dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
22
share rss forum feed

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

1 recommendation

reply to mastsethi

Re: Why do you hate Microsoft

said by mastsethi:

I find people everywhere bashing Microsoft for no reason or because of irrelevant reasons. Why the hell is that?
It's a shit trend. MS is not Justin Beiber!

Simple - because they are a Scumbag company.... Read some of the documents from the Antirust trial about how they forced out competition in the OS, Office, and Internet markets. Really some eye opening stuff as to how they really screwed us computer users over back in the day (and still do today).

It also wasn't until I branched out into Linux and OS X that I realized just how poor Microsoft's offerings are from a technical (and aesthetic) point of view.

Registry? Why put all your config stuff into a horrible database that is hard to use and understand? May have made some sense back in the day but config files are much easier to do.

DLLs? really? Why not self contained apps (like OS X) that has everything you need for them right in it.

Whoever designed Vista/Windows 7 with it's overuse of transparency really screwed the pooch. Hard to use and very visually distracting.

There's a lot of other stuff not to like about Microsoft. I've hated them since before it was cool to hate them.


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by itguy05:

said by mastsethi:

I find people everywhere bashing Microsoft for no reason or because of irrelevant reasons. Why the hell is that?
It's a shit trend. MS is not Justin Beiber!

Read some of the documents from the Antirust trial about how they forced out competition in the OS, Office, and Internet markets.

Really? I see other OS in the market, not sure what you mean the "internet market" as they are a software company. And Office? They make Office?

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

said by Cheese:

said by itguy05:

said by mastsethi:

I find people everywhere bashing Microsoft for no reason or because of irrelevant reasons. Why the hell is that?
It's a shit trend. MS is not Justin Beiber!

Read some of the documents from the Antirust trial about how they forced out competition in the OS, Office, and Internet markets.

Really? I see other OS in the market, not sure what you mean the "internet market" as they are a software company. And Office? They make Office?

You know what I meant. They pretty much killed Netscape because of their illegal tactics, they used illegal tying to get Office to where it is now, and made it impossible for other OSs to get in the door.

Read the antitrust documents and see how MS illegally got to where they are.

IMHO they are a blight on the entire industry and should have been broken up in the 90's.


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by itguy05:

You know what I meant. They pretty much killed Netscape because of their illegal tactics, they used illegal tying to get Office to where it is now, and made it impossible for other OSs to get in the door.

Read the antitrust documents and see how MS illegally got to where they are.

IMHO they are a blight on the entire industry and should have been broken up in the 90's.


Oedipus

join:2005-05-09
kudos:1
reply to itguy05

said by itguy05:

You know what I meant. They pretty much killed Netscape because of their illegal tactics, they used illegal tying to get Office to where it is now, and made it impossible for other OSs to get in the door.

Read the antitrust documents and see how MS illegally got to where they are.

IMHO they are a blight on the entire industry and should have been broken up in the 90's.

Inexplicably, sour grapes.


KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to itguy05

said by itguy05:

It also wasn't until I branched out into Linux and OS X that I realized just how poor Microsoft's offerings are from a technical (and aesthetic) point of view.

Agree. I'm a Linux user myself. While things aren't perfect, they are a helluva lot better than what MS offers.

Registry? Why put all your config stuff into a horrible database that is hard to use and understand? May have made some sense back in the day but config files are much easier to do.

Yeah it was a stupid idea and I am amazed that M$ has kept it around this long. They should definitely copy Unix/Linux and it's "everything is a file" mantra. The registry is what is primarily responsible for "Windows rot" (i.e. where your machine slows down over time). It's one of the reasons why you need to reinstall every few months.

DLLs? really? Why not self contained apps (like OS X) that has everything you need for them right in it.

I disagree here. If you write code you will see why shared libraries make things much easier. Linux uses the same idea with its .so files (.so files are almost exactly the same thing as DLL). Creating apps that are packaged with all the libraries is just not as practical. The .so and .dll's make things easier and smaller/lightweight.

There's a lot of other stuff not to like about Microsoft. I've hated them since before it was cool to hate them.

I can name another. NTFS. It is a crappy filesystem. It's old (1980's), slow and has huge fragmentation issues. Contrast this with Linux's main filesystem (ext4) and it is night and day. This is why Linux boxes never need defragmenting (ext3/4 just doesn't have fragmentation issues, at least not on the scale of NTFS).

Also Linux offers XFS, Btrfs, JFS, ReiserFS and others. With Windows you are stuck with NTFS (or FAT which is even worse).

To be fair, Apple's HFS isn't much better. Linus Torvalds called it "utter crap."

I could go on and on about M$, specifically as it relates to Windows. Tons of design flaws.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

said by KodiacZiller:

Yeah it was a stupid idea and I am amazed that M$ has kept it around this long.

Oh, you people have short memories.

The NT-style registry was introduced as a replacement for the text-file configuration of DOS and DOS-based Windows. The problem was that application installers kept screwing it up. To add a line loading your device driver requires such advanced programming as finding the right place in the file, adding a line, getting the format right, not re-doing the same thing on reinstall, etc. Certainly not rocket salad, but apparently beyond the capabilities of many application programmers.

A popluar complaint was "my system won't boot because this idiot app installer scrozzled config.sys/win.ini/autoexec.bat".

So a key/value database where changes can be made, without rewriting the whole thing, was a definite improvement. It made the OS more resilient against idiot programmers.

Windows is to some extent a victim of its own success. The original design was that the registry would live in the system virtual address space. But it worked so well that every app and its brother wants to keep stuff there, and the address limits (on a 32-bit system) are strained.

Mind you, I don't subscribe to this registry-rot theory. That is propaganda from people who hawk voodoo 'cleaning' software.


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12

 

Well Dave there is nothing wrong with keeping your registry clean buddy.... I have cleaned tons out of my registry and you can see the difference..... (Better performance,etc) -- Think of it like just buying your computer.... The reg is clean then right??


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8

Yeah, let me know when you start running the same operating system as I do (DOS-based Windows 98 has nothing in common wth today's Windows family derived from NT). And then I'll ask you for your performance metrics.


itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to KodiacZiller

Re: Why do you hate Microsoft

said by KodiacZiller:

I disagree here. If you write code you will see why shared libraries make things much easier. Linux uses the same idea with its .so files (.so files are almost exactly the same thing as DLL). Creating apps that are packaged with all the libraries is just not as practical. The .so and .dll's make things easier and smaller/lightweight.

And I disagree with your disagree. I don't care how big the software is, it makes sense for it all to be packaged as one. Just went through this with some .so files in Linux and it sucked. If you need a particular library, build it in and leave the OS to do what the OS does. Again, may have made sense when disks, Internet, etc were small in capacity and expensive but today with large and cheap storage it makes no sense.

quote:
To be fair, Apple's HFS isn't much better. Linus Torvalds called it "utter crap."
Linus has a history of saying inflammatory things. HFS may be crap but Journaled HFS+ is fine. It does defragging on the fly and has been quite reliable.

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to dave

said by dave:

A popluar complaint was "my system won't boot because this idiot app installer scrozzled config.sys/win.ini/autoexec.bat".

So a key/value database where changes can be made, without rewriting the whole thing, was a definite improvement. It made the OS more resilient against idiot programmers.

Really? It's a bad idea. How many viruses and malware hide out in the registry? How many people try to clean things out and have no clue about the registry with the GUIDs and other junk. Contrast that with Linux with config files and OS X with .PLIST files. Much easier to troubleshoot and see what's going on.

Have an issue with a Mac program? Search in 1 of 2 locations for com.manufacturer.app.plist file. Either edit it or remove it. The app will recreate it on its next launch.

Have an issue with Windows? Good luck searching the registry.

quote:
Mind you, I don't subscribe to this registry-rot theory. That is propaganda from people who hawk voodoo 'cleaning' software.

Sure it exists - as things don't get cleaned up, the file gets bloated.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

said by itguy05:

How many viruses and malware hide out in the registry?

Probably none. Putting a virus 'in' the registry would achieve nothing. What you want is to arrange that your virus gets automatically executed unknowingly. You can achieve this equally well by putting your virus-startup command in the 'automatic startup' part of a Windows registry, or in the /etc/init/rc structure of a Linux system, or whatever. It's simply the case that (a) you want to put the startup command somewhere, and (b) all useful operating systems provide such a place.

If you're trying to make the case that somehow a tree-structured key-value database is somehow 'more hidden' than a file in a special directory, fine. I think the distinction is trivial.

How many people try to clean things out and have no clue about the registry with the GUIDs and other junk.

That there are idiots who delete things does not make the desgn bad. That there are snake-oil salesmen who sell crap to idiots does not make the design bad. That there are people who dislike large numbers does not make the design bad.

Much easier to troubleshoot and see what's going on.

If you find a tree-structured key-value database difficult, I can't really help.

Sure it exists - as things don't get cleaned up, the file gets bloated.

Ah, 'bloated', the vague and meaningless complaint of the uninformed. I agree that the original VM limit can be troublesome, but it's an extreme case. But if all you're talking about is access speed, all I can say to that is, O(log(N)).

W.r.t. "don't get cleaned up" - lousy uninstallers.


KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by dave:

said by itguy05:

How many viruses and malware hide out in the registry?

Probably none. Putting a virus 'in' the registry would achieve nothing. What you want is to arrange that your virus gets automatically executed unknowingly. You can achieve this equally well by putting your virus-startup command in the 'automatic startup' part of a Windows registry, or in the /etc/init/rc structure of a Linux system, or whatever. It's simply the case that (a) you want to put the startup command somewhere, and (b) all useful operating systems provide such a place.

Good luck getting a virus in /etc/init since that directory is root owned. It would require the user to manually install a malicious file as root. (The root user could just as easily run rm -rf /). Tricking a user into installing a malicious file is unlikely since Linux has something known as package managers (a concept unknown to Windows where Microsoft leaves users on their own). Sure it's possible to bypass the package manager by downloading some random .deb or .rpm from somewhere, but an inexperienced user will likely have a hard time getting it to install properly in the first place (and experienced users would never do it to start with).

Another option is malware that runs in userspace. This is possible with something like a Java exploit in the browser. However, what this malware can do will be severely limited and it will never own the whole box.

If you find a tree-structured key-value database difficult, I can't really help.

I find it difficult to understand (though I haven't dealt with Windows in many years, so my memory is fuzzy). Much simpler is a mere config file a la Unix.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Gook luck getting a virus in HKLM, the 'run' key (etc) are admin-owned. It would require the user to be tricked into running the installer as admin.

(I think here we're back into the perennial debate over OS security versus a vast untrained user base that clicks before reading).

Windows has a 'package manager' too, it's called the MS Installer.

Re a 'mere config file' -- I'm not sure the maze of /etc/rc.N can be referred to as 'simple' any more. Sure, foobar.rc is simple in itself, but then again so is the HKLM/Software/FooBarCo/foobar subtree.