Angry at Microsoft

  • Thread starter eNtRopY
  • Start date
  • #31
240
1
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
We wouldn't be where we are today if it weren't for bill gates dumping billions into technology.

Correct, I believe we would be better off.

You say dumping billions in like its a charity, he is dumping billions in and getting more billions out, like an investment.
 
  • #32
Still, I would tend to think that even though his money brought him more, his OS put forth many ideas that other companies OSes work to copy.

There is no doubt that:
A. Microsoft has used some less than friendly buisness techniques to get where it is today.
B. Microsft is not error free. As a side note, no one else is either, and I still give Msoft the benefit of the doubt. With everything it's critics envision the Windows OS doing, it goes a long way towards realizing those goals.

But it would be hard to deny that anyone working without money (ie, linux) would do a better job and get the technology we have today here just as fast.

IMHO :smile:
 
  • #33
18,668
8,634
Correct, I believe we would be better off.

How? Tell me about this better universe.

I'm not just talking about how Bill donates computers (anyway, whats he supposed to donate? Macs? lol), but how he has pushed and progressed technology where it is today. What other icon would have done the same?

Gates is successful because he is smart. There are hundreds of other options to choose other than Windows. Pick whatever you want to use and stop hating MS, they're a business just like any other.
 
  • #34
157
2
I thought that programs like Excel, Word, Outlook, etc. could be individually selected for installation or removal.

TO be honest with you, I'm not sure but aren't there some programs that simply cannot be removed no matter what?

And in any case, there has been some programs that magically download on to my computer (including a adult-orientated ROM which I went through h*ll trying to get off the computer) and it's very difficult if not impossible to get off the computer.

Then again, computers aren't really my strong point.
 
  • #35
18,668
8,634
Sting you can deinstall whatevrer part of office you don't want. Just pop the cd in the tray and "X" everything you want off and away you go.
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
21,473
8,498
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Not quiet like that...Jobs visited the Palo Alto Research Center and saw their interface and used it to develop the first OS GUI ever. Xerox didn't have a OS GUI, simply a GUI, word processor? I'm not sure about the exacts of Xerox's GUI, but it wasn't an OS.
That doesn't really contradict what I said - I said nothing about word processors and OS's. But to clarify, the GUI is just an overly to make an OS easier to use. MS has gradually weaned us away from the ability to use the OS without the GUI, but they still exist separately.

Nope and so this curse of a virus hangs over the head of my PC
Are you saying you can't get rid of it? A decent virus scanner will do it - but you have to disinfect ALL of your disks.

TO be honest with you, I'm not sure but aren't there some programs that simply cannot be removed no matter what?
Yes. Sometimes the definition is a little thin though. Is the control panel an "application" or an "applet"? But in any case, this is one of the things that got MS in trouble with the law. Despite the court cases, IE CANNOT be removed from later versions of windows. OE however CAN be removed (at least from 9x and 2k - I haven't used XP).
And in any case, there has been some programs that magically download on to my computer (including a adult-orientated ROM which I went through h*ll trying to get off the computer) and it's very difficult if not impossible to get off the computer.
There are security settings you can change in IE to prevent this. But you still have to pay attention - if a box pops up with an "ok" or "cancel" question in IE, READ it before clicking ok. If you are on the ball, you will never get things loaded onto your computer without your consent.

And if all else fails, use AdAware.
 
  • #37
240
1
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How? Tell me about this better universe.

I'm not just talking about how Bill donates computers (anyway, whats he supposed to donate? Macs? lol), but how he has pushed and progressed technology where it is today. What other icon would have done the same?

Gates is successful because he is smart. There are hundreds of other options to choose other than Windows. Pick whatever you want to use and stop hating MS, they're a business just like any other.

Not a better universe

Donating computers? Well, since you mention it, he in fact does donate, obviously, Windows computers, Windows is his product, his product doesn't stay up-to-date forever, he donates these PC's and in a couple years he get's a nice profit from it.

If Gates wouldn't have came to power would we still be asking what 'icon' would have done the same? How can we tell who would have been better if we have not experienced anybody else, all I know (and this is my opinion), is Bill Gates isn't who I want to be in charge of the future of computers.

Let's say I want the latest version of Microsoft's OS.....that will cost me 300 dollars. Or lets say I'm a student and need Office, standard edition a heafty 370 dollars from Amazon. Thanks Bill Gates for making such affordable products for us little people
 
  • #38
18,668
8,634
Or lets say I'm a student and need Office, standard edition a heafty 370 dollars from Amazon.
MS has deals with most Universitys. At Milwaukee I can get Office XP for $25.
 
  • #39
russ_watters
Mentor
21,473
8,498
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
MS has deals with most Universitys. At Milwaukee I can get Office XP for $25.
I was issued a full copy of office in college.

But of course - thats part of the plan. They hope I will be hooked and keep using later flavors of office.
 
  • #40
240
1
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
MS has deals with most Universitys. At Milwaukee I can get Office XP for $25.

They deal with most University's? I would need proof to believe this, I would think the University is dealing with you. They would be "losing" 350 on this "deal", for nothing, no company would just sell something wtih a 350 dollar rebate.

But then again, why would I care what deals you can get? At my college I can get no such deals, after all, these are my opinions about Microsoft. Office is still incredibly expensive to ME.
 
  • #41
BoulderHead
$89.99




Note: Version for students and teachers only and will not be able to be upgraded in the future
Includes 4 easy-to-use productivity applications
Experience smarter tools for learning;
Word 2002
Excel 2002
Outlook 2002
PowerPoint 2002



I saw in an office supply store OfficeXP Pro selling for nearly $500 US. If you wanted FrontPage it would cost about $70 additional. Add any applicable State sales tax and the package could bust $600 !


Ouch, ouch, ouch...
I don't know but suspect you still wouldn't be able to put this on a second computer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
157
2
Sting you can deinstall whatevrer part of office you don't want. Just pop the cd in the tray and "X" everything you want off and away you go.

CD? My computer didn't arrive with designated CD's and the office programs seemed to be a part of the computer whether I like it or not.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me anymore. I consider my computer to be dilapidated due to age and its prone nature to the Melissa virus and the only thing I really use it for is to listen to Mp3s and to burn CD's (but don't tell Metallica). As I write this, I'm at school (which is where I do most of my necessary computer work).
 
  • #43
240
1
Originally posted by Sting
CD? My computer didn't arrive with designated CD's and the office programs seemed to be a part of the computer whether I like it or not.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me anymore. I consider my computer to be dilapidated due to age and its prone nature to the Melissa virus and the only thing I really use it for is to listen to Mp3s and to burn CD's (but don't tell Metallica). As I write this, I'm at school (which is where I do most of my necessary computer work).

This raises an interesting question, since you do not have the CD's to the software and you would like to uninstall a part of that software, would it be legal to download office (i.e. kazaa) and use that software to uninstall the parts you don't want?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
No, Microsoft bought the rights to implement similiar windowing GUI's like macs from apple.

Um, he bought the original version of DOS from some nobody for a few hundred bucks (nothing wrong there...sux for the guy who made it). However, if that "Pirates of Silicon Valley" movie has any basis in reality, Bill stole a bunch of stuff from Apple.
 
  • #45
schwarzchildradius
That's what the industry does though, that's why it's so powerful, because it doesn't have to invent, just "re-invent." True, far fewer people would use computers if MS did not exist, but what buggs people is the arrogance of MS against competitors as well as users. Luckily, there are lots of programmers out there.
 
  • #46
1,495
29
One of the greatest bottlenecks to the advancement to computer technology and the development of a decent operating system is the end user.

CPU manufacturers and OS writers were dragged down for years accommadating DOS to allow the end user to keep his or her outmoded software. Backwards compatability caused Win 3 thru 9x to be unstable because it rode on a DOS platform, and forced every CPU made to go through Real Mode before switching to Protected Mode.

MS could have dumped DOS and made a stable platform years ago, but the public wouldn't have liked having to go out and buy all new software.

Windows isn't perfect, but computing is a heck of a lot better today than even just 10 years ago.
 
  • #47
240
1
Originally posted by Artman
One of the greatest bottlenecks to the advancement to computer technology and the development of a decent operating system is the end user.

CPU manufacturers and OS writers were dragged down for years accommadating DOS to allow the end user to keep his or her outmoded software. Backwards compatability caused Win 3 thru 9x to be unstable because it rode on a DOS platform, and forced every CPU made to go through Real Mode before switching to Protected Mode.

MS could have dumped DOS and made a stable platform years ago, but the public wouldn't have liked having to go out and buy all new software.

Windows isn't perfect, but computing is a heck of a lot better today than even just 10 years ago.

XP isn't all that stable.

Also, how do you explain the terrible downslide of Windows ME from previous versions of Windows?

Does is the most stable 'OS' Microsoft has ever made.
 
  • #48
1,495
29
I won't dispute that DOS is stable. But it is difficult to use, nonintuitive, and limited in it's graphics capability to name just a few drawbacks. It is not that DOS is not stable, but combining DOS with Windows creates instability.

ME works fine when it is set up correctly. I have it and have fewer crashes then I did with Win 3.1 or Win98. Most of the problems people had with ME were related to too litle memory to run the System and any programs. 32MB of RAM as a minimum was not realistic. 64MB was better, but 128 or more was best for that OS.

I can't say about XP, I haven't tried it.
 
  • #49
240
1
Originally posted by Artman
I won't dispute that DOS is stable. But it is difficult to use, nonintuitive, and limited in it's graphics capability to name just a few drawbacks. It is not that DOS is not stable, but combining DOS with Windows creates instability.

Yes, I see what you mean. DOS was limited to what, 16 colours? Windows added to that thousands of others, and this creates a mess and stretches DOS's capabilities well beyond its original intent.

ME works fine when it is set up correctly. I have it and have fewer crashes then I did with Win 3.1 or Win98. Most of the problems people had with ME were related to too litle memory to run the System and any programs. 32MB of RAM as a minimum was not realistic. 64MB was better, but 128 or more was best for that OS.

I can't say about XP, I haven't tried it.

I have never used ME, but I have heard many horror stories. But if 32MB minimum RAM was on the box, then I see how problems would arise, that's insane.

XP is MS's most stable OS so far, perhaps not more stable than 2000, but the most stable I have used extensively. I credit its stability to its ability to crash only one program at a time. Didn't Microsoft release an update with a memory leak though? I suppose this could have caused some of the instability issues I came across. Overall it is a good OS, I don't like the "LET ME DO THAT FOR YOU" tone it has. Too many wizards and such.
 
  • #50
1,495
29
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I don't like the "LET ME DO THAT FOR YOU" tone it has. Too many wizards and such.

I agree. One of my favorite things about Windows is that I can manipulate it myself. If they take that away, I might as well go with Apple.

I have Win 2000 at work and it is very stable. I do a little 'C' programming and sometimes I accidently write a program that causes a unending loop, when this happens at work I just shut down the program and go on, the system is fine. If it happens at home (WinME) or on my laptop (Win 98SE), it crashes everything and I have to reboot. XP is supposed to be built on the 2000 core, which should make it very stable.
 
  • #51
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,237
40
when this happens at work I just shut down the program and go on, the system is fine.
"Look honey, they finally caught up with Unix's process management... it only took them 23 years."

- Warren
 
  • #52
1,495
29
Original quote from chroot..."Look honey, they finally caught up with Unix's process management... it only took them 23 years."

NT also runs processes in seperate "Services" that can be shut down independently instead of crashing the Kernel. This is not new technology for MS.

However, I agree that UNIX is an excellent OS and is still years ahead in cross platform and process management.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
From my experience, basica was more stable than dos. My first computer was a pc-at (i think) which booted in basica from the bios.

Xtree worked good for dos, it made it less complicated if typing commands was too hard for you.


Windows sux. Microsoft sucks. Oh god how i wish I ran unix :(
 
  • #54
240
1
Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
From my experience, basica was more stable than dos. My first computer was a pc-at (i think) which booted in basica from the bios.

Xtree worked good for dos, it made it less complicated if typing commands was too hard for you.


Windows sux. Microsoft sucks. Oh god how i wish I ran unix :(

http://www.xtreefanpage.org/lowres/x63clone.htm

Xtree clones for windows:smile:
 

Related Threads on Angry at Microsoft

Replies
8
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
51K
Top