So why do people hate Windows?

0 Votes

+ -

IT SKILLS

IT-sys 28th Nov 2005

Like all my fellow posters and Linux Gurus suggest: Windows only staff don't know how to run Linux.
It's suggested that we educate HR and IT recruiter about how valuable professionals with Linux skill are; even in a Windows environment so companies are ready for the migration to Linux when the time comes.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Assumptions...

Wolfie2K3 2nd Dec 2005

It's suggested that we educate HR and IT recruiter about how valuable professionals with Linux skill are; even in a Windows environment so companies are ready for the migration to Linux when the time comes.

That's ASSUMING that a migration WILL happen. Most of my clients (especially corporate clients) have no interest or desire or plans to migrate.

There's a LOT of something called INERTIA to overcome. Part of that inertia is the investment of time, money and training required to do a migration.

Who cares if the IT staff can do Linux in their sleep - especially if it's gonna cost a bundle to retrain the unwashed masses. Drastic changes tend to cut into production - far more than the occasional viral outbreak, spyware infestation and such. That means the people working on various projects will have to slow down and think about how their tools work and how to do stuff instead of just pounding it out in their familiar environment.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Familiarty breeds...

D T Schmitz 28th Nov 2005

Contempt!? wink

I support an AIX system with over 450 users hammering away daily 24x7.

It *rarely* requires any down-time, other than for software maintenance updates--but that's BIG IRON on a University campus--with a big price tag.

I don't have issues with Windows IT people, I have issues with Windows. But I won't go there.

For personal use, I prefer SuSE 10.0 because it approaches Windows XP in GUI usability (KDE) but is so similar to other Unix variants (AIX at work) that I am comfortable with it.

It is understandable that some might avoid it--but the Linux O/S Distros have sufficiently matured that you can spend most of your time away from the command-line terminal interface entirely and handle everything thru the GUI. That didn't use to be the case--and Linux still suffers from that lingering stigma--a misperception.

If you have time to invest and the interest, try to cultivate an understanding and give installing one of the Linux distros a shot.

In the worst case scenario, you'll hate Linux EVEN MORE! happy

Enuf of my Linux 'Flag Waving'.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Knowing Windows.

Anton Philidor 28th Nov 2005

On a pc, use StartRight and none of the programs you want to keep from starting will ever start again. Even if, like QuickTime, the program tries to restore itself to the startup list.

StartRight also allow variable intervals between programs, which can be very useful for troubleshooting.

It's free.

http://www.joejoesoft.com/

With so many users, problems with Windows happen to people who fix them. And the solutions are spread widely because of the huge potential audience.

The article mentioned servers, but I think the section describing problems with slow older hardware referred to a home box.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Do you hear what you're saying?

Haterock Davidsfather 29th Nov 2005

"With so many users, problems with Windows happen to people
who fix them. And the solutions are spread widely because of the
huge potential audience."

That's essentially the rationale behind OSS, except that in the case
of OSS, that audience can actually view the source code, fix bugs
and add enhancements instead of writing workaround programs in
an attempt to paper over a flawed product.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

One question ?

I'm Ye, the MS SHILL . 30th Nov 2005

Are you in anyway related to loverock davidson ? If you say you are , I have one thing to say . He was a mistake right .

"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates ?"

0 Votes

+ -

Flawed Assumption

toadlife 30th Nov 2005

The problem with your rosey open source scenario is that the vast majority of users of open source applications do not know how to program...thus they are in the same boat as users of closed systems when it comes to software bugs.

0 Votes

+ -

the vast majority of users

dmhunter@... 30th Nov 2005

While most users can't program, some of us can. And the difference between open source and closed source is that I don't have to depend on someone else "getting around" to fixing the problem. Some times I can get very speedy fixes, some times I can't. With closed source I don't have any options, with open source I do. I like options.

0 Votes

+ -

Not really

mosborne 3rd Dec 2005

The person who wrote the software referred to by Anton obviously was a programmer. That person can't do anything about how Windows operates, they can only make bandaids.

If it was open source, that person could possibly get their changes incorporated into the software itself. That's not a bandaid, but an actual fix.

The next non-programmer then doesn't have to try and find the bandaid anymore. Which is better?

0 Votes

+ -

How low do you fall and how cheap do you get for

zzz1234567890 30th Nov 2005

"What I've noticed is that Windows winds down hardware. As time goes by, patches and updates and upgrades and necessary applications load my box up with code that hogs my memory, and takes up CPU cycles, until the memory and cycles needed for new work magically disappear. Then you're supposed to replace the box, and over time buy new software.
It's a form of built-in obsolescence that has nothing to do with a PC's features becoming tired. The PC itself just becomes slow and clunky. The only way to extend its life, eventually, is to reload Windows itself. No way to spend a day, that. "

DO YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THIS CRAP THAT YOU WRITE.

If you are referring to defragmentation of the hard drive, all you got to do is run the defrag the hard drive. Dont tell me you dont know about this.

IN REALITY I THIHK YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS, but you want to create confusion among the AVERAGE JOE (not too literate about computer). Create FEAR, UNCERTAINITY about Windows and hopefully when they go to the store they buy a non Windows.

Like the title of my blog "How low do you fall and how cheap do you get" .
Didnt expect this from you.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

No, not fragmentation of the hard drive.

Sxooter_z 30th Nov 2005

I think he's talking about how programs slowly grow the registry, and other system resources, until everything you do is very slow, no matter how much defragging you do.

I'd almost forgotten about defragging. Seeing as how EVERY SINGLE UNIX MADE auto-defraggs or doesn't frag to start. How primitive of windows to need someone to do that to keep it happy.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Auto-defragging?

gjsherr 30th Nov 2005

A little more precisely, every single UNIX does not address fragmentation. The intelligence you are referring to is entirely present in the file system executive code. In nearly every UNIX, the file system executive is the component responsible for actually writing data.

However, fragmentation is not "actually" managed. An automatic defragmentation would be a background job that checks for excessive fragments and then deals with them. The file system executives all use a management technique that tries to prevent fragmentation before it gets going by using a table of extents to decide where to write things down. When you operate on a small file, and it gets bigger, the file itself is written to an empty extent in the medium-extent list (and the inodes used by the "small-extent" version are unmarked).

0 Votes

+ -

Registry does not slow down system performance to a crawl

zzz1234567890 13th Dec 2005

Most user implementations take 25MB.
Registry is not a creeper that keeps growing endlessly. Of course the more programs you install the larger your registry gets, but in no case does it slow your computer to a crawl.

Registry was designed to keep all configuration setting in one location. However it is a classic case of feature overkill (if that is the correct term)

0 Votes

+ -

Why don't you read before replying?

GaijinIT 21st Dec 2005

This is NOT about defragging a drive, but all the never-ending updates and fixes that Microsoft sends you forever and ever to repair all the mistakes they made getting their unfinished next generation of Windows to market without properly debugging it first.

If an update for a product like Windows was created by a software engineer working for an IT company did as poor a job as Gates & Co., he would be given his walking papers immediately.

If you think there is no collusion between Microsoft and hardware manufactures then you are more uninformed than your unfocused rambling indicates. The only way to allow people like Microsoft to get away with what they are doing is to bow down to the almighty dollars that they throw around and bury your head in the sand when they start telling customers 'buy only from us or else'.

If you want to really control your computing experience and get your money's worth from your investment, then learn Linux. And learn how to spell. If I were you, I would be hesitant about blogging if your writing and spellling skills are no better than this - you are just exposing your ignorance to the public.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Its pretty evident that you're the one whose rambling

zzz1234567890 1st Jan 2006

"This is NOT about defragging a drive, but all the never-ending updates and fixes that Microsoft sends you"

UPDATING SOFTWARE DOESNT SLOW DOWN YOU COMPUTER.

"If you think there is no collusion between Microsoft and hardware manufactures then you are more uninformed than your unfocused rambling indicates. The only way to allow people like Microsoft to get away with what they are doing is to bow down to the almighty dollars that they throw around and bury your head in the sand when they start telling customers 'buy only from us or else'."

STOP HALLUCINATING AND BLABBERING.
IF YOU KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT PROGRAMMING AND KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNALS ABOUT WINDOWS, OR ATLEAST HOW A COMPUTER FUNCTIONS YOU WOULDNT BE WRITING WHATEVER CAME TO YOUR MIND.

If you want to really control your computing experience and get your money's worth from your investment, then learn Linux. And learn how to spell. If I were you, I would be hesitant about blogging if your writing and spellling skills are no better than this - you are just exposing your ignorance to the public.

THAT MIGHT BE YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
I DOUBT IF PEOPLE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

0 Votes

+ -

Why no, it doesn't slow down your computer

Sabz5150 6th Jan 2006

It simply demands more and more CPU power and memory to do the same thing because code is stacked upon code that has been stacked upon code, so on and so forth.

Which in turn makes your computer run slower. All the new "features" that get added on with each service pack eat up more and more drive space, memory and cpu cycles.

Upgrade to Vista, you'll see what I mean.

0 Votes

+ -

I agree totally!

999ad@... 13th Jan 2006

'CaviteKalbo', you hit the nail on the head -- but we did
something about it. I run a small marketing firm (+/- 100
people) and the last WindowsXP-Pro box in my firm was
'mothballed' last week. Getting fed up with the constant stream
of issues relating to M$ back in 2003, I instituted a phase-out
and shift of all computing requirements to a mix of Linux and
Mac OSX, where best suited. We are fortunate that we can do
this -- some companies can't. Regardless, we've had no serious
issues with the switch over, and I for one, am glad to rid of the
Redmond Mess. As an unexpected bonus, I have found morale is
really up, as most of my employees are really 'getting into' their
first Mac experience. That, in and of itself, is a great value to
me. It's worth the trip.

0 Votes

+ -

Well, duh...

Shelby318 22nd Dec 2005

It's not crap, he's correct. Windows is buggy, poorly written software that does need to be re-installed on occasion (a major pain in the @#$). Otherwise it starts doing some really hinky stuff and crashes a lot.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to Disk Defragmenter-which doesn't cure all ills, as you seem to think. Wake up, YOU are the 'Average Joe' (computer illiterate)

Merry Christmas:-)

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

dont advertise your inabilities

zzz1234567890 1st Jan 2006

"Windows is buggy, poorly written software that does need to be re-installed on occasion (a major pain in the @#$). Otherwise it starts doing some really hinky stuff and crashes a lot.
"

Stop blaming Microsoft for your inability to
i) configure Windows
ii) install software

"hinky stuff and crashes a lot".
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO EVEN DESCRIBE A PROBLEM.

0 Votes

+ -

Get a clue

andrewjg 20th Jan 2006

You can defrag your computer to your hearts content, run Windows system cleanup etc, etc. After a while your registry seems to just get bogged down with all the apps you have tested which never uninstall cleanly or all the windows updates which register themselves build up. Even if you don't try a lot of software the computer just starts getting slow. When I help people with their XP boxes it is just sad the state these machines get into.

Bottom line for whatever reason Windows machines need to be rebuilt from time to time.

I have never used the same Linux box for longer than a month so I cannot comment on Linux.

My powerbook has been active for a year and the speed is the same. Did I mention there is no need to defrag a Mac.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Win vs. Lin

Qui-Gon_Gene 30th Nov 2005

Linux has it's benefits, like being extremely stable, that makes it great for internet servers, if you take the time and money to learn all the ins and outs of running a linux system, and making it happy. I think people are too hung up on "My OS is better than yours". The simple fact is, yes, Windows, as with a lot of stuff from Microsoft, has some serious issues. If you learn Windows, and use it responsibly, those issues can be managed without too much hassle. (Be sure you get the right third-party softwares, and don't let XP out without it's chaperone.) Simply put, Linux runs great web servers, but it has no place on home PC's, unless of course you're just an avid Linux junky who dosen't need any more functionality. Linux can't compete in the multimedia and gaming side of PC's. That's where Windows lives. And Macintosh rules the roost when it comes to multimedia editing and processing. Of course we could always bring up the subject of Macintosh for home PC's, which is what Microsoft really needs to be worried about competing with. (Or should I say TRYING to compete with. Good luck, Microsoft, you'll need it to compete with Mac.) But that's a whole other forum...

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

i get it now!

jbryant@... 30th Nov 2005

So the graphics and multimedia is created on Apple, stored on Linux, and viewed on Windows... all the children can play happily together!!!

Hmm i still prefer Linux for no other reason than it is more fun to play with, break, fix, break, break, break, and fix (hopefully ending with a fix, still a newby at linux happy

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

i get it now!

jbryant@... 30th Nov 2005

So the graphics and multimedia is created on Apple, stored on Linux, and viewed on Windows... all the children can play happily together!!!

Hmm i still prefer Linux for no other reason than it is more fun to play with, break, fix, break, break, break, and fix (hopefully ending with a fix, still a newby at linux happy

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Multimedia can be just as good

Steve Z 1st Dec 2005

If you are willing to put a little time into it, you can have just as much multimedia function as on Windows. It's not as easy as Windows, but within 5 minutes you could easily be playing all the major formats.

VLC is quite good at playing multimedia, and for anything that VLC doesn't pick up, use Mplayer.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Windows is a monopoly

TheTemple 30th Nov 2005

Most writers here are in denial. Windows is the only user interface for all non-IT people.
But I bet everyone that reads this remembers the possibilities when PCs took off. I remember the Computer Club at school buying the bits from "Radio Shack", and creating Deep Thought. (or something...)
That is the problem. The endless possibilities that were on the horizon are now subsumed by Windows. Nevermind! Bill Gates's single mindedness has brought computer use to the masses.
Windows is a monopoly, and that doesn't sit well with IT people. But believe me, I don't want to have to teach a range of OSes to the users in my department.

All the best.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Crashing memory hog, but...

Dukhalion 1st Dec 2005

I don't hate Windows as such, I hate Microsoft because they a) take too long to acknowledge and fix problems, b) release completely new versions before they have made the old ones work properly (does anyone actually want a Vista), and c) their (previous) misuse of their position as main OS producer.

Although WinXp is a bit more stable than it's predecessors, I still stick to Win98. That means that everytime I buy a new faster computer it really is a lot faster, as compared to upgrading both computer and OS, in which case the new Windows tends to use up all available resources until the computer is as slow as before the upgrade. And honestly, how many people really need all the new technology? Since USB (which Win98 supports) I haven't really seen any new NECESSARY technology emerge.

I hope that when Microsoft stops supporting Win98 completely, that they release the code to open source (yeah, big wish). That way some techwiz kids can fix the remaining issues with Win98 and it will remain the OS of choice for those who use computers mainly for ordinary work. After all, there are literally hundreds of millions of perfectly good old computers that will never be XP/Vista/etc-ready. Why throw away good hardware just because a software giant "tells" You to.

Strangely enough, I don't see Windows securityissues as neither a personal nor OS-related worry at all. A good thirdparty firewall and antivirus program has kept my computer completely safe for over 10 years, even though I use the internet on a daily basis.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Crashing memory hog, but...

Dukhalion 1st Dec 2005

I don't hate Windows as such, I hate Microsoft because they a) take too long to acknowledge and fix problems, b) release completely new versions before they have made the old ones work properly (does anyone actually want a Vista), and c) their (previous) misuse of their position as main OS producer.

Although WinXp is a bit more stable than it's predecessors, I still stick to Win98. That means that everytime I buy a new faster computer it really is a lot faster, as compared to upgrading both computer and OS, in which case the new Windows tends to use up all available resources until the computer is as slow as before the upgrade. And honestly, how many people really need all the new technology? Since USB (which Win98 supports) I haven't really seen any new NECESSARY technology emerge.

I hope that when Microsoft stops supporting Win98 completely, that they release the code to open source (yeah, big wish). That way some techwiz kids can fix the remaining issues with Win98 and it will remain the OS of choice for those who use computers mainly for ordinary work. After all, there are literally hundreds of millions of perfectly good old computers that will never be XP/Vista/etc-ready. Why throw away good hardware just because a software giant "tells" You to.

Strangely enough, I don't see Windows securityissues as neither a personal nor OS-related worry at all. A good thirdparty firewall and antivirus program has kept my computer completely safe for over 10 years, even though I use the internet on a daily basis.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I don't hate Windows, BUT

Betelgeuse58 1st Dec 2005

I DO Diss M$ because of their GREEDY business tactics and the lack of quality in their code requiring an exorbitant number of SOOOOOO MANY 'patches'.

I actually LIKE my Windoze X-tra P-i$$y Pro Office Suite!

I simply don't like M$'s business practices and all this lack of Quality Control resulting in all these 'vulnerabilities' making it easier for hackers/malware to ruin my system.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I don't hate Windows, BUT

CodeBubba 1st Dec 2005

I always find it interesting when people comment about M$ greedy business tactics as if they had somehow been the victim of such tactics. I've been developing code using Microsoft products and using their software ever since they were a 15 person operation (I guess right around 1982 or so).

Like any other company run by human beings, it certainly can have problems and is not perfect. In the 20+ years I've dealt with them, though, I haven't PERSONALLY had any dealings with them that led me to think that they use GREEDY business tactics, etc. My only exposure to their "tactics" has been the price tag on the cost of something I've bought from them. Windows XP Upgrade for $150 or something. Hey ... that AIN'T a lot of money! Try buying ANY product that was the result of so much raw labor and try to get it for that! The cost to develop a product such as XP is STAGGERING and required hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of hours. Put a product of Detroit with that much investment on the showroom floor and get it for a couple hundred bucks you will not!

Your comments show that you know little if anything about what it takes to quality-control such a product let alone what the quality of the "code" looks like. Have you ever seen their source code? I thought not. Your uneducated lathering exposes you very well.

It's too bad that this board has degenerated into such a M$ bashing forum. It used to be a place where professionals could come to observe and comment on technology trends. Go back to your trailer and have a six pack or something.

-CB wink

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

"Bubba"

btljooz 2nd Dec 2005

#1. Your name says it all plain

#2. I own Widoze so I have a RIGHT to diss it if I want!!! It's called Freedom of Speech! The fact that I may not have seen Windoze Source Code makes NO difference... It's the end PERFORMANCE of an O$ and/or Program that COUNTS!!!! Mega$ux is bashed because they GIVE REASON to be bashed. I suppose these facts are not able to be comprehended by someone whose only 'smarts' are BOOK smarts with NO common sense to go along with them...like YOU for instance!

#3. If you ARE so 'SMART' go WORK for Mega$ux!!! By your grammar, I doubt you're capable of that. plain

BTW: Something bought from 'Detroit' is covered under WARRENTY and if it causes HARM in ANY way Detroit PAY$ DEARLY! Detroit has NO CHOICE but to exercise PROPER Quality Control. wink

#4. It takes a LOT more to buy a NEW copy Win XP Pro than only $150 ...TRY close to $2000!!!!! Over pricing IS GREEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!! XP is only a reworked version of previous O$'s from M$. Vi$ta is ONLY a REworked version of XP plain

. You can't argue and win over THAT!!!

#5. $150 is a LOT of money when someone does NOT have it! THAT is why so many small businesses and home users are STILL using Win 98! The Government hasn't even gone past Win 2000!

#6. So Bubba, why don't YOU "Go back to your trailer and have a six pack or something."??? I don't live anywhere NEAR a Trailer Park. So I wouldn't know you. Therefore, do NOT infer that you know me in ANY way, shape or form! Just STFU and leave me ALONE!!! plain

0 Votes

+ -

and so does your name say a lot

zzz1234567890 13th Dec 2005

beetle juice (havent you been squashed like a bug).

0 Votes

+ -

"Bubba"

CodeBubba 15th Dec 2005

Nice rant. Feel better?

-CB wink

0 Votes

+ -

$2000?

Tech Merc 19th Dec 2005

#3 When something goes wrong with a vehicle, "Detroit" doesn't always pay dearly, if at all. For a recall to happen, the cost of a recall has to be less than the estimated cost of the lawsuits arising from the defect. They have some brilliant lawyers on staff that do their best to keep settlements down.
#4 Where are you finding Win XP Pro for two grand? I got mine for $250, and I've seen it for as low as $200.
#5 If $150 is a lot of money for something, don't pay it. Owning something is not a right. They charge what they do because they can, and they feel they deserve it. A lot of work went into making it work as well as it does. When you write your own operating system, I assume it will be flawless and free.

0 Votes

+ -

$2000?

Tech Merc 19th Dec 2005

#3 When something goes wrong with a vehicle, "Detroit" doesn't always pay dearly, if at all. For a recall to happen, the cost of a recall has to be less than the estimated cost of the lawsuits arising from the defect. They have some brilliant lawyers on staff that do their best to keep settlements down.
#4 Where are you finding Win XP Pro for two grand? I got mine for $250, and I've seen it for as low as $200.
#5 If $150 is a lot of money for something, don't pay it. Owning something is not a right. They charge what they do because they can, and they feel they deserve it. A lot of work went into making it work as well as it does. When you write your own operating system, I assume it will be flawless and free.

0 Votes

+ -

$2000: Betelgeuse's right!

PhilippeV 21st Dec 2005

Thinkabout thecost of upgrades! Not only the upgradewon'tworkasexpected, but your system willbe MUCH slower, with much less productivity. At end of exasperationyou have to buy a new PC, a new Windows licence with it, and also you have to buy again ALL youexisting software, due to:
- licence restrictions that won't allow you to run your existing softwares on the new replacement installation
- old softwares not compatible with the new version of Windows

Nowsuppose you buythe Windows upgrade only: don't even think that it will work on a newreplacement PC, only onyour existing installation.

Soin fine, you're required to buy again every 3 years:
* a new PC ~ $600 to $1000 with its builtin Windows licence. You may buy it online,but it'soften less expensive andmuchfaster to get it from a street retail store. At best, you add half a day for just this buy : ~ $150
* a new Office suite (upgrade impossible due to licence restriction) : ~ $150
* all your favorite tools (antivirus ans security, graphic apps) : about 5 times $50 = $250
* about 2 hours to perform the complete online system update : ~ $160
* several hourstrying to find again the correct set of drivers: ~ $300
* about a dozen full-time hours of hardwork trying to rebuild your work configuration, or to validate the licences : the Windows way to transfer your user settings to the newsystem is simply NOT working, given that you alsoneed to renew the softwares you used that can't be parametered the sameway on the past system : $4800 (this is, by far the MOST expensivepart of the upgrade, and the cost may even be higher if this requires prior training for the new version!).

Total cost of the upgrade: about $6600 every 3 years, so, yes this is more than $2000 each year! For home users, this is too much. Note that in addition, all your DRM-protected medias become unusable: you've lost all your favorite music and videos (andif you want to backup them by removing the DRMfor backing up, now you're a criminal, and you can be jailed 3 months, and pay more than EUR 300,000 in France!

Compare this to the upgrade cost on Linux: all components are replaceable isolately: the OS, the hardware, the software. Almost all most softwarecanbereused the sameway after upgrading to anewer version. You easily keep your user settings, which can easily be moved to an external archive during the upgrade.

And don't think about keeping your existing versionof Windows: softwaremakers for Windows have no otherchoice than requiring the support for the newer Windows, because Microsoft has stopped supporting the older versionafter 3 years (the support comes for professionals only at a MUCH higher price, because their solutionis not scaled for millions of customers);andif you don't upgrade,then it's your antivirus that will stop working, due to lack of updates and new threatswillmagically appear, targetting all users that have not upgraded.

The result is that LOTS of users continueto use unmaintained old versions, with no more scurity patch (except for a few ones that Microsoft alone judges that it is important, only because they address parts of the software used by professional users). Then millionsof PC are running outdated versions of Windows, full of unsupported security holes, and full of worms and spamware. They create huge traffic on the Internet, and everybody pays the expensive bill for the Internet access, thatgets slower over timeduetothe saturation of ISP's servers.

Everybody looses, except Microsoft which hascreated a captive market by provifing a OS that would not be functional without the unpublished APIs. Note that the development tools for Windows now stop working too oin the newer system, and updated development tools add their new set of system features that will build an application that canonly run on the newer system: Microsoft, with Visual Studio, uses viral technics to force software vendors to build apoplications that willl run on newer Windows versions.

If Microsoft was loyal, it woulduse a community processwith the Windows developers to specify how an extension will be implemented, and more vendors would collaborate to build the best solution that fits everyone's needs.

Whatever MS says, the TCO for Windows is very high, because Microsoft always ignores the cost of upgrades, and just focus low cost for new installations (i.e. new customers,before they become captive).

Put a single finger of your hand in the Microsoft universe, Microsoft will eat your two arms, and the clothes on it, and your spirit. Microsoft attempts to compare the cost of upgradefrom Windows to newer Windowswith the cost of upgrade from Windows to Unix/Linux, but never compares the cost ofmigration from Unix/Linux to another Unix/Linux.

Think about MacOSX: this is for home users the BEST OS ever done: you pay a bit more the first time, but you keep most of your software, your existing training, you need much lesscostly utilities to make it workable and secure out of the box. If you are bit trained with technic, you'll pay a bit less with Linux, or nearly nothing if you manage your system yourself: you are given the choice as much as possible.

There are cost effective solutions for home users now in the Linux universe (including at Red Hat, if you don't think about its professional editions for mission-critical applications, whose pricing is not basedonthe software itself, but on its first-grade maintenance, unlike the basic remote support with "do-it-yourself" downloads and installations; Microsoft's support of home users is minimalist,with nobody directly in front of you to solve yourown problems).

0 Votes

+ -

$2000? Are you kidding?

RayeKinezono 21st Dec 2005

Who goes out an buys a new computer with each new version of Windows?

Also, who replaces their computer every two years?

That's just a lack of common sense, and a waste of money.

When I upgraded to XP Pro, it only cost me $350. ($250 for XP and about $100 for a new stick or memory) I had it running on an old AMD Athlon 700mhz. And it beat the pants off of a 1Ghz with the smae specs that someone had just bought brand now.

When I run my computers, I don't just wait two years an upgrade all at once. I ran that 700mhz for almost six years before I upgraded to XP.

It finally gave out at the beginning of '05. I just rebuilt the computer from scratch with new parts (for only $600--the deals -ARE- out there, you just have to look for them and do your homework on them), mirrored the old drive to the new one, called Microsoft's 24hr line (at 3am, no less) re-activated and I was up and running again. All my programs still worked, and everything transferred over perfectly. I didn't have to pay any exorbitant license fees or buy any new programs.

Hell, I still use Office 2000. It may not have all the bells and whistles that the later versions do, but it works for me, and does exactly what I need it to do.

Now I run an Athlon 64 3800+ with enough horsepower to run down my friend's newly bought Intel (he chose to buy new, while I went the build-it-yourself route, and it cost him $2600 to do it) machine.

The only thing that I really keep on top of actually doing the moment it's available is my updates. Other than that, I may wait a year or two (or three or four, depending on the case) to upgrade any specific program, because sometimes the older versions actually worked better.

Only a person looking to make money off of you would suggest to upgrade all your programs when you upgrade the OS. That's merchandising bunk. I'll upgrade when I feel necessary. Not when some computer technician say so. I know my computer, and all it's nuances, because I built it myself. He doesn't.

0 Votes

+ -

Dude! Too Much Ritalin!

horusfalcon 22nd Dec 2005

Chill, man... this ain't no-how worth it. Ease up on the pep pills. Really.

Reserve that Acme Blowtorch (pat. pending) for someone who richly deserves it. I don't think, personally, that you and Bubba are all that different from each other.

Y'all need to relax and both go have a bouncy bubbly beverage or maybe some eggnog. I'm living in a trailer presently (can you say Hurricane Katrina? I knew you could...) and I can tell you from personal experience that this argument is a time sink. It's not going anywhere.

I like Linux. I have my reasons. You like Microsoft, and I'm sure you have your reasons. Bubba likes to code for Microsoft, so what's the big deal? My kids run Windows, but I'm not all broke up about it - I just fix it when it breaks like I do everything else (including my wife's Linux machine). It keeps my hands from going crazy.

To quote someone famous (was it Rodney King?) "why can't we all just get along?"

0 Votes

+ -

ahh have you actually SEEN "Detroit"??

Yeah-OK 10th Feb 2006

if you've been there or know even a little of anything about Detroit, you'd know that yeah... they ARE paying DEARLY. that city is DEAD. most of the buildings are vacant and crumbling to the ground, or they're demolished leaving an emply lot! hahaha

who knows maybe that will be microsoft someday! who knows!!! time will tell

0 Votes

+ -

What about Greedy Linux publishers?

spiv 21st Dec 2005

Funny thing, nobody writes about the greedy Linux publishers that charge $50 for a Linux distro. that's a huge ripoff for a cardboard box and a CD which contains an ISO image you can download for free.

Isn't Linux free? Then why does everybody BUY it for $50. And what about RedHat? They charge thousands and thousands for "FREE" linux.

If Linux is so great, and solves all the world's problems, why are most people dummies that can't download an ISO themselves and instead shell out $50 or more to all those greedy linux comnpanies that just repackage someone else's work and charge money for it?

At least Microsoft charges a small price for their software - software THEY developed, they wrote, and they support.

Look at the cost of any single-function utility such as a virus scanner, disk defrag, calendar maker, et. al.

Most are $50 to $100 yet compare all the functionality in Windows for about the same amount of money - - huge difference.

Sure, you can dislike Windows, but don't call them greedy.

0 Votes

+ -

Greed is a relative thing...

horusfalcon 22nd Dec 2005

Your first complaint is that Linux distributors "rip off" the consumer by charging for the work of others? Most, if not all, Linux vendors actually contribute to the body of work that is Linux. Red Hat, just to mention one, gives back a lot in terms of GPL'd code for utilities, toolkits and such.

Novell has stepped up to the plate with patents, as has IBM.

Besides all that: you usually get a nice set of disks and BOOKS with any Linux distro you buy. That and a limited amount of technical support. That might be worth a paltry $79.99 (the going price for Red Hat Linux 9.0 when it came out).

You mention Red Hat charging "thousands and thousands" of dollars for something available for free? What's not free is the support Red Hat puts behind that particular product, an Enterprise level Linux distribution geared toward professional and production environments, *not* Joe User who wants a desktop system.

Have you ever *used* Red Hat Enterprise Linux? If not, what basis have you for complaining about it?

As for your assessment of "most people's" intelligence (or lack thereof), look in the mirror. Your comments concerning the alleged stupidity of other people do you and everyone here a disservice.

Finally, I'll quote just a snippet:

At least Microsoft charges a small price for their software - software THEY developed, they wrote, and they support.

Right... like MS-DOS, which they BOUGHT from Seattle Computer Products, like DoubleSpace, which they outright STOLE from Stac Electronics, like the TCP/IP stack in Windows NT which they lifted whole cloth from BSD, like Internet Explorer, which started life as the Spyglass web browser developed by NCSA, like, Kerberos, which they have extended beyond the open standard on which it was based to make it incompatible with anyone else's implementation, like... oh, you can see where I'm going with this, I hope.

And your point about "single-function" utilities? Please. Linux has more utilities than you can shake a joystick at. They are all free (and many are included in any distro you might download or (gasp) buy!)

It's your money. Spend it how you like.

0 Votes

+ -

What planet do you live on?

GaijinIT 21st Dec 2005

Microsoft has been sued by nearly every rival software producer and half of the governments in the world for their refusal to stop creating monopolistic products and practices.

Do I think they were out of line refusing to 'unbundle' IE from Windows XP? No. It's their product, who says they have to open it up so other browser designers can ride their boat?

If consumers don't want to use IE, they don't have to, just install the browser you want, set it as the default, and you're good to go. (Just don't try to download anything from a MIcrosoft site!)

But when the courts ruled against them, Bill Gates just laughed about the multiple-million dollar fine, saying MS's daily income was more than that, so they couldn't care less and had no intention of complying with the court's orders.

Publicly displaying contempt for the court system is not right, no one is above the law, no matter how much money they have.

I personally know of many times when my IT manager friends charged with systems and software procurement for telecom companies in Asia were told by Microsoft salesmen that if they signed a contract with Microsoft they must also agree not to buy ANY functionally equivalent software from other vendors, or Microsoft would stop selling them ANYTHING. THIS is Gates & Microsoft at its best (worst?) Market manipulation through extortion. Lucky Luciano would have been proud.

As for the investment costs in developing a product, sure it costs a lot, but they have the money (OBSCENE profit margin) and the people to do it, and should be able to do a better job of it instead of: 1) Each new version of Windows is just a make-over of the old one with stolen 'me too' ideas from other companies cobbled onto it, 2) so inefficiently coded that it slows down even the fastest new hardware to the level of what old hardware you had before upgrading (think 'bloatware'), and 3)legions of hackers, pirates, and other thieves lining up, rubbing their dirty little hands in glee, waiting to get at it to take advantage of all the security holes its window to the world (IE) has so they can rip people off.

So many people say Gates & Co. may not be a great software innovator, but is an unparalleled marketer. I think that finding out new ways to circumvent the law to sell other people's technology by financial blackmail is not innovative, just dishonest.

You tell Code Bubba to go have a six-pack, my advice to you is get your head out of your a** and read a newspaper once in a while. IT is not a world unto itself, but one that is influenced by the financial and technical world every day, and we would all hope that means new horizons, not limitations to the choices we have.

0 Votes

+ -

Remove IE?? HOW ???

pkrdk 2nd Jan 2006

"If consumers don't want to use IE, they don't have to, just install the browser you want, set it as the default, and you're good to go. (Just don't try to download anything from a MIcrosoft site!)"
You can "remove acces to Internet Explorer from the menu and task bar", that is NOT uninstalling it. All the code still exist on your system, ready to be initated by you - or anybody else taking advantage of the zillions of security holes in it. Thinking of all the fixes made to IE, then one can wonder and as "What did they give us in the first release?, Something from a big PC SW supplier - or something thrown together by 2 script kiddies in an attice?
The abstract in many fixes state ttttttat you are vulnerabkle to attack unless the fix is installed, even if you use another browser.
This is one of the main problems with MS, the trowing together of eveything in one big tangled bundle that they even can't figure out themselves anymore. Developing and fixing by hit-and-miss method.

0 Votes

+ -

I agree

dshifflett_z 18th Jan 2006

CB,

I agree with your statements here. I love building high-end gaming machines. While I certainly don't like everything about Windows XP, it always affords me the freedom to choose which hardware I want to use to run it. I can confidently choose any configuration of "IBM/PC" compatible hardware and Windows will run on it. If Mac OS/X were the dominant OS, as it stands now, I would be forced to purchase an Apple machine to run it. While they are fantastic machines, it would drive me nuts not being able to upgrade much of the hardware if I wanted to. In my opinion you get quite a bit of functionality for your $150. Sure it's not perfect, but what software is?

0 Votes

+ -

Some of us have been victims.

rsteiner@... 10th Mar 2006

I don't hate Windows, BUT I always find it interesting when people comment about M$ greedy business tactics as if they had somehow been the victim of such tactics.

Well, speaking as a former WordPerfect and AmiPro user, a former PC/GEOS (Geoworks Ensemble) user, a former BeOS user, and a long-time and current OS/2 and Linux user (as well as Lotus SmartSuite and StarOffice user), I've found myself adversely impacted by Microsoft's business tactics on a fair number of occasions over the past 17-18 years.

When an application that I've grown to like and depend on is killed because of Microsoft's pushing of an inferior-but-bundled workalike, my ability to do work and exchange it with others is harmed.

When a platform I use starts losing developers and hardware support (or never gains enough) due to Microsoft's pressuring of vendors or ISVs, by ability to continue to work with that platform is harmed.

When I am told by my IT department or management to stop using the technical documentation tool that I've become used to and replace it with some element of Microsoft Office, my ability to do some aspects of my work is harmed.

When web sites that I want to use are not usable on my platform of choice because the folks creating those web sites have a hard-coded check for MSIE [or (worse) require things which are Windows- or IE-centric], my ability to use the web is harmed.

How many examples do you need?

0 Votes

+ -

Why should I love it?

kvo 1st Dec 2005

I have strong impression that people that like Windows have some special mentality -- they are ready spend days for fixing it, patching it, struggling with spyware, worms, viruses etc, with frequent reinstalls. In addition, they will try new programs all the time. They don't accept the style of work with the system, when you installed it and are living with it, permanently improving it, for years.

I can call this 'playing'. It isn't any normal or productive job.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Mistaken Impressions...

Wolfie2K3 2nd Dec 2005

I have strong impression that people that like Windows have some special mentality -- they are ready spend days for fixing it, patching it, struggling with spyware, worms, viruses etc, with frequent reinstalls. In addition, they will try new programs all the time. They don't accept the style of work with the system, when you installed it and are living with it, permanently improving it, for years.

These are all misconceptions that the Linux devotees seem to enjoy perpetuating. They're myths.

1.) My Windows XP box is up 24/7. I typically leave it up and running and it gets the occasional reboot as needed - maybe once every few weeks.

2.) I don't spend days fixing, patching nor struggling with viruses and spyware.

The ONLY exception to this when I upgraded both hard drives, where I replaced the 20 GB boot drive with a larger one and replaced the 2nd 80 GB hard drive with a larger model. It did take a couple of HOURS to copy the nearly 20 GB worth of data from the old drive to the new one. And likewise, it took quite a few HOURS to copy the 60 odd GB on the other one over. I doubt Linux would have been any faster given I used a drive copy utility that runs on it's own flavor of DOS.

3.) Windows was installed on this machine a total of ONCE. That was almost 3 yrs ago. Have yet to see a need to reinstall it.

4.) My Antivirus auto-updates a few times per day. Don't have to waste even a second on it. Don't even notice it happening.

5.) I try to use common sense when going through my e-mail. I look at everything I get - especially from someone I don't immmediately recognize - with a healthy dose of skepticism.

For instance:

Would the FBI/CIA/KGB/MI5/Interpol/Homeland Security REALLY send me a questionaire if they felt that I went to "illegal" web sites..? HECK NO! The stormtroopers would be busting down my front door with battering rams! At the very least, they'd be waiting for me outside the front door to nab me as I stepped out. That is, IF the alleged crime was heinous enough to even show up on their radar.

Nor do I think a 75 KB file is going to show me much, if anything of Paris Hilton. That's maybe a few seconds worth of poor quality WMV file at best. Not that I really even have THAT much of an interest in her. There are far better looking women that are less skanky out there.

In short, though I may get a few dozen copies of virus laden e-mail, they never get opened and I don't get infected. I don't visit web sites with questionable reputations.

All in all, I manage to get all my work done an get in a few hours of gaming time afterwards.

As far as new programs go - I only add stuff when and IF I need something. And I'm fairly picky about what gets added.

So what's the big deal?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I usually don't have any good..............

magpie_z 22nd Dec 2005

Laughs when I am told that Win XP constantly crashes, freezes, blue screens, slows down, talks trash to me, etc. because good humor is actually based on reality. The drivel that comes from many of the people on this board are, well, really boring with their rants.

My personal system has been up and running for two years on the same install on XP Pro. Where I find problems is when I add programs to my system that have not been properly written or did not properly recognize the existence of other programs that cause a really bad reaction.

Is this the fault of the OS, nope, just a goof up on the side of the company that wrote the program. Can they catch all of the faults, nope, too many variations of installed software and utilities that give everyone the occasional surprise. Are there exploits and flaws found in the system, yup, but the script kiddies are not the ones that find them, it is usually companies whose jobs are to find the weaknesses. And the standing agreement between these companies and Microsoft is to allow MS to develope a fix within a set period of time then the company that found the flaw gets to make the announcement of the discovery. Malcontents get the news, look to exploit it, write code/programs/trojans and distribute. Hopefully, people using OS have auto updates on, current anti-virus, and firewall, along with Anti-Spyware. If not then they become a statistic, and all of the finger pointers exclaim what a terrible company MS is, sheesh.

I do not have time to tinker with my OS, nor do I care too, I pay other people to write a decent product that will install and function properly. I do not care if I can tweak it because that is not generating any income for me playing with the GD OS.

So, when Linux people will bring to market a product that costs appx 100 to 200 dollars that will automatically update all patches and give me free protection and new players, and give me a way to just hook up my digital movie camera and let me start editing in less than five minutes, and develope an online database that is specific to my OS and all the other programs that work with it, and send me free t-shirts (just kidding on the t's) and give me free meals when they want to talk to me, and offer me an opportunity to help develope my business, and support those that I implement there products into other customers businesses............then I will install linux.

Until then stay clear, since all that I have seen from these ramblings is the screaming of malcontents not unlike those that riot in the streets delaring the WTO is trying to take over free countries and enslave all in the world.

Oh, Yeah!

Happy Holiday, and Merry Christmas.

0 Votes

+ -

This why they hate Windows

voska 16th Dec 2005

Anytime they lose data because of Windows (be it Windows, the application or hardware) the OS gets blamed and the seeds of hate are sown. Anytime frustration while using Windows occurs (be it Windows, the application or hardware) then the OS is blamed and more seeds of hate are sown. Then have Microsoft screw you over with things like upgradeing Window 98SE to Windows ME expecting a user version of W2K (even though this the users fault for not researching) that sows more seeds of hate.

Now since a majority of users use Microsoft OSes that breeds a lot of users hating Microsoft. The OS doesn't really matter however. If the harddrive goes flaky on Linux enough times hate for Linux will occur.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Never cease to amaze

cmoya 21st Dec 2005

They really gotta stop giving people like this credibility to "blog." First off... no one installs any of the software you mention on Windows Server... so Windows Server does NOT slow down over time. EVER. You talk about IM Clients and desktop apps and then go on to say "The best way to slow them down I've found is to turn the computer off regularly, so I would never run a Windows server if I expected 24-7 service."

This is Orwellian advocacy logic. Do you get paid to make these statements? Are you the type of "idiot" that you mention in your last paragrpah that installs IM clients on a Server machine? Or how about Limeware and BitComet and stuff like that? Sheesh!

Does Windows get bloated as users install all sorts of stuff on it? Yes! And, if Linux had the humongous little and not-so-little must-have trinket apps that Windows (laymen) users like to download and install... Linux would get bloated and slow too. Fact is Linux doesn't. (Oh wait... OpenOffice- probably the most BLOATED and SLOW app I have ever run across does exist for Linux... but would you run that on a Linux SERVER).

To quote Tom Cruise: You're glib, man!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Not exactly right

Sxooter_z 21st Dec 2005

Linux distros, as well as almost all other unix based OSes, have these things called "package managers"

Pakage Managers keep track of EVERY file an application installs, and let you remove EVERY file that application installed when you uninstall it.

Windows does not do this. It is not uncommon in windows to install a new package, and have it's dlls overwrite the ones already there, and then when you uninstall it, the new, buggy dll is still in place.

In unix, an application will not be allowed to do this, because the package manager won't let it (unless you have a tar tar moment and actually tell it to do so, at which point, well, ain't the OSes fault for the guy who learned just enough to screw things up...)

Seriously, the overall problem with windows is that that things like dll hell, and bloat over time are allowed because there is not "gate keeper" to make sure that things get installed and uninstalled properly, and part of what leads to this issue is that Windows was designed piecemeal to add one thing after another on top of an already creaky foundation, with little or no forethought to maintainability.

Each new version gets a little better, but backwards compatibility has been a rather heavy ting around the neck of the MS OS developers.

Maintaining the win95 code base for a long time didn't help their situation either.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Wait.. LOL wut?

Suicida| 18th May 2009

"It doesn?t. Not really. These things persist. You turn them off and they come back on, like viruses. Anti-viral monitors, monitor monitors, Java monitors, Microsoft FindFast, Skype and Google Talk and Windows Messenger clients. They?re taking up memory, and running processes, whether they?re doing anything or not."

You are talking about applications that YOU install.

I learned long ago where windows stores its autostart values, there are 4 locations:

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

%ALLUSERSPROFILE%\Start Menu\Programs\Startup
%USERPROFILE%\Start Menu\Programs\Startup

Remember those locations, check them any time you install and update applications and you wont have these problems.

You also need to worry about services, run services.msc and check for things you dont use or need and set them to manual.

One of the things that pisses me off the most with Windows is that every developer out there seems to think that their app is so important that it must start every time windows does, where in reality it really does not need to.

The other thing I really hate is the .net virus of inefficient code and dependency hell that has become windows.