 algPassionately apatheticPremium
join:2001-04-10
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | reply to mastsethi
Re: Why do you hate Microsoft It was a lot easier to hate on Microsoft back in the day when they made unreliable operating systems. Really, ever since they switched to the NT base (XP on up) Windows has been good and reliable and nearly the PITA to use as Me/98/95.
--
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. |
|
|
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | said by alg:It was a lot easier to hate on Microsoft back in the day when they made unreliable operating systems. Really, ever since they switched to the NT base (XP on up) Windows has been good and reliable and nearly the PITA to use as Me/98/95.
I "hate" always having to tell people this (it doesn't really stop me, of course), but XP and its descendants are only "good and reliable" in relation to prior Microsoft operating systems, which were remarkably bad! Most other operating systems (particularly those which aspire to be "enterprise" class) place a premium on stability and reliability vs. eye candy and other bell and whistles, while Microsoft has always tended to do the opposite.
For example, it amazes me how much publicity has been given to the new interface on Windows 8. Love it or hate it (and I gather most people hate it so far), it's really nothing more than a minor layer placed on top of the OS, and unless Microsoft has made major stability and reliability improvements to the core of the OS, then there is absolutely zero reason to upgrade to Win 8. Then again, there has been relatively little reason to upgrade to ANY of the latest Microsoft operating systems, which is one reason why so many organizations are still running XP and similar. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | Having some experience with many operating systems (and I don't just mean "Windows and 85 flavours of Unix"), I'm inclined to the opinion that Windows NT is a pretty decent operating system core - stable, secure, multiuser, etc. The words "eye candy" don't apply, since there isn't any at the level I'm talking about, i.e., kernel and the required subsystems.
Of course, there's a whole heap of crap in userland. Which is where the security problems tend to show up. |
|
 Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:said by bitemeboy:Microsoft does not exist since I have none of their products on my computers.
I suppose you've also never used any ATMs, arcade games, self-serve terminals (like airport check-in), or looked at any electronic billboards? Or walked by the giant iPhone display in an AT&T Store...
--
For the future of our nation, we must unite and vote out the terrorist known as Hussein Obama. Come November 6 2012 we must remove the socialist pig out of office and get our country back on the RIGHT track. |
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | reply to dave
said by dave:Having some experience with many operating systems (and I don't just mean "Windows and 85 flavours of Unix"), I'm inclined to the opinion that Windows NT is a pretty decent operating system core - stable, secure, multiuser, etc. The words "eye candy" don't apply, since there isn't any at the level I'm talking about, i.e., kernel and the required subsystems.
Of course, there's a whole heap of crap in userland. Which is where the security problems tend to show up.
By the standards of the systems I'm used to working with (not including various flavors of Unix, either), NT barely qualifies as anything like stable and secure. It can't run hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of independent processes almost flawlessly, for thousands of users, either, like those can. But that doesn't stop Microsoft or its sycophants from pretending that it can.
Then again, those other operating systems generally cost a pretty penny, and if Microsoft actually wrote an OS that could really handle the kinds of loads that those do, then they would have to charge a pretty penny, also. But at XX dollars times XX to XXXX units or whatever, you aren't necessarily saving any money by going with Microsoft. So, you're expenses are probably just as high if not higher, your management costs are generally far higher, plus you get a far less stable and reliable product for your money (not to even mention malware issues). What's not to hate here? |
|
 VoxxjinMade of HamburgerPremium
join:2010-01-13
San Antonio, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| reply to Steve Mehs
said by Steve Mehs:Or walked by the giant iPhone display in an AT&T Store...
That's awesome.
--
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to scross
said by scross:Then again, those other operating systems generally cost a pretty penny, and if Microsoft actually wrote an OS that could really handle the kinds of loads that those do, then they would have to charge a pretty penny, also. But at XX dollars times XX to XXXX units or whatever, you aren't necessarily saving any money by going with Microsoft. So, you're expenses are probably just as high if not higher, your management costs are generally far higher, plus you get a far less stable and reliable product for your money (not to even mention malware issues). What's not to hate here?
Does that mean I can "hate" Apple too for writing an OS that costs a lot of money where cheaper & better solutions exist?
Hate's a strong word. I'd just as soon "hate" a particular OS distro for doing something different (and arguably cost-ineffective and/or inefficiently) as I would hate on a particular kind of sandwich. |
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN
1 edit | said by Thaler:Does that mean I can "hate" Apple too for writing an OS that costs a lot of money where cheaper & better solutions exist?
Sure, if you want to. But I don't see why you would, given that OS X is built on top of the Mach kernel which is a Unix variant, where Unix is generally considered to be pretty much enterprise class by definition, with few of the stability and reliability and malware issues that so plague Windows. Now, you might very well have OTHER valid reasons to hate Apple (and I might agree with you on some of those), but overall iOS probably is a non-starter here, even if they are charging a relatively high price for it (I wouldn't know).
That said, I've yet to see Apple attempt any big migration into the enterprise space anyway (in fact they appear to be intentionally avoiding it) - unlike Microsoft, who almost from day one has claimed that their products could easily and cheaply replace other, far more mature platforms. And the one time I DID see something like this (plans to integrate Apple products into the enterprise on a large scale, in such a way that it would have seriously leap-frogged the competition), the internal Microsoft camp so quickly resorted to FUD and even outright sabotage that the project barely made it into the planning stages before it was killed, even though there was considerable other internal support for it. |
|
| reply to Voxxjin
LOL.. Epic! |
|
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler 
So, when Microsoft encourages a monopolistic market, they're bad guys. When Apple does the exact same thing, they're just defending their product. Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.
[/BQUOTE :Except plenty of other Android vendors are able to make phones without getting sued by Apple. Heck you have Google warning Samsung they are copying Apple. That means you took it a little too far don't you think?
Apple has publicly stated the patents that were infringed on. The world is still waiting to know what patents of MS's Android violates.
It's 1 thing to say "you violated my patent 555,555 and 333,333" like Apple did. It's another to say "you violated some of our patents and we're really not going to tell you" like Microsoft did. |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | It's also another thing to say patents have been violated when the patents are vague as shit and shouldn't have been granted in the first place. |
|
 DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | said by Cheese:It's also another thing to say patents have been violated when the patents are vague as shit and shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Ya have you seen some of the patents on the iPhone? (you know the ones they're suing Samsung over.) |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by DarkLogix:said by Cheese:It's also another thing to say patents have been violated when the patents are vague as shit and shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Ya have you seen some of the patents on the iPhone? (you know the ones they're suing Samsung over.) Apple has proved that you can patent a shape and a "look." |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by Oedipus:said by DarkLogix:said by Cheese:It's also another thing to say patents have been violated when the patents are vague as shit and shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Ya have you seen some of the patents on the iPhone? (you know the ones they're suing Samsung over.) Apple has proved that you can patent a shape and a "look." Yep, and not only that, but this Judge, needs to be tossed. Such horrible bias it's sickening. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to itguy05
said by itguy05:Except plenty of other Android vendors are able to make phones without getting sued by Apple.
Really? Last I had the count, Apple was engaged in lawsuits with Samsung, HTC, Motorola...basically every manufacturer that produces Android smartphones. |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to jabarnut
quote:
Is it even remotely possible you can post something just ONE TIME without freaking yelling at all of us?
Im sorry buddy,i guess its cause i dont consider it yelling. (I consider it UPPER CASE (More noticable)) |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by Dude111: quote:
Is it even remotely possible you can post something just ONE TIME without freaking yelling at all of us?
Im sorry buddy,i guess its cause i dont consider it yelling. (I consider it UPPER CASE (More noticable)) Regardless of what you think it means, the rest of the internet sees it as yelling. This is basic, basic, internet 101.
»www.netmanners.com/272/caps-form···-matter/ |
|
 mromeroPremium
join:2000-12-07
The O.C.
kudos:1 | reply to mastsethi
Re: Why do you hate Microsoft same thing with Apple, people just love to hate.
I don't hate Microsoft or Apple. |
|
| reply to mastsethi
I "hate" MS because we cannot permanently disable Excel autoformatting. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to mastsethi
MS SharePoint client!!!! What a huge steaming pile of excrement!! Takes 5-10 seconds to respond to a mouse click! Terrible, slow navigation through project, project documentation and tasks. Oh, and the bloat!
And Office 2010 (and 2007 too I think) and their f'in ribbon menu interface... what was wrong with File/Edit/View/Tools/Help?? Enough to drive one to OpenOffice... only I can't at work since Office 2010 is the corporate office suite standard.
Early versions of Word and Excel... fast and awesome in their time, but flaky sometimes.
Windows 3.0... remember those Unrecoverable Application Errors? I upgraded to 3.1 a few months after I got my 486DX PC.
Windows 3.1 and 98... I had mixed feelings about these. Win 3.1 booted very quickly but was very unstable, especially with Novell networking. I also remember the very early versions of Netscape being very flaky. Win98's UI was a huge step forward, but I got frustrated with its instability and lack of task/process control.
Windows XP... awesome! Hardly a day has gone by in the last 8-9 years that I haven't used it. But it's Windows... still have to clean up occasional malware on relatives' PC's.
Win 7... not as snappy as XP, but I guess that's because I'm running it on a netbook (AMD C-60 with 4GB RAM). Might be awesome if I could get a free/cheap (under $50) license to run it on my "real" Core2Duo laptop.
Just wait till Microsoft goes to a cloud-based model where you are forced to lease all of your MS apps and pay a monthly charge to use them... miss a payment and you're SOL! |
|
