But if we're going to lapse into such mindlessly stupid generalisations (like, is that the best rebuttal to the arguments presented you could come up with?) then the thread might as well end here.
I tried to lighten the mood :bemused: Anti-trust is a very good movie and in a way comical. If you had seen the movie you would know it is very blown over the top and takes the "mickey" out of Microsoft.
So perhaps you should watch it before you comment. Another case of forum-minunderstanding.
Originally posted by NetNerd85
Anti-Mircosoft people just have watched the MOVIE Anti-Trust one time too many!
Ive never actually seen the movie even if I did Id still hate micro$oft. I hate having to do the samething all the time for instance. Buy windows, require patch, require another patch, require a patch for the patch, upgrade windows again pay money, require a patch.
This keeps repeating itself time and time again.
A lot of programs need patching and upgrading gives you more features plus they got to make money some how. It's like all those web hosts that give you 200megs space and 5 gig transfer, we all here know that is nothing but some poor people pay the money. I don't hate anything, it is too strong of a word.
My original post was saying I use to dislike Microsoft when I was younger because other people did. I realised there is no point disliking something if there is no valid reason. Other people might have their valid reasons which is fine. We are all different and like different things and have different experiences.
Originally posted by NetNerd85
A lot of programs need patching and upgrading gives you more features plus they got to make money some how. It's like all those web hosts that give you 200megs space and 5 gig transfer, we all here know that is nothing but some poor people pay the money. I don't hate anything, it is too strong of a word.
Good point, however most programs do not require a patch for a patch. Something very M$ like although improved somwhat, they have a long way to go. I never said Linux didnt require patches, however knowing that I do not have to pay for the upgrade is good I usually donate something to the distro.
My only concern, what features have M$ added in there upgrades?
XP was just 2000 with a nicer looking GUI. 2003 Server was just 2000 Server with a XP GUI wrapper over the top and some added security. Longhorn (project name) is just XP with again a new GUI, although I havent used the Beta so I could be wrong however from what Ive seen and read on micro$oft its almost identical, especially with there new file system not going to be ready.
I dont mean to criticise however from my experience this is all ms does, and just to think they are cutting back on some security issues on longhorn just to get it out on time.
You don't have to pay for Microsoft upgrades 
I went from Windows 98 to Windows XP and I can tell you there is a huge different in performance. Like I said, Win98 use to crash a fair bit, WinXP has not. Overall I can't see a huge change just some new MS programs and more functions. Thats all an upgrade from version ?.? to ?.? ever is.
Operation Longhorn? that the latest in Iraq? 
sorry, I saw some screenshots and yeah looks like XP but blue and my friend who used the beta said nothing new.
XP was a great replacement for Win98 and two more versions down the track I am sure I will upgrade. My only beef is DOS games. I wanna play Theme Hospital, woot! :bemused:
Microsoft are big money makers. What company doesn't want to make money? They don't like competition. Who does? :evilgrin:
Originally posted by NetNerd85
You don't have to pay for Microsoft upgrades
Did I miss something completely in the micro$oft memo about free upgrades? I guess I did Ive never seen a free upgrade. You gotta pay for the new operating system, unless of course you obtain it illegally, which in my opinion isnt even worth the hassle.
XP was a great replacement for Win98
I never went from 98 to XP when i used it. I was 98, 2000 then XP. If you do it in that order there is nothing new except the GUI of course they keep the standard default. So I suppose there is some difference.
My only beef is DOS games. I wanna play Theme Hospital, woot!
Im positive on M$ you can download DOS to play it.
They don't like competition. Who does?
No Company does however no company purposely changes things so other programs will not work within it. Take for example JVM, microsoft changed it so you had to use the ms version of it.
So perhaps you should watch it before you comment.
Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that I had to see the movie before I could comment on whether or not I'd seen the movie.
Oh Weedpacket lol, Your so funny! This ":glare:" is what I imagine you to look like.
You know exactly what I meant :p
Microsoft doesn't like competition, it's true. They were forced to bring forward the release of IE7 because of Firefox. Damn that Firefox!
Another view, from someone with experience.
So Apple/Microsoft shower new features upon their users almost daily, in the hopes that a steady stream of genuine technical innovations, combined with the "I want to believe" phenomenon, will prevent their customers from looking across the road towards the cheaper and better OSes that are available to them. The question is whether this makes sense in the long run. If Microsoft is addicted to OSes as Apple is to hardware, then they will bet the whole farm on their OSes, and tie all of their new applications and technologies to them. Their continued survival will then depend on these two things: adding more features to their OSes so that customers will not switch to the cheaper alternatives, and maintaining the image that, in some mysterious way, gives those customers the feeling that they are getting something for their money.
The latter is a truly strange and interesting cultural phenomenon.
Microsoft doesn't like competition, it's true. They were forced to bring forward the release of IE7 because of Firefox.
Yeah I can't wait for IE7 been waiting for so long
Originally posted by NetNerd85
Yeah I can't wait for IE7 been waiting for so long
Yea apparently there even more innovative this time, tabbed browsing, PNG support, RSS aggregator etc. Hmm they sound like innovative ideas.:glare:
Originally posted by NetNerd85
Yeah I can't wait for IE7 been waiting for so long
And if it hadn't been for Firefox you'd still be waiting.
Say: "Thank you, Mozilla Foundation, for giving us Internet Explorer".
I want to go back to NetNerd85's original post in this thread that sent it careening off-topic:
Windows 98 use to crash on me but mainly it was because I made it crashed.
You mean to say Windows 98 only crashed when you set out with the intention of making it crash? You only saw the BSOD when you wanted to? Do you get some sort of perverse kick out of making computers fall over (dalecosp, you want to make an observation, here
)? You mean that ever since you got XP you've been pounding away on it trying to make it fall over, and you've failed every time?
Or are you simply cheerfully taking the blame for the failings of Windows 98's developers to build a robust system, letting them off the hook because surely it couldn't have been their fault?
You should not be able to make the OS crash unless you deliberately set out to do so. And even then it should require effort. If you can, it's not your fault but the OS developer's. If a badly-written application causes the operating system to crash, that is again the operating system's failure. Speaking as one who has had XP crash at all times ranging from startup to shutdown (I've had it crash when I've touched nothing except the ON switch, so don't tell me it was "my fault") I can tell you that the BSOD is as unacceptable today as it was when I used Windows 95.
You are an example of one of Microsoft's biggest marketing successes: getting people to accept unacceptably poor quality software.
And to make an on-topic observation: why doesn't Microsoft dominate server land the way it does on the desktop? Is it because on the Internet no-one can see your GUI?
Originally posted by Weedpacket
And to make an on-topic observation: why doesn't Microsoft dominate server land the way it does on the desktop? Is it because on the Internet no-one can see your GUI?
Na i was thinking more along the lines of stabily, reliabilty, load handling, security and of course the ability to have more than one language that isnt tied entirely to the os. (of course you can have php, etc but that would be silly on windows).
You are an example of one of Microsoft's biggest marketing successes: getting people to accept unacceptably poor quality software.
Weedpacket, You have made it clear with what I see as personal insults, attacks and other disrespectful comments that you have a problem with me. What have I done to provoke you?
Weedpacket, You have made it clear with what I see as personal insults, attacks and other disrespectful comments that you have a problem with me. What have I done to provoke you?
Calm down, he just has a problem with what you wrote, not with who you are.
If a badly-written application causes the operating system to crash, that is again the operating system's failure.
To be fair, it is the failure of both the operating system and the application.
Just to sit on the fence:
I have my WinXP system running 24/7. It has very rarely crashed despite being under heavy load (running LAMP, Photoshop, various intensive games etc). But after a few days it gets sluggish (memory management doesn't seem too hot).
On the other hand our nix systems at work run for months on end, one particular machine runs around 50 active virtual hosts and doesn't make the slightest wimper.
To sum up I really dislike the attitude of hating Microsoft just because of who they are. They have some very bad marketing practices and try to shut the door on competition. However they have also done some good stuff (.NET, Windows Update, built-in WinXP firewall etc). Some might say they are poor, but it's certainly better than nothing.
As for the Antitrust movie - that portrayed the Open Source movement as purveyors of goodness and light and Microsoft as the devil. It's really not that clear cut.
Originally posted by Shrike
To sum up I really dislike the attitude of hating Microsoft just because of who they are.
I really dislike the attitude that if someone dislikes Microsoft products, then that is because they are anti-Microsoft. It's perfectly possible to prefer Firefox to Internet Explorer, or Linux to Windows, without wanting to destroy Bill Gates. (Personally, I think it would probably make wanting to destroy Bill Gates less likely, but that's just the cynic in me talking.)
Originally posted by laserlight
To be fair, it is the failure of both the operating system and the application.
True, the application shouldn't crash; but they can and do - particularly during development.
What should not happen is that the operating system also crashes as a result. It should be isolated from the application's misbehaviour by running in a separate memory space under a different user, etc. And that is the OS's responsibility.
Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was referring to userspace applications - word processors, web browsers, and the like, rather than kernel utilities and system services. However, even then, a well-written OS should be able to protect itself against all but the most outrageous messes.
Well if yah want something done properly, do it yourself!
Thats why I am learning PHP There aren't any CMS's to suit my needs, so I am making my own.
