How Bad Can Microsoft Be

This is just something I noticed.

I know alot of people who say microsoft sucks and that Linux is the best system there is but the funny thing is they all use Windows. If they really hated microsoft as much as they say why do they use microsoft products. Just an odd fact of nature I guess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate MS so that I put windows as the slave behind all my computers. I love linux so much that it sits on the book shelf enjoying the falling dusts without any sweat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well it is not that I hate Windows, but in some aspects it is poorly designed. It can be pain to work with - but it is useful and there are some parts of it that I like alot.

Without Windows you have 0 compatibility for most useful products out there.

I am used to the interface and don't want to take the time to learn something new (never used Unix, Linux, Mac, or anything else)

But that has nothing to do with memory leaking, poor coding, taking too much effort to customize, and things of the like (not to mention stealing info with the use of XP products)

microbrain is evil regardless of whether they made it or not.

 

I hate windows. But I also hate linux. Windows is easier and faster to use, so it wins. Well, I don't hate either system, but they both ahve a lot of things I dislike.

 

Ok. Some of you will know where I stand on Microsoft. For others here it is...

Microsoft makes the best software at the moment, It has some flaws but I would like to see you design something to do everything everbody in the world wants it to do, and relatively secure and reliable!

 

I have always had a grudge to learn from Bill gates's moves,his innovation,his aptitude and approach.one of the best things i know about this man is that he is a genuine techno interested person(i paused before saying that,i was about to say Geek

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Whatever people say,i still use Windows actively.i love mac too.but i spent a month with Linux and i dont know why i got bored of it.it had everything,it was sheer power,but that <b>feel</b>of Windows wasnt there.




bye!

 

PS:I tried Vmware(emulators)in Red hat,but it really sucked...

(Atlthough i am crazy about Caldera Linux...Raw power.)

gee...

bye!
Zion

 

I think we need multiple entirely new operating systems dedicated to a single purpose (i.e., one for gaming, one for spread-sheets, one for networking, etc...).

microsoft is still screwing up to this day. Only now with DirectX 9 just coming out are they finally starting to make good use of video card features (like API design). OpenGL 1.2 was doing better than them well before this.

microsoft's main idea that got them so far was developing the Windows interface. When Windows 3.1 was out, and they compared it to DOS - everyone was like "WOW, look at this, these graphics are so cool. We now have boxes (the "windows") and neat interfaces instead of all this text typing"

MS made it seem like Windows 95 was a revolution (which I guess it kind of was).

Problem is, they really don't know what they are doing. Their main targets (until recently) were big businesses for fancy text and networking programs, and home users who really don't know what they are doing (computer idiots - they try and make it seem like the Windows interface is so simple and everyone's mom can use it - they tried to target people who just want to get on their PC once a month to send chain letter e-mails to their relatives - but they actually wound up failing at this - I can even think of many 25 to 65 year old people today who are afraid of computers and say "computers are too damn complicated, I don't know what I am doing).

Beyond that they did a little work on the side.

They kept this up with releasing Windows 98. Then they tried to expand a little when they released ME (if anyone still recalls that Millennium Edition was actually released

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) but wound up screwing things up. Now they've screwed up again releasing XP, but not in the same manner.

We now have a decent 64-bit OS that performs well, but their greedy nature and CEO who desires to be more rich, decided he wanted to stuff his products down people's throats and see that only his products can be used (not to mention trying to force you to upgrade to later versions which don't work as well, like the IE 5 to 6 transition, same thing with Windows Media Player 6.4 to 7) - and even worse (with this new SW), is trying to steal info from people.

As far as the actual technical side, I can't really say much other than until XP came out (at least on the home operating system side, 2000 and NT service pack 5.0 and up have been ok) windows was terrible about memory management.

 

I'd really like to see a much lighter, simpler, more stable OS, maybe more text-based, but with mouse capability. Forget all the funky graphics for the OS; just have basic boxes displayed for each task or whatever, and save all the heavy duty graphics for games and graphics work and such. An OS simply doesn't need to look like a work of art.

 

You CANNOT go back to a text only OS. I use Solaris in Uni, and everthing that you can do in the GUI it is possible to do in a text box...

Win 95 was the same you could still bring up a MS-Dos prompt IF you wanted to use it. Surprisingly people decided to take the easier option and use the GUI.

GUI's are alot easier to use if all you are doing is a bit of word processing or spreadsheet design...

 

The heart of the problem. Microsoft wants to be all things to all people. It can't be done, and they consistently prove it. They are not evil. They are sloppy and unconcerned. In the world of software design and implementation, that is worse.

Now a serious flaw has been discovered in the way the new Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer handles, of all things, security. Data that it collects and stores is left open to attack, which could enable hackers to discover other vulnerabilities that are exposed to assault. Not only have their been compatibility problems and incorrect hotfix reports, we now stir a newly-introduced security problem to the mix.

If I was using this thing, I’d be mad enough to spit mouse balls.

It's a good sign that Microsoft is uncovering bugs in existing software; it proves that they're actually doing something. But when they release a security-specific tool that does more harm than good, someone ought to toss a brick through the window of Microsoft’s corporate office.

Peace.

 

I don't suggest going back to a pure text system, sorry if I gave that impression. I mean that windows and such are just so much heavier on system requirements than they need to be. Look at what you are doing now. All it has to do is display text as formatted by HTML, with the links and all. You need some borders to identify the pieces of the page. You need basic text formatting tools in operation. You need a method of selecting different displays/pages/tasks. And maybe a clock in the corner. Maybe also a menu button. I have the idea that such things should not require 128 megs of RAM and over a gigabyte of disc space.

For the most part all the user needs is:
- Text displayed on screen.
- Images displayed on screen.
- Borders to identify screen/page areas.
- Text formatting tools.
- Mouse adapter, the ability for the mouse to be used on the screen.
- Task selector.
- Clock, menu button, et cetera.

Now these can all be produced with far less system overheads than we see in windows (I can't yet do it myself, but I'm pretty certain this is the case). Look at our windows screen, and you basically have only these things in your user interface. Yet windows makes such a big deal of it all that you now need a whopping great big computer to do these small tasks. If all these things were done in nice light code/operation, all that system power could then be used for your applications and games and such.

 

And While We're Here...

An OS Opinion article grabbed my attention today, and you must read this.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

Microsoft has built Windows as the king of operating systems over the past couple of decades, and the one premise that holds true is that it's simply an operating system that is designed to run applications of the users' choosing. Now that they have the world by the neck, they want to close off every market that they decide they want to enter, by way of hindering other, competing applications. If that's truly what Microsoft wants to do, then they should go the way of Apple and market a Microsoft PC and be done with it. They'd still have many, many customers that they could maintain for years to come, including businesses. But it's a bait and switch type of behavior to offer an OS that will run a bazillion applications, and then qualify it by slanting it in favor of Microsoft's products.

Peace.

 

I don't see how they can possibly deny they want an unfair monopoly if that is MS policy.

 

What the hell is going on with the computer industry in the USA? First that stupid legislation idea that would make all hard discs basically number-plated so you can only use approved software, and now this.

 

Adam ...

Re. "For the most part all the user needs is:"

Ashton-Tate's 'FrameWork' did it all and I still use it on my 'workhorse'
486 DOS desktop ... along with OS/2 for some of the 'bells &whistles' I
occassionally need.

But, I spend most of my time 'goofing around' with a Win2K laptop ...
Can't beat it for the Net and listening to my favorite CD's while surfing,
or occassionally watching a DVD.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Um, kmguru. No offense or anything, but some corrections.

Some GeForce cards do have multiprocessors (one for the even frames, and one for the odd frames - like 2, 4, 6, 8, - 1, 3, 5, 7, etc....)

VIA's KT333 chipset supports 3 gigs of RAM (though no one expect people running servers generally goes about 512)

4GHz processors are not needed. Alot of people don't seem to realize, having processors higher than what they do now (2.5GHz) is not really going to help things much.

Processors mainly handle number cycling and instructions. This is primarily for literal real time performance that is running off a direct bus. If something like a harddrive (that is not direct, it has a spin up and spin down time, and will run on parallel or serial bus) is involved with whatever the current process is that you are doing, it isn't going to matter.

For things like loading times (for like starting your computer with Windows) - it would work faster if you had a 933MHz Pentium 3, with a 15,000 RPM, 3.1ms, Ultra160 harddrive on Adaptec's latest SCSI card (of course, with a 64-bit PCI slot), than a 2200+ Athlon XP with a 7200 RPM harddrive.

Processors going faster than what's out now are really not going to help things much. Because they might just add a little extra speed where it is not needed (because you are going to be limited by things other than your processor). The main thing is, unless you intentionally try to crush your processor (like by running a billion things at once), your accplications are not going to slow down (they will run at a steady rate, and not drop or get clogged up - like your frame rate hitting the floor in a game).

The only time the processor might really matter (in these types of really high clock speed instances), is if you are running like a mainframe server that handles 5% of america's internet traffic. Home users who run anything close to normal accplications don't need to worry about crazy new processor speeds.

I don't know what the future will hold though.

Intel proved they know how to mess things up with their Pentium 4's All they tried to focus on was rushing a processor out the door that had a clock speed faster than anything else. You could use the phrase "too fast, too soon - for its own good" As we've seen in benchmarks, Athlon XP's with lower physical clock speeds outperform P4's in many applications (because the rest of the processor was designed better).

If the industry keeps up the trend "we've got to get the lastest and greatest, the absolute fastest technology, out to the public as soon as possible (mind you, without doing research and testing your beta product thoroughly enough)" - things probably won't go so well.

Plus as that other guy mentioned (looking at microsoft), you can't be the master of everything. If Asus is the best vendor of motherboards, they can't be the master of CD-writers too. Creative Labs might be the best maker of sound products, but they've proven over and over again, they foul up in the video card area.

The industry has been making some not so good design decisions recently (just as can be seen Nvidia is slowly starting to go down hill - they obviously made a mistake releasing their nForce motherboards - and they made too many versions of their GF 4 chipsets - plus to my knowledge, they haven't incoporated 3DFX's anti-aliasing technology into any of their GF chipsets, even though they bought them out a couple of years ago - they have Quincunx AA, and HRAA, but I haven't seen the method 3DFX used to provide full scale AA with so little a performance loss). I'm content to stick with some of my current technology (heck my PC here is running on Windows 98 SE) and am not that eager to go out and buy some of the new stuff that is bound to come out.

For me it has to be a good mix of performance, reliability, and compatibility.

Looks like I started rambling off in this post, but I wanted to mention all of that I guess

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!