# Windows Vista Website

Anttech said:
That's unfair.. considering the first M$windows was made for IBM, and not to mention DOS How is that unfair? Name one instance where good engineering won out over good marketeering in MS history. Not one where they coincided, but where good engineering sense clearly trumped the marketers. I can't think of any. In every case MS has acted in the interests of money first, not quality. And it has made them billions upon billions. Kudos to them for that. But my statement is hardly unfair. #### Anttech Ermm it is totally unfair, you are 100% biased, and by your own admitance you know zip about M$ technologies...

The development of .NET by M$is by no means a "marketing" ploy. If you think it is then any technology done for Susi is also.. M$ also developed Dos for IBM on IBM's payrole, hardly a "marketing" ploy.

If you want more I will find more...

Just cause you dont like the OS means jack sh@t

#### franznietzsche

Anttech said:
Ermm it is totally unfair, you are 100% biased, and by your own admitance you know zip about M$technologies... Being unfamiliar with due to lack of use, is not knowing "zip about." 100% biased? Not so bad. I will admit to heavy bias, of course I'm also heavily biased in favour of General Relativity over Newtonian gravity, and in favor of quantum mechanics over classical mechanics for describing the behavoir of electrons in an atom, if being biased means I've made my judgements based on the evidence I've seen. Show me clear evidence, and I'll accept that. The development of .NET by M$ is by no means a "marketing" ploy. If you think it is then any technology done for Susi is also..
.NET was an effort to keep people using MS only products (as opposed to using Java). MS is company that believes very strongly in its monoculture, and that people shouldn't use a single piece of software not made by them, including programming languages. Its about mindshare, which comes down to marketing. If applications are written for Java, then you don't necessarily need Windows to run them (this was of course the point of a write once run anywhere language). .NET was/is an effort to prevent that.

#### Anttech

I said MS acts in the interests of money first, not quality engineering first, yes? This is a counterpoint how? How is this even relevant?

edit: And MS didn't develop DOS. Depending on who you talk to, they bought it or stole it from SCP and licensed it to IBM.
Not biased?

#### Anttech

Show me clear evidence, and I'll accept that.
MS never did anything because it was good technology, they did it because it made money for them and intel.
You made the statement not me, u back it up. I said it is unfair, and already showed you that M$worked for IBM not Intel... You have self admittedly stated you are "unfamiliar with due to lack of use," how can you possible then try and state what you did, when you know nothing about the technologies that M$ have made over the years?

Look, I am not an M$biggit, I would just prefer that you wouldnt slant arguements for the sake of a dig at M$, if you could show you knew about the technologies then fine, but you cant.. If we were talking about something that you use daily and have experience with then fine...

Anyway as I said I am not an M$Biggit, I use a varitity of Opperating systems, the one I use most and are most familure with is IOS... #### sid_galt franznietzsche said: I said MS acts in the interests of money first, not quality engineering first, yes? If MS didnt do quality enginnering, it would lose money and reputation as it is. quality engineering = making money in a free economy. I am not a fan of Microsoft but the thing is that some their products are quality engineered because they work. Windows works because it is very user friendly so it is quality engineered in that area. These days they have been lagging behind in several areas which has predictably led people to other products and reduced income for microsoft. Last edited: #### franznietzsche Anttech said: LOL... Do you even know what .net is? And you can run .NET on Linux so it isnt just for windows You're not even arguing my point now. You're just trying to come up with stuff to say. Mono is not a Microsoft project. The purpose of .NET was and remains to prevent Windows from being marginalized by a middleware API not produced by Microsoft. Anttech said: Irrelivent to this debate... GR and Microsoft windows really dont have anything in common, and by stating you are on the side of general scientific thinking, is nothing to do with wheather you know anything about M$ technology or not... Please dont try and obscure this point.
Not irrelevant. You accused me of being unfairly biased. I replied by stating that my opinion is based on the evidence I've seen.

Anttech said:
Not biased?
SCP sued MS for patent infringement. In their opinion, MS stole it. So yes, that was not a biased statement. But you, being so much more knowledgeable about MS than me, would have known that right? So i have to assume that either, you have no case, and you know it, or you don't know as much as you like to pretend.

Anttech said:
You made the statement not me, u back it up. I said it is unfair, and already showed you that M$worked for IBM not Intel... You have self admittedly stated you are "unfamiliar with due to lack of use," how can you possible then try and state what you did, when you know nothing about the technologies that M$ have made over the years?
Again you are twisting my words. Unfamiliar does not equal 'knows nothing about." But since you can't come up with anything other than that, i can understand why you keep repeating it. If it makes you feel better, I've used every version of windows in the home line since 3.1 (3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP) as well as the more recent 'professional' ones (2000, XP Pro (not that there is a big difference between XP home and XP pro)). I've used Office 97/2000/XP. I've seen first hand what their decades of a lack of security policy has done (Word Macro that self-propagates through Email and does various nasties to your computer anyone?), and it can hardly be called 'quality.'

Look, I am not an M$biggit, I would just prefer that you wouldnt slant arguements for the sake of a dig at M$, if you could show you knew about the technologies then fine, but you cant.. If we were talking about something that you use daily and have experience with then fine...
And you can't show that you know anything about the history of MS or the development of their products. You actually thought they developed MS-DOS before they licensed it to IBM (granted, large portions of it were rewritten by 2.0).

We're not talking about their technologies, we're talking about why they've developed them. This is a discussion of motive. And quality has never been a goal in its own right for them. Quality has been something where they have consistently aimed for the lowest mark that would still make them money.

Anttech said:
Anyway as I said I am not an M$Biggit, I use a varitity of Opperating systems, the one I use most and are most familure with is IOS... Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. sid_galt said: If MS didnt do quality enginnering, it would lose money and reputation as it is. quality engineering = making money in a free economy. I am not a fan of Microsoft but the thing is that some their products are quality engineered because they work. Windows works because it is very user friendly so it is quality engineered in that area. These days they have been lagging behind in several areas which has predictably led people to other products and reduced income for microsoft. Read the findings of fact from the DOJ trial. You'll find quite a different story. Monopoly control = making money in a free economy. MS won out early on, not because their products were superior, but because they were far cheaper. CP/M was much better than QDOS/MS-DOS, but it cost$249 as opposed to $69 (IIRC). Once MS-DOS was firmly established on PCs, that was that. Then, when MS split from IBM, taking NT with them. Their popularity skyrocketed with Windows 95. Then begins the illegal monopolizing, forced upgrades, bullying of OEMs, and so on and so forth. #### sid_galt franznietzsche said: MS won out early on, not because their products were superior, but because they were far cheaper. From a user's perspective, for ordinary day to day work I find Windows easier to use than either Mac or Linux. But even if their products won out because they were cheaper, they couldn't have won out if they had built poor products. franznietzsche said: CP/M was much better than QDOS/MS-DOS, but it cost$249 as opposed to \$69 (IIRC).
Possibly. But even if CP/M was much better, you can't say that DOS was bad and not a quality product. If it served the purpose of the user and cost less than CP/M, then for the user it was a quality product.

franznietzsche said:
Then begins the illegal monopolizing, forced upgrades, bullying of OEMs, and so on and so forth.
1) Being illegal does not make it automatically wrong.

2) Forced upgrades??? What do you mean? MS didn't force anyone to upgrade their software.

3) As to the bullying of OEMs, did MS violate the patents of the OEMs? If it did, then it was wrong.
But if it didn't then that is not bullying. Whatever happened to the OEMs then was not MS's fault.

#### franznietzsche

sid_galt said:
From a user's perspective, for ordinary day to day work I find Windows easier to use than either Mac or Linux. But even if their products won out because they were cheaper, they couldn't have won out if they had built poor products.
You don't seem to understand how a free market actually works. The best marketed product, not the best product is what wins. MS has one of the world's best marketing dpmts.

Computers are not furniture. The majority of consumers do not know what poor quality software is, because they do not understand software. If a chair breaks on them, they know it was poorly made. If their computer can't run for more than a few days at a time without problems, or if they're constantly fighting to hold back malware, they think that's just how computers are, they don't realize that the software is poorly made. A poor product only hurts you if people can tell its a poor product. With computers, the average joe doesn't even know the difference between hardware and software.

Possibly. But even if CP/M was much better, you can't say that DOS was bad and not a quality product. If it served the purpose of the user and cost less than CP/M, then for the user it was a quality product.
Have you ever used DOS? As a CLI, it was abysmal when it was invented. Bash, the standard shell prompt in linux, has not changed much since 1987, when it was released. DOS-Prompt has never ever been as useful or functional (MS is just starting to try to catch up on that with MSH i.e. Monad).

1) Being illegal does not make it automatically wrong.
2) Forced upgrades??? What do you mean? MS didn't force anyone to upgrade their software.
3) As to the bullying of OEMs, did MS violate the patents of the OEMs? If it did, then it was wrong.
But if it didn't then that is not bullying. Whatever happened to the OEMs then was not MS's fault.

Do you know what OEMs are? Or did you ignore what I said about reading the Findings of Fact from the DOJ trial? OEMs are companies like Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, who sell computer systems. MS used punitive pricing to punish any OEMs who offered computers with anything other than Windows on them. They threatened to pull licenses to sell windows on some of them if they sold competing products. That is not only illegal, its wrong. Unless of course you want to say that's not MS's fault?

Monopolizing is illegal for a reason, it destroys the free market. That is bad.

Have you ever tried to open an Office document from a later version of Office in an older one? Forced upgrades. See my above post.

#### Anttech

Monopolizing is illegal for a reason, it destroys the free market. That is bad.
I aggree with this.

The rest of what you say is in the majority just your oppinion. I wont debate with someone who is not mature (and you arent) enough to not patronise.

#### Sprinter

anyway, microsoft does really produce good products.
easy to use, easy to update, easy to find reference books for learning.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving