Taos Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Ok, I live in the home state of Microsoft, which is Washington. Here there isn't much negative press at all about it except for the possible split-up of the company because of the Anti-Trust case against it. In these forums, I've seen a lot of negative comments about microsoft.....you know, not buying an Xbox because it is Microsoft and etc. Now I don't care one way or another, I just want ppl's opinions here. Because honestly, I didn't know so many ppl hated it..... What is it about Microsoft that you don't like?? NOTE-I know for some of you it could probably take up pages and pages, but please try to be as brief as possible!! Also, please give a good answer, don't just say it sucks because it does- that's not an intellegent response. Thanks in advace!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 It's owned by a man who has more money than me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 1. It is planning to put in Palindrome,which lets them see what's on your Hard Drive. 2. They make half-quality OS's, put them out for 300 dollars, then say that it has great customer support.... 3. They have the blue screen of death... 4. They only released Halo on the X-box,even though it would be better on the PC only because they needed to raise thier X-Box sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratmjedi Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Bill Gates in one greedy mofo. He tries to destroy his compitition even though they are very small. Hve you guys ever seen the Simpson's episode were Homer makes his own business and Bill Gate's shows up with his goons and tears the place apart. That is what he is in real life. Just a rich bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by GonkH8er It's owned by a man who has more money than me It's owned by a man who has more money than anyone O.o But hey... of you wanna go wright an OS and make millions off it more power to ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I dont HATE microsoft but if what Tyron said about that palidrome thing is true than yes, i hate microsoft and there anti-privacy crap... i alredy have to call them everytime i reformat my PC (as if its any of thier bizz) all because "i used my key to meny times" bah... so i like to format, sue me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 People always say that "It's a crappy OS.." yadayadayada. I don't think we're trying to take over the world, here people. EVERY OS has compatiplity issues and crash issues. As a matter of fact, the 2000/XP line HARDLY ever blue screens. I do side with the beef about the operating systems being uber expensive though. It's kinda foolish to ask people to pay 10 times what they would pay to get a copy of Redhat Linux. And yea.. eh... MSFT isn't the only orginization that's working to do this Pallidium chip thing... Intel is working on something much like it, and various US State House Reps are pushing for things much like it. This is when we have to HOPE the governemnt makes the right desicsion on some of this stuff and shoots it out of the sky. But you can't really blame them for being a monopoly. They started up just as small as any other Mom and Pop store... and they kicked some ass with their advertising. Some serious ass. It's what America is BASED on... you can't get mad at them for owning an enterprize in a free market. The majority of people don't even know there are other things beside MSFT OSes because MSFT is the only one who gets out there and advertises. You can't blame other OSes for not advertising So yea, I don't see why people get so mad at MSFT... I think it's mostly because it's "fashionable" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 i don't think there programs are bad, but they are too much trying to influance us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by Datheus The majority of people don't even know there are other things beside MSFT OSes because MSFT is the only one who gets out there and advertises. You can't blame other OSes for not advertising Part of the reason for that is that every computer you try to buy from any PC store (in the UK at any rate) has a Microsoft OS pre-installed. This is partiulcarly true of high-street retailers, which is usually the main point-of-sale for general customers. Even so, many direct PC suppliers still will not even contemplate offering any other operating system preinstalled - and so it falls to the end consumer to install their own. However, there is the issue that the price of the PC includes the price of the MS OS...so why should users who do not desire a MS product pay more for an OS they are not going to use? The supplier's argument is that Microsoft is the dominant OS in the marketplace, so they supply their machines with MS OS's to maintain compatibility. And so they help to perpetuate the dominance of Microsoft. The anti-trust case against MS was a farce from beginning to end, and they got away with a slapped wrist. And so far I haven't seen any changes in how MS goes about it's business. Monopolies are never a good thing, IMO. It strangles competition, and you get lumbered with something you don't necessarily want, at a higher price, and complete with bugs. Limited choice is a bad thing, and should be actively discouraged. Which means the small players should have some safeguard against hostile buy-outs or anti-competitive measures from large corporations like MS. In the past MS have actively discouraged competition, either by buying out and discontinuing rival products, or 'using' other people's ideas (and code) in their own products. Because of their dominant position, they have been able to dictate to retail outlets which products come preinstalled on PCs. This sort of practice is unacceptable to me. But the major gripe I have about Microsoft is that they continually release bug-ridden software that requires updates and patches on a regular basis. It is reminiscent of the scene in Tomorrow Never Dies where the Media Magnate asks one of his subordinates if they have released their new software and ensured it is bug-ridden so that people will have to upgrade for years to come. That's exactly how I feel about Microsoft. Every new iteration of their OS or other products does not seem to be adding a great deal to the overall functionality, or even stability, yet they charge exorbitant prices for upgrades. I also don't agree with the registration process for Windows XP, which is one of the reasons why I haven't upgraded to that - the other reason is all of the bugs and issues I've been reading about it. For any PC user who changes bits of their kit on an on-going basis (which is now becoming necessary to keep ahead of the pace of new technological development), having to re-register your OS must be at least inconvenient, if not a major headache. Now with all the new stuff that's in the pipeline, we're getting into the realms of Big Brother. In order to stop the illegal practices of a minority of users, they are going to heavily regulate and penalise the entire PC community? Sorry, but I don't agree with that, either. The whole idea, from where I'm sitting, was to improve compatibility between different platforms, and now they're trying to do a complete U-turn. So if Person A uses one of these new products to write a document, Person B is going to have to have the self-same product to be able to open and read it? Hello? *knocks on screen* I think a lot of people need a wake-up call that this is Microsoft up to their old monopolising tricks again. I mean, I work part of the time from home...with my own copy of Word and Excel. Yes, I do use MS products as well as the operating system. They have good functionality...even though little has changed from the first Windows editions of their products, IMHO. Anyway, if my workplace was to upgrade to these new products in the pipeline...would I then be able to read those documents on my home PC to work on them? Unlikely. Which would force me into upgrading to the same thing to remain compatible with my workplace. That, to me, is unacceptable. As for the X-Box...the only reason I don't like it, is because Microsoft bought out some game companies, and sweetened the deal for others to port their games over to the console 'exclusively'. In other words, games we were looking forward to on PC would 'never' appear on PC. Now, of course, after they've sold enough of their consoles using these excellent-looking games as a 'hook'...they announce that they will be doing a PC version after all. And I still remain convinced that for any games due out on both X-Box and PC, there is an agreement somewhere that you can't release the PC version until after the X-Box version has hit the shelves - because nearly ever game due for the PC in this respect has had to be delayed, and will arrive after the X-Box version. Why? Anyway...I'm currently looking seriously at the viability of switching to a Linux-based OS and products, both at home and at work. They are (at the moment) less of a target for hackers...and potentially less of a security risk anyway...and it should also reduce the costs of future upgrades. It is beginning to make both economical and practical sense to look elsewhere than MS products. The only problem is that a lot of recent games releases are reliant on D3D, directX etc...and so potentially some games will not run under other OS's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Bill Gates is the biggest threat since the cold war. I wish James Bond would take him down once and for good. j/k Actually its a bad idea, because after the de-regs we will just have to pay some third party hosers to use some knock of MS programs that don't work anyway. Remember what happened to the the Bell Phone company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ondrahosek Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 The software works only half the time, a snail can move 10 metres before Win 2000 boots, and the "registry" loves to get corrupted. If anybody buys Microsoft products, buy backup software too!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Talliusc Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 i dont "hate" microsoft. in their position i would probably do much the same thing. i believe that they need some competitiont hough. without any serious competition the programmers arent pushing themselves to be better, the customer service isnt pushing to do more. they become complacent, and complacency kills the technology. im running windows at the moment and frankly i dont know of any other OS' that are out there, im sure that there are some but because of the monopoly most products use windows. its a vicious cycle that results in less options for the consumer. if they institute that anti-privacy software you can be gauranteed ill never pay for any of their products. i may well steal some and copy software but ill never be caught dead with one of those things on my Pc by choice. thats just too far into my personal life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 I don't hate MS, I don't think that they created a monopoly, that it was the ineptitude of just about every other major IT company around them that made them what they are. After all, IBM gave them PC-DOS, allowed Bill and his boys to change it and sell it back to them as MS-DOS - that is where the trouble started, IBM made a bad business decision. Apple didn't judge the market properly, and stayed in-house when IBM allowed for the more competitive clone model.... The main reason for Piracy protection isn't for the majority of Western users, it is for the Asian market, which has one of the most prolific piracy networks. Considering that they have at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the worlds population, why shouldn't ANY company protect their interests in this part of the world. It isn't for the majority of users that buy and use their systems. After all, XP and Win2000 are business platforms, not Home OS's, contrary to XP's claim - it is XP Pro minus basically the heavier network security. So, complain as much as you like about the price, but the majority of purcahsers of Win2000 and XP Pro are companies who would pay Volume licence prices, not the single copy.... As for those that "claim" that XP and 2000 are buggy and crash, then they have never really used it at all. They are the most stable OS released by MS to date. PC users have to realise that the console market has a larger home installed base than the PC, so why can't any company ask for the game to be console or time exclusive? No one is complaining that we haven't seen GT on other consoles or on PC? Why? Because it is Sony and not MS. It seems like you complain about one's companies practices, but then do not take their competitors practices the same - after all, have we seen any legal versions of Mario on the PC? The XBOX is one of their in-limbo products, they never really took on Sony head on, and have already forced Nintendo out of the console market - they are now concentrating on games after the release of the GC. The real console war is only just beginning, wait until the XBOX 2 and PS3 go head to head, with the now established XBOX user base. You really want to see where MS is headed? Find out about the Freon and then see the potential proliferation of MS products into traditionally non MS-homes, places that don't have a PC.... I don't want to blame MS for becoming a monopoly, but EVERY other major IT company that WAS competition has made MAJOR mistakes on a regular basis that made MS what they are now. IBM - almost went bankrupt Netscape - now owned by TimeWarner-AOL Apple - Lost direction when Steve Jobs left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg It's owned by a man who has more money than anyone O.o But hey... of you wanna go write an OS and make millions off it more power to ya! i heard that bill gates didn't even write windows, he stole the idea of some kid he went to college with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 I heard that he bought a buggy premade windows for several thousand and than made windows off it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 I remember that Simpsons episode. It's the fact that Microsoft continually monopolizes their business, and that now they're trying to monopolize the videogame business, and that I've spent hours trying to save my computer when the OS decides to go postal on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 £300 for an OS that is just an evolution of windows nt is a damn rip off. If their prices werent so steep, more would buy it. I'm not saying its right to rip off software just that its understandable if people get them self a copied version of xp corporate edition. If bill gates is so rich why is all his software so expensive, surely this means he's just making too much form his high prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 amen to that the guy's rich enough, maybe it's time he gave us a break and lower his prices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion 3. They have the blue screen of death... Ha! So I am not the only one to call it that. Microsoft has made a half baked program. They made it too fast and they are full of bugs. Also did you know that alot of people that make patches and stuff like that. They use Mac. You know it is bad when the makers don't use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Also one bad thing about windows is that it uses a common DLLs. With Mac it may take more space on your computer, but the OS could go down with out destroying everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taos Posted November 3, 2002 Author Share Posted November 3, 2002 I know that maybe was a little too strong of a word to use.......I should have used dislike. Thank you all, Stormy, Bcandr, and the rest of you! I did know about some of the buggy problems and a few other details.... Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Ha! So I am not the only one to call it that. no my freind, many people call it that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Ya.... Blue screen of death is an internationally known concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Ha! So I am not the only one to call it that. Microsoft has made a half baked program. They made it too fast and they are full of bugs. Also did you know that alot of people that make patches and stuff like that. They use Mac. You know it is bad when the makers don't use it. Right at the moment, IF MS is allowed to, they will have the Windows OS running on a Mac architecture. So, if they are using Mac hardware, and running Windows, then I say look out Apple. No doubt a Windows OS for Mac would be a lot more stable, as the limited hardware configuration would add considerable stability to the system. Writing a stable OS for the Apple platform is like writing a console OS - fairly rigid hardware, not 1,000,001 combinations of hardware....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Ya, people who diss Windows cause it crashes, well, they probably have never had a programming class... I'm suprised that it runs at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.