why people express anger towards Microsoft?

[HarveyH42]

Why I hate Microsoft products... So many reasons.
Windows is a resource hog, every new version, basically required new hardware or some upgrades to get a useful machine. I don't use about 80% of the crap Windows loads into memory, or installs on my HD.

I liked DOS, but got forced into Windows, when the DOS versions of the software I used and liked, no longer came in that option. The operating system should be smaller than most of the applications you run on the computer.

Windows updates...... Endless, either suffer through slow internet or constant reminders to download. Automatic or manual, it's still annoying. If the damn thing is running reasonably stable, why risk it.

Price, way too high for something I don't want anyway. People use to need to go to school to learn how to use a computer. Microsoft eliminated that need, so the thousands of students who wasted their time and money getting a degree, ended up with a basically worthless piece of paper, and student loans to pay. No decent paying career, without going back to school, or a little luck.

Sure Microsoft product work great for some people, perfect for an office environment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other uses for computers, and Windows really kills performance. Microsoft does try to prevent software from being develop for multiple operating systems.

 

[3v0]

I see some merit in your arguments.

An old 100MHz box has a good deal of processing power if you stick to a command shell and no graphics.

But I am sure I do not want to go back there.

 

[Coligny]

apparently their products work pretty well for some people.

there are developers who like MSDN, and consider it a good standard,
as well .NET, MSIL, MFC, VB, VS, MSSQL, WinServer, and all that.

it is not just some overpriced softwares put on a few floppies.

they have lab's, and do work on a lot of new technologies, which maybe, people who do not have a close contacts, simply do not know.

Sub par software engineering

Aggressive marketting

Stiffling of competition

Monopolistic behaviour.

Forcing un-standard standards down people throat then phasing them out when they fail to force people to use their inferior products against the free one that--just work--

Locking in of protocols. Once Samba team managed to properly graps SMB protocol what they did software wyse is hundred time more efficient and reliable than the microsoft version.

Not all the hate for microsoft is because of their nearly worthless product. It's also all the ecosystem of lies and fears that they nurture.

Also, try to work few year into the IT field. You will understand by yourself why microsoft is so badly seen in server rooms once your user really need the IT infrastructure to "just work".

 

[rmn_tech]

Who, Paul Allen? Paul's got more money than God. Tim Paterson? Got a check for $25k in 1980 for a re-write of CP/M, then went to work for Microsoft several times from 1981-1998, wound up a multi-millionaire. Twelve-THOUSAND Microsoft employees became millionaires, four became billionaires. I'm tired of people taking a crap on Gates without checking the facts. Try to find another company that's made so many of its employees so rich.

That's a lot of money. Where did it come from ? Oh yes, overpriced Bloatware.

So Bill Gates Didn't make all these people all this money.

You me and billions of other people gave it to them.

 

[Hero999]

I didn't have much love for DOS, no security and one program crashing would reliably take out the system, requiring a reboot. I used to use MS-DOS 6 with DOSSHELL which was good because it was multitasking but it still suffered from the problem described above.

 

[Torben]

I didn't have much love for DOS, no security and one program crashing would reliably take out the system, requiring a reboot. I used to use MS-DOS 6 with DOSSHELL which was good because it was multitasking but it still suffered from the problem described above.

DOSSHELL didn't do true multitasking, it did timeslicing. I mean, you could still run more than one program at a time but there was no protection from the behaviour of other processes.

It was pretty neat for the time though (ignoring the fact that OS/2 and Amiga were a whole lot neater ). I found it more useful in many circumstances than Windows 3.1.


Torben

 

[duffy]

I do not boycot it, for instance I use various counters on my web pages which are PHP based.
but also I am not really very fond of it.

Try using Perl or that goddamn .asp sh!t - PHP ROCKS!

You screw something up? PHP tells you what it was, right there on the web page - Perl leaves you trying to guess why it didn't work.

Want to make the page mostly html with a few lines of script? Want to make it mostly script with just a few lines of html? Want to switch back and forth between the two like a crazy man? PHP has got you covered.

Need to work with an SQL database? Of course you do. PHP was made for this. Your SQL interface may even generate PHP code for you - just cut n' paste.


People ask: "What does PHP stand for?"
You say: "Hypertext Pre-Processor."
They say: "Wouldn't that be HPP?"
You say: "That's not how it works..."

Lookit PHP open and close tags -

<? ?>

- remind you of anything? Clearly, these are Dr. Who's lapel pins. PHP must have been invented by the Timelords of Gallifrey, and the Tardis probably uses PHP as its operating system. Use a lesser scripting engine and you will regret it when the Daleks come after your ass.

 

[Torben]

I see some merit in your arguments.

An old 100MHz box has a good deal of processing power if you stick to a command shell and no graphics.

But I am sure I do not want to go back there.

Today you'd mostly use a machine like that as an appliance, where a command-line interface isn't a hindrance but rather a luxury. Even most appliances which offer a web interface don't offer the control of a CLI.

Windowing interfaces are neat and useful (I use Compiz with the bling turned up to 11--makes Aero look like a bad joke) but I'd have a hard time without the command line.

The command line (on a decent OS, anyway) offers looping, functions, aliases, history editing and recall, and so on. No windowing system currently available offers all of this. Sure, you can do the same jobs, but it takes a lot longer.


Torben

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

DOSSHELL didn't do true multitasking, it did timeslicing. I mean, you could still run more than one program at a time but there was no protection from the behaviour of other processes.

It was pretty neat for the time though (ignoring the fact that OS/2 and Amiga were a whole lot neater ). I found it more useful in many circumstances than Windows 3.1.

You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.

The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.

 

[Hero999]

Windows' Windowing system isn't even that great. I find it annoying that the graphical manager doesn't support wildcards, i.e. I can't type 'F:\home\alun\Documents\*.PDF' into the address bar to display all PDFs. A decent GUI file manage should be able to perform such a basic task.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Windows' Windowing system isn't even that great. I find it annoying that the graphical manager doesn't support wildcards, i.e. I can't type 'F:\home\alun\Documents\*.PDF' into the address bar to display all PDFs. A decent GUI file manage should be able to perform such a basic task.

Right click on the folder and select 'Search', enter your wildcards there.

 

[nike6]

You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.

The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.

until 386 yes.
it's pretty much slow except via indirect register addressing at 32 bits.
faster than 8086, yes, and more comfortable to program.

It is unofficial truth that Windows essentially has taken many features from the Amiga OS (while they eventually would say, from the MAC).

*****

maybe you do not know but Windows has changed since Vista/Win Server.
it is not working on the C compiler -> assembler approach anymore.
now the keyword is "managed code".

I would not call Win Server 2008 "bloat ware", it is a powerful high-tech environment.
Do you have a Visual Studio on LINUX?
which is a consumer product, and can install regularily without hassle.
I mean, the operational status is more or less guaranteed.

I tried about 3 different LINUX, including QNX, FreeBSD (not true LINUX), and SuSE. I have many distros around which sneaked in via magazines but no reason even to look at them.

Well i have no satisfaction destroying the DVDs or something, or to bin them.
though the penguins, you know maybe, smt. byond repair.

 

[nike6]

I see some merit in your arguments.

An old 100MHz box has a good deal of processing power if you stick to a command shell and no graphics.

But I am sure I do not want to go back there.

yes assembler in all it's forms- it is fast, powerful, machine-near.
but unsafe.
and no virtualization.

 

[Hero999]

Right click on the folder and select 'Search', enter your wildcards there.

That's only available when in the Explorer Windows with the folders listed on the left hand side of the screen.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

That's only available when in the Explorer Windows with the folders listed on the left hand side of the screen.

So why not do that?.

 

[Torben]

You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.

The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.

I'm pretty sure I never implied that I don't remember that.


Torben

 

[UTMonkey]

You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.

The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.

<sigh> Sorry just having a tender moment over my favourite home computer.

When it first came out there was a bit of school room banter from people who had Atari ST's who claimed that the Amiga was slower than the ST - yeah right, the ST ran at 7.5Mhz and I think the Amiga ran at 7.12Mhz (whoopdidooo!)

 

[blueroomelectronics]

I think my Commodore PET ran at 1MHz

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

<sigh> Sorry just having a tender moment over my favourite home computer.

When it first came out there was a bit of school room banter from people who had Atari ST's who claimed that the Amiga was slower than the ST - yeah right, the ST ran at 7.5Mhz and I think the Amiga ran at 7.12Mhz (whoopdidooo!)

But the Amiga had lots of nice co-processors inside, that made it considerably faster - funnily enough, designed by an ex-Atari guy if I remember correctly?.

 

[Coligny]

<sigh> Sorry just having a tender moment over my favourite home computer.

When it first came out there was a bit of school room banter from people who had Atari ST's who claimed that the Amiga was slower than the ST - yeah right, the ST ran at 7.5Mhz and I think the Amiga ran at 7.12Mhz (whoopdidooo!)

Dude back then processor lineup where like 12/16 /20Mhz(286) 20/26 then 33Mhz (386SX or 386). It starting from the 486 that speed jumped to 66 then 100. Same for motorola. But it was a time where passive cooling was enought... to be honest, I don't remember ever seeing a heatsink before some 68040. And as for cooling fans. Sure for the G5, but not so much for the G4. Processor of that era are still working quite well today. 'Them new fancy schmancy overspeeded processors... are not aging that well even at factory speed.