Why Do Geeks Get All Irate About Microsoft?

[MikeH]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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.

[Asher]

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.

[Q Classic]

no, i like microsoft.

the only true evil in this world is aol.

[MikeH]

Linux and Windows can already share file formats.

[Asher]

File formats are trivial, the problem is application compatibility.

[Jack_www]

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.

[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. The monopoly is only objectionable insofar as it makes their hand-holding pretty much universal...
But I'm not a real "computer geek"

[yavoon]

and we're off to the races!

[Shi Huangdi]

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

[Asher]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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.

[Asher]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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?

[Asher]

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