| microsoft i would try it. just because i recall the days when there was no standard and software would not run and was very buggy. micro came along and helped propel the industry. i do not understand why every one hates microsoft so much and dont really care why. |
|
|
|
 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | said by i1me2ao:
i do not understand why every one hates microsoft so much and dont really care why.
Exactly. |
|
 GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | reply to i1me2ao
said by i1me2ao:
i would try it. just because i recall the days when there was no standard and software would not run and was very buggy. micro came along and helped propel the industry. i do not understand why every one hates microsoft so much and dont really care why.
Because all the kids posting about how MS stinks weren't alive to know what it was like! Keyboard templates for each software package. Installing printer drivers for each piece of software, etc.
--
Tweaked your OOL connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter |
|
| said by GeekNJ:
said by i1me2ao:
i would try it. just because i recall the days when there was no standard and software would not run and was very buggy. micro came along and helped propel the industry. i do not understand why every one hates microsoft so much and dont really care why.
Because all the kids posting about how MS stinks weren't alive to know what it was like! Keyboard templates for each software package. Installing printer drivers for each piece of software, etc.
I remember a day when the software industry wasn't ruled by a controlling monopoly; where innovations and independent modes of thought flourished; and also when software publishers/developers actually apologized to the public about bugs that were discovered in their software, because it meant that their development and testing procedures had failed, for a "bug" to escape out into the end-user's hands.
Nowadays, it seems as though software (comparatively speaking) isn't tested at all. As soon as it compiles cleanly, it's shipped, and any issues discovered in the interim, are fixed in the .1 revision.
MS invented "good enough" software, and the unknowing public embraced it, along with the culture of blaming themselves when software failed, rather than blame the software makers. Even though computers have been around for quite some time now, the vast majority of non-geeks still consider the workings of computer software to be just a hair shy of magic, and attribute failures of the system to be similar to that of religion - that errors are their fault, because they "didn't have enough faith", when they attempted an operation.
They don't fully understand, that computers and software are just deterministic state-machines, machinery, and the reason that they break down - is that they are simply broken by design. Not due to any sort of "computer faith" problem on the part of the user. (You can clearly see how most end-users do percieve things this way, because they often re-try operations that fail, again and again, hoping that "this time, it will work, because the 'computer gods' will smile upon me". They have no perception of the inherent determinism of the inner workings of the system.)
MS's "dumbing-down" of the users here, only makes the problem worse. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| had MS not industrialized the software like they have, pcs would still not be common place in a home or if they were they wouldn't all be running one platform.
As much as people claim MS is the reason why people/users are dumb ed down it is not. It is the opposite MS has a dumb ass market and they play to that market nicely.
The reason people try the failure 2 or 3 times is because believe it or not some times contents of ram hose an program yeah I have seen it happen.
MS did not invent good enough software no one uses good enough software. If you had any experience writing software you would understand one simple thing. Good programming now is not good programming 3 years from now. It just isn't, That is the evolution of the machine no one is perfect.
I have written software for 13 years both professionally and privately. Some time ago buffer overflow was not even found to be a problem. Now it is very common. It was considered safe to uncheck it to save cycles. We had slow systems and all the cycles we could save were great. Now we have huge systems with massive power.
If you think about the past of computing, the present, and the future coming you will see evolution of the machine. No one can say the coding structures and safeties that are safe today will be tomorrow.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
