Here's my 2 cents:
 
My biggest gripe about Win2k and XP is that the options of what apps go in are extremely limited---something that was enjoyed with Windows 9x. I would like to not have that stupid Windows messenger (I have gotten directions on how to remove the damned thing here, tho) nor the worthless Movie Maker.
IE ownz. OE ownz. They work very well, and I see no reason not to use either one. Nutscrape blows chunks.
As much as I don't like certain aspects of Microsoft, I have yet to find a better alternative.
Microsoft has conducted legal business practices and has come out on top. Companies like Nutscrape are pissed because they are not in MS postition. If you want the truth that's it. It's not about the consumer being better off, it's because people do not understand anything like competition. It's sad when being a successful company is viewed as being an evil corporation that is out to take over the world and screw us all. I prefer to think the US government is doing a fine job of screwing us, but not MS. I enjoy MS jokes, but I don't see them as an evil corporation. Bill Gates has worked for this--a very foreign concept to a sizeable portion of the US. Gates should be allowed to reap a full harvest, as he has earned it. Yet, the company that he founded is being maligned for doing business and not having competitors that want to work. Instead they ***** and file a lawsuit because they cannot come up with a better product.
 
I stand beside BladeRunner in his views if you don't get the hint. If you don't like any Microsoft products, DON'T USE THEM!!!!

I have decided that repeating ones self gets a little bit boring.
I think I'm as guilty of this as anybody, it just annoys me that no matter how many times things are repeated they do go ignored.
I shall just defend my character, usually I don't really mind attacks on my character, it's up to the individual if they wish to do something like that, the fact you are more or less anonymous on the Internet allows you to attack people without real fear of reprisal.
 
Ah Salesman. Read expert at lying / low-life
 
The main reason I left selling PC's is because I was too honest and attempted to cut the cost to customers at any point I could.
When I started selling PC's the 386 was coming to the end of it's life and the 486 SX25 was the processor to own.
I found that I could not work towards sales figures and sell PC's at all cost because after my sales pitch I had usually ended up selling the customer the cheapest PC. That is all they needed however my sales-team boss would rather I had bumped them up to a higher model.
If I could discount I did.
I will not be called either a lier or a low-life, neither of those descriptions fitted when I was a salesperson and they certainly do not fit me now I'm a Systems Administrator.
 
That is all I really wanted to add at this point, I think I've made my case very clear.
It is strange, people always get really confused when somebody defends MS.
They first usually accuse you of working for MS - I'm sorry but if I was employed by MS I probably wouldn't have the time to take part in forum's like this and my contract would probably not allow me to enter into discussions of this nature.
Then they tell you that you are "brainwashed" or it's because your "job depends on it".
 
At the moment my current job is predominantly Microsoft based.
However I am Novell qualified and my last job was at a Novell site.
Sure the workstations were still MS, but the servers were Novell ones.
I also have a working knowledge of Linux, I need that for my current job, as I said a post or so ago about 25-30% of our servers/workstations are Linux and I need to be able to support these as well as I do so the MS ones.
 
I defend MS because I work with their products on a daily basis.
I work in the computer industry where all this anti-Microsoft rubbish isn't actually all that common.
It's only the Linux boys and "fan-sites" that attack MS on a daily basis, all the contacts I have in the industry just sit back and laugh when we read the latest "Anti-MS slogan" or similar and then get on with our work.
Sure we all have days when we shout "bloody Microsoft" or "Bloody pile of crap Windows" but everybody has a bad day.
I certainly do not consider myself lazy, if I were then I would not be working in the position I am doing now.
 
I'm sorry if you do not like Microsoft or Windows.
That is truely your prerogative.
However if you are just "jumping on the bandwagon" then I pitty you once you do get into the industry, a closed totally anti-MS mind will not allow you to climb anywhere.
An IT Manager for example has to be able to objectively look at all solutions available and choose the best based on it's merits.
He/She doesn't sit back and say "Well we wont choose that one, it's an MS solution".
 
I'm not going to try and sound all important, well actually maybe I will because I have the qualifications and position in the industry.
I'm afraid you are lacking knowledge in some key areas (saying WinNT 4 being no different to Win2k for example when it was a total code re-write).
I shall not argue with you any more, I shall post if you decide to attack my character again, but I've read the points you've gone over and indeed I have read each and every one of your posts in this thread and I can see nothing that truely counters the points I've made.
So your oportunity lies ahead, as long as your post doesn't contain an attack on my character you can get the last word in!!

Quote:

SUN are a bigger bunch of crooks than Microsoft, yet everybody loves them because "they are anti-Microsoft".
I wonder where we truely would be right now with respect to OS's in general if Microsoft hadn't done what they have done.

Okay BladeRunner, thanks for the last word.

Can you explain (this is the THIRD time I've asked you this) when and how SUN have been the bigger bunch of crooks ??


;(

Unfortunately this debate is likely to rage from now until the end of time, in much the same way that the Intel v AMD wars rage on.
 
There is no clear desicive outcome.
 
Microsoft Operating Systems and applications are the cornerstone of most businesses throughout the world. These business are also trying to make money. If they could lose from the budget sheet the annual spend on software and hardware upgrades, they would. The fact that they keep buying MS products means that they are the best tools for the job.
 
There are plenty of other office suites that run on various platforms, and they mostly offer compatibility with MS Office file versions, but are they in use in large organisations? No.
 
There are various factors as to why this could be including the amount of time/money involved in retraining, but if it offered long term benefits, do you not think that companies would move over to these other prodcuts?
 
The fact that they haven't speaks volumes. Yes, there are some jobs that I wouldn't trust to a Windows server (such as 24/7 web serving on a very active site), but there are plenty of others who do.
 
At the end of the day you pick the tools that suit the job you are going to be doing. At the moment the best tools for the job (as far as Operating Systems on desktop and mid-range servers are concerned) are supplied MS.
 
On the CPU side, we have AMD to fight Intel. Some of these fights they win, some they lose, but until an AMD of the software world appears (and can take on MS on the OS and application front), this battle will rage, and MS will continue to be seen as the bad boy by many.
 
Linux may be OK for some, but it isn't ready for prime time. When you can walk into your local PC shop, pick up a PC with Linux installed, and be able to talk to someone on the end of a phone who can help you out, then maybe more than just the tech-heads will be prepared to look at it. But until then, the best bet for home and business users is Microsoft.
 
The fact that 3D Studio Max (a major piece of software in use by companies with plenty of money) is in use on Windows platforms speaks volumes. If there was a viable market for a Linux version, do you not think that one would have been produced?
 
Sorry if this sounds like an 'I love MS' rant, but at the moment, I don't see any viable alternatives.

Quote:
What I mean is explain yourself in a mature manner. Namecalling and yelling at people will not get anyone to take you seriously. You're just branded as "another bored 13 year old to be ignored."Exactly.Quote:Here, pay close attention, let me show you:

Sorry Alien, but all that method does is remove access to IE via shortcuts. It removes your shortcuts to it. The little description at the bottom of the window tells you this when you highlight that option. IE has been highly integrated into Windows and is a requirement for Active Desktop, many Windows Explorer functions, etc. You could find other ways to remove IE, but it would cause much more trouble than it's worth.

See how easy it is to be an adult pilsner_head? Thankyou for your politeness, having checked again I see that you are indeed correct.

As to MS & the monopoly issue - well I was going to state my opinion, but then I stopped & asked myself "what's the point?"

Yawn...
 
**thud**

Quote:
Hi there Three, you seem to have a more balanced/mature attitude than some of the others here (especially that Sapiens74).

That wouldn't be because he totally agrees with you would it?
He shares your outlook on things so he must be correct and the people who think you are talking rubbish are wrong?
Sounds very closed minded to me.



First off, I don't "totally" agree with anybody ok? Just wanted to make that clear.

Ok, I think most of the ppl here are missing the whole point. The whole issue stems around anti-competitivness and Microsofts business ethics. Unless Microsoft is broken up, we will NEVER see any competition. Microsoft is just too large of a company (and still growing) and with their so called 'ethics' will simply smother any competition out there (illegally of course).

As for Netscape, I really don't think Microsoft was after them because of browsers. Netscape was into server side and that's where the threat lies. So with the browsers providing a source of income for Netscape, Microsoft used their monopoly on the OS industry to 'bundle/integrate' into their OS to starve them out. I would seriously consider that unjust/unfair wouldn't you?

As for the statement on Microsofts codes being re-written, but as far as I know (and I could be wrong, I most of the time am ) but aren't the codes top secret? How is one to know that codes are re-written?

Anyways, gotta get ready for work...and again I will clarify that I'm NOT ANTI-MICROSOFT PRO-LINUX, but I AM Anti-Anti-Competitiveness.

Quote:So basically, you are unable to see further than the end of your nose ?

Selfish, right ?

They don't have the BEST OS around you clot, they have the most popular.

Sheeeeesh


Apperently you cant see under your *** You like a moody girl who's whining about anything she doesnt like. Look up what word business means! it's not a charity.

Oh and for erm mature way of speaking as you mentioned before i think you lack that a lot

Have fun changing the world kid

Firstly, I've noticed that BladeRunner STILL hasn't explained his comment about SUN being even bigger crooks than M$ (after asking now the 4th time) - so I can only assume he doesn't know what he is talking about and that he made that bit up. Maybe he hasn't shaken off his traits of his past life as a Salesman and with embellishing the truth.......
 
Anyway, to serket, erm, you haven't noted my comments, you just claim that I am a moody young girl (both of which are incorrect) - so to you too, you know nothing.
 
I agree again, with Three (sorry Three !) - but I also am neither Pro Linux - it isn't ready to take on Windoze yet.
 
And I also agree to a large extent with Bursar.
 
So I'm not completely unreasonable !
 
My take on things are that the OS should be free, open source (as Linux), note I don't mean LINUX as it currently stands, I mean as the current BUSINESS MODEL with companies like M$ ONLY making applications software. Then we'll see how successful M$ would be on an EVEN playing field.
 
M$ are like the owners of most roads, most petrol stations and they make cars. Guess whose cars perform best ??
 
THAT IS MY GRIPE !
 
P.S. In the UK, the M$ technical support STINKS (2 incidents per PRODUCT)

Quote:
Exactly.Thankyou for your politeness, having checked again I see that you are indeed correct.

As to MS & the monopoly issue - well I was going to state my opinion, but then I stopped & asked myself "what's the point?"

Thanks, because if you didn't know about not being able to remove IE, then we don't want to hear your 'opinion' of M$ and monopoly issues.

Quote:
Thanks, because if you didn't know about not being able to remove IE, then we don't want to hear your 'opinion' of M$ and monopoly issues.

As someone else pointed out earlier, it is possible, if you want to go thorugh enough hassle to do it, I was merely taking the side of those who [in court] have accused MS of making it out to be more difficult than it actually is. Personally, I think the only reason that it can't be actually removed via Add/Remove is because MS don't want you to, not because it would be too difficult.

Having said that, I still don't understand why anyone would want to remove IE. Ok, so if you were developing some sort of application specific computer, for which you had created your own proprietry software & wanted to save every last MB you could, then I could see the point. But for most other Windows users? As it has been stated time & again, there just isn't a web browser better than IE @ the moment.

THERE ISN'T NOW BECAUSE BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE THEY KILLED THE COMPETITION.
 
BLOODY HELL, IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ??
 
That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??
 
You see, by doing that, they have denied you something possibly better than what they 'forced' upon you.
 
True, you don't have to use it, but of course NOW, there isn't a decent choice, so you have NO choice but to use it.
 
All I'm asking for is a level playing field, healthy competition and therefore decent choice for the consumer. Is that being unreasonable ?

Quote:
That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??


And this sort of behaviour has been repeated by M$ time after time after time.

Quote:
THERE ISN'T NOW BECAUSE BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE THEY KILLED THE COMPETITION.

BLOODY HELL, IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ??I understand what you are saying perfectly. I simply have difficulty reconciling your opinion with reality. I used Netscape way before IE4 was released [because it wasn't my computer & had no say in what browser was used/installed]. Even then Netscape was free, so how does MS releasing another free product kill them off? Especially when they are still around & very much alive, even if their product is crap. If Netscape Navigator was better than IE, then before long word would get around & ppl would use it instead of IE. Why aren't they doing this? Because Navigator is a vastly inferior product.

If IE was that bad when it was 1st released, & Netscape was so superior, then ppl would have simply reinstalled Netscape, or if they weren't already using it before then they would have gone looking for it. What annoys me is ppl like you who just assume that ppl are so dumb that they will just sit back & use whatever MS bundles with Windows & not go looking for alternatives if they don't like any of the bundled apps.

Also, leaving browsers aside for the moment, let's look @ another app. Media Player. Now, as I understand your position on the issue, because of MS's clout & tactics MS's apps/products are used more often than those made by the under-dogs, right? What's 1 of the most popular apps for playing music, especially MP3s? It's not Media Player is it? No, it's Winamp. It's also free, & it's not made by MS. Why is it more popular? Because ppl like it more for playing music with & choose to use that instead.Quote:That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??Well if, as you say, Netscape has been killed off, don't you think you ought to let them know? Cos they obviously seem to be unaware of that, seeing as how they just released Navigator 7.0 Preview Release 1. Quote:You see, by doing that, they have denied you something possibly better than what they 'forced' upon you.They haven't forced anything on me. If I wanted to use Navigator as my main browser I would. The reason I don't is because I choose IE because it is a better browser.Quote:True, you don't have to use it, but of course NOW, there isn't a decent choice, so you have NO choice but to use it.What do you mean NOW there isn't a decent choice [i assume you mean a decent range/selection]? There NEVER has been. Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the reason software companies & independant programmers don't bother trying to produce a better browser is because they actually like IE & can think of better things to do with their time, such as creating other types of software.Quote:All I'm asking for is a level playing field, healthy competition and therefore decent choice for the consumer. Is that being unreasonable ? Unreasonable? Perhaps not, though perhaps somewhat naive & idealistic.

I'll have to agree with Alien there. When I first got on the net, IE was dog awful, and Navigator was a fairly decent browser. I didn't pay for Navigator, though IIRC you could pay for it (or there was a supped up version you could pay for - can't quite remember).
 
That continued pretty much up until IE 4 which just leapt ahead of Netscapes offering. I did try and continue using Navigator, as it was the browser I was most familiar with, but in the end, IE was a superior product so I switched over to it. If there was a compelling reason to stay with Navigator, I would have done.
 
Netscape are still churning out updates to Navigator, and there's Mozilla, Opera and probably a couple of others as well. That makes at least 4 different browsers to choose from. How many do you want?
 
The WinAmp point is a good one. All my MP3s are played back through it, and the only thing I use Media Player for is watching movies that I've downloaded (which I don't do particularly often).
 
Yes it would be nice if MS changed the installation options in Windows so you could have more choice about some of the stuff that gets installed. Some of it is just bloat that a lot of people don't use, but it does mean that your PC is ready to do most tasks that you could wish for as soon as it is setup.
 
I for one would be quite happy to see MS keep adding extra bits to their Operating Systems.
 
And lager_brains, do you really have to add your sig to the bottom of every post? The sig is generally several times longer than the posts you make.

"That is why I get so angry - HOW do you know that Netscape couldn't have gotten better and better if they hadn't been killed off via M$'s hard hand, anticompetitive tactics ??"
 
So what you are saying is that MS kept Netscape from making a better product?
 
How is it that you want open source but yet companies to make products for profits sake? Cause the only thing I can deduce from your post is that somehow MS kept Netscape from innovating.
 
You gotta figure when Netscape and MS both released versions 4.0 of thier product that Netscape had to realize they were falling behind. By that time they still had some market share in which to work with.
 
So what did they do?
 
They waited almost 4 years to release the next full blown version.
 
THey dropped the ball plain and simple. It was the fourth courter, they had the ball, down by 2 with a chance to tie, and they threw the ball away.
 
No one to blame but themselves.

You gotta figure also that Netscape is no longer a small company. Even with AOLTIMEWARNER funds, bully tactics and thier market share they still cannot make a good product.
 
Thats why sloth is one of the seven biggest sins.
 
And they are guilty of it, from the time Netscape 3 was released.

To me, all the bundling MS does is no different than a car manufacturer bundling, say, a cd-player with their cars. In some of the newer cars, the stereo is so tightly integrated that it becomes almost impossible to remove it to replace it with something else. And if you do remove it, chances are you will lose some functionality, like volume control on the steering wheel or something. So in that sense, IE is a lot like the cd player in your new car. Yet no one complains to car manufacturers for anti-competitive practices against Kenwood or Alpine...
 
Besides, seeing as Netscape is backed by AOL-Time-Warner-etc-etc, I think it's pretty ridiculous to whine about poor old Netscape.

If the same corporations who are now suing Miscrsoft would spend the same amount of time and money developing a superior product we would all benefit.

I just couldn't resist.
It would appear that Microsoft are not a Monopoly at all.
Microsoft actually "flunk" some of the basic tests that make a monopoly, there are strict legal definitions of the word.
Here is why MS are not a monopoly.
 
1. Their product prices actually go down, to be a monopoly prices have to continue to increase.
 
2. Microsoft do not restrict supply of their products, again to be in a monopoly position a company needs to be actively restrict supply.
 
These two points alone mean that Microsoft cannot be legally classed as a monopoly.
 
A quote from PC Week about a year ago:
"A lot of companies are making a lot of money on the ubiquity of Windows, providing users with a lot of choice where they want it--on their desktops. That isn't the expected result of a monopoly."