it's supposed to enhance the way WE work. If the GUI provides functions that the user doesn't need, then the GUI is wrong, not the user.
    They've just been conditioned to not try to understand computers and to resist learning.

    Why should they have to understand computers? Do you have to understand how a toaster works to be able to make toast? Microsoft spends vast amounts of money making computers easy to use, so that people can start to treat them like toasters - tools for performing tasks - not brain surgery.
    ----------

     
    You know (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 08:31:09 PM PST
    It isn't the 'luser friendly' in Windows that pisses me off.
    It's that i can't make it less friendly.


     
    where's the research (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 01:00:41 AM PST
    Where do you guys get your research from or do you just pull it outta your ass?

    First off MS didn't start some PC revolution back in the early 80s. The average Joe Schmos of the world didn't step onto the playground until the early 90s.

    Yes you are right Linux steals from Windows. WRONG! Linux is a kernel not an OS. By your logic MS stole the whole Os idea because there were plenty of OSs. Don't even get me sstarted on how DOS is a renamed version of QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) which was nothing more than a sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M (Control Program for Micro-computers).

    KDE is NOT a ripoff of the Windows GUI. If you have ever used it you would realize that it is quite disimilar. Oh no just because it uses a concept similar to a start button it is a clone. It amazes me how morons base an Os based simpl9y off of this. Should I mentio that this also appeared in OS/2 which was released a while before Windows 95?

    Linux is disappearing? Then why is it becoming so popular in the corporate server market? Oh no just because it hasn't appeared on your box at home it's doomed! Red Hat by the way is a VERY profitable company. Companies which make Linux distros do sell their products. They don't GIVE them all away. They make money from retail sales, tech support and sales of higher end versions of the distros such as Red Hat Linux Standard Workstation (free to download), Deluxe Workstation (reatail), and Professional Server (retail). You could also take a look at SuSE Linux as well.

    Here's some places I suggest you look to do some REAL research:

    http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

    http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm

    This one here is excellent. It includes information about WELL known MS theft:
    http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/12684.html


     
    CP in Linux (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:45:37 AM PST
    <<The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel. >>

    Have you ever even used Linux? Both KDE and GNOME offer a very user friendly Control Panel.


     
    free browser!?! (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:58:05 AM PST
    <<For instance, there is a great deal of resentment at Microsoft's 'replacement' of the Netscape browser with a free alternative. >>

    IE isn't free! It's integrated into not only Windows itself but the total cost.


    Since when the hell was Netscape NOT free!?! You can download it FOR FREE from www.netscape.com

    I use Netscape Communicator Professional.



     
    What the hell (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 12:52:24 PM PST
    <<People used to the clunky (although usable) interface of the even-then-antiquated 3.x series of Windows and its poor stability and 8-bit legacy resource limits of just 64KB (64 thousand bytes, about enough space for a small image) were wowed by the new product's stability, appearance and intuitive interface. >>

    Conventional memory = 640K not 64

    Windows 3.x was 16 bit not 8


    amazing (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 09:44:23 AM PST
    What amazes me is that these so called PC experts never dare to respond to the truly complicated question or comments like the fact that conventional memory is 640K not 64. Or that Windows 3.x is a 16 bit OS not 8.


    Or this (1.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 09:57:19 AM PST
    <<For instance, Microsoft's testing uncovered the fact that 80% of users never discovered the functionality of the right mouse button, which has, since Windows 95, offered a variety of useful shortcuts to expedite common tasks. As such, the new operating system provides a new menu system replicating this functionality>>

    That was available in Windows long before 9x. It seems to me that we need to get the kids of this board. It seems more to me that it is so easy for these morons who have never used anything before Windoze 9x cannot think beyond the little box sitting on their desks.

    Consistant referals to Linux users as teenage boys is simply a way to make themselves sound older than they actually are. The fact that they have never used anything before Windows 95. I can still remember the old black/green and white or orange and yellow displays of long ago. Hell I bet these guys would even know what I was talking about if I just threw out the word Cyrix.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.