04-09-2003 20:49									#1
	Why Do Geeks Get All Irate About Microsoft? Suffering from ads?

I've never seen the big problem with Microsoft.

The computer world is far better served by one operator than a multitude of competing ones.

	04-09-2003 20:50									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yeah, they probably taught you how bad competition is on your economics course.

	04-09-2003 20:51									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

He never understood any of his econ material

	04-09-2003 20:52									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Competition isn't always beneficial. Just like competition isn't beneficial between right- and left-hand drive cars, between different widths of railway track, or between operating systems.

	04-09-2003 20:52									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

you answered your won question Park

why do GEEKS get all irate about MS?

	04-09-2003 20:59									#6
	Got spare money?

Competition serves as a kick up the ass for both systems, increasing quality at both ends. It most certainly is good. As long as any competing systems use the same protocals so they can communicate, I think its a good thing.

	04-09-2003 21:01									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Competition is good, but in case of computers, it benefits the standard user that MS have a monopoly and their software is all over the world.

There are geeks who respect MS, you know .

	04-09-2003 21:07									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

*ahem*

Attachment: troll-with-an-attitude.jpg
This has been downloaded 173 time(s).

	04-09-2003 21:10									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Naw, geeks hate MS because Gates is the ubergeek, and everyone else is just jealous...

	04-09-2003 21:13									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I thought that was an anti-BSD pic for a sec!

	04-09-2003 21:15									#11
	Support Apolyton

Microsoft is hated widely by geeks for any of the following reasons, usually:
1) They tried and didn't get hired by MS
2) They're open source zealots
3) Personal jealousy of Bill Gates
4) Communist (redundant with #2 )
5) They're fundamentally pretty slow geeks, because they honestly believe having lots of OSes is somehow good for the consumer.

Either way you look at it, they're always fun to bug. Most of them tend to be lowly network technicians or something else that has the same stature as a gas jockey in the computer world.

	04-09-2003 21:16									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Microsoft products have their place, the really stupid IT people are the ones that only look to M$ to solve their problems when in the real world there are a lot of things that M$ doesn't have products for.

	04-09-2003 21:17									#13
	Suffering from ads?

I too dont see what the big deal with microsoft is. I dont like the bugs, but every program has bugs and it better to have a standarize OS then millions of different ones.

	04-09-2003 21:18									#14
	Tired of ads?

Get a life Asher j/k

I think, in terms of the market and product quality, there to be say two, three or four different desktop OS's with equal share (though we'll probably have to wait until at least 2008 for that). That way, the product quality will increase. So MS's profits will decrease, I wont shed any tears, I dont give a damn. As long as the system on my computer is good and getting better, I'm happy.

	04-09-2003 21:22									#15
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by elijah Get a life Asher j/k I think, in terms of the market and product quality, there to be say two, three or four different desktop OS's with equal share (though we'll probably have to wait until at least 2008 for that). That way, the product quality will increase. So MS's profits will decrease, I wont shed any tears, I dont give a damn. As long as the system on my computer is good and getting better, I'm happy.

3 or 4 OS systems?? That would a big pain in ass for everyone involve. It makes life easier on every one when there is one OS. This would be a nightmare.

	04-09-2003 21:24									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Be better if people had OSes designed for what they want to use the computer for rather than a jack of all trades, master of none.

	04-09-2003 21:26									#17
	Suffering from ads?

Like I said, not if they all use the same protocals so they can talk to each other or swap documents. MS Office for all OS's would obviously be the case there, as if 10/20% of people use linux or BSD, thats money.

File formats are a relatively small hurdle, and thats pretty much the only thing that is a barrier to interoperability.

	04-09-2003 21:33									#18
	Suffering from ads?

The problem with that approach is it'd turn out like OpenGL, and become effectively useless.

In order to actually use new technology, manufacturers add extensions to OpenGL. DirectX, a proprietary technology, is leaps and bounds more advanced than OpenGL is right now because of it.

The exact same thing would happen with OSes if you had a standardized layer. And even then, each OS would be implemented differently and thus behave differently.

It would cost a lot more, take a lot more time to develop for, and stagnate technological growth.

	04-09-2003 21:41									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

no, i like microsoft.

the only true evil in this world is aol.

	04-09-2003 21:42									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Linux and Windows can already share file formats.

	04-09-2003 21:45									#21
	Got spare money?

File formats are trivial, the problem is application compatibility.

	04-09-2003 22:36									#22
	Support Apolyton

I dont think those of you who wish the death of Microsoft really know how made things would be with 3 or 4 OS running around and how much the cost of programms that would run on all 4 OS would go up and the time it would take to program and develope the software for 4 different OS.

	04-09-2003 22:38									#23
	Tired of ads?

My beef with microsoft isn't that they have a monopoly per se, but that they concentrate so much on being idiot-proof that they wind up with software designed with idiots in mind, that takes the shortcuts and gives the "helpful hints" desired by people who don't know what they're doing, and those features are almost impossible to dispose of. The monopoly is only objectionable insofar as it makes their hand-holding pretty much universal...
But I'm not a real "computer geek"

	04-09-2003 22:39									#24
	Support Apolyton

and we're off to the races!

	04-09-2003 22:45									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Competition is NOT always beneficial. There are some markets that can most benefically be served by a monopoly.

	04-09-2003 22:56									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Elok My beef with microsoft isn't that they have a monopoly per se, but that they concentrate so much on being idiot-proof that they wind up with software designed with idiots in mind, that takes the shortcuts and gives the "helpful hints" desired by people who don't know what they're doing, and those features are almost impossible to dispose of.

I would disagree, seeing as I've disposes of them on my XP Pro installation a lonnng time ago.

Most Windows users appreciate being treated like they don't know what they're doing. Because, well, they don't.

	04-09-2003 23:47									#27
	Tired of ads?

Asher:

Perhaps 3/4 is a little much. We need two perhaps, one major system like windows with, say 80% of the market and Linux with, say 15-20%. They would both bounce off each other to make each other better. We cant deny that windows has got a hell of a lot better since competition started rearing its ugly head.

I'm like any consumer. I want better products at a cheaper price. Competition is the way to do that, because left to itsely, a monopoly is inclined otherwise... it needs a kick up the arse to be consumer-orientated. If a system gets to that stage (15-20%) then the dominant firm will be forced to provide programs like office suites etc ported to that platform. After all, theres profit to be had!

Standards will inevitably follow if there is a demand. Of course, if there are 10 systems with an equitable share, then there will be a problem. But thats too much, we can have competition the way I specified.

	04-09-2003 23:53									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Frankly I think Windows is very reasonably priced. It's on a 5 year lifecycle now...2001 was XP, 2006 will be Longhorn.

It'll cost about $100US every 5 years to upgrade, for the most complex software you have on your computer, and software that literally runs every time you turn on your computer.

Compare that with Apple which charges $120US every 1 - 1 1/2 years for an upgrade.

	05-09-2003 00:10									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

compared to linux which charges.... JK

Yeah, that is pretty good, but then, after five years, your going to buy a new box anyway. I intent to buy a new machine about 6 months - 1 year after longhorn is released.

Incidentally, isn't XP the old greek for Christ?

	05-09-2003 00:15									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You can use that copy of Windows on your new box, if you get one.