Pay Up, (Microsoft)

[Hueij]

What is confusing about a list of basic features for a computer?

Nothing, but you were talking about an operating system...

[Wiglaf]

That has nothing to do with the quality of Vista, and everything to do with the quality of hardware vendors.

Tell me what are Vista's big improvements over XP? As best I can tell, there aren't any. We've got improved search (Google desktop), a nice shiny glass interface, the same old file system and registry setup, with the added inconvenience of about a dozen potential hardware incompatibilities.

Tons of people have crap experiences with Vista. Can't keep blaming it on them or the hardware vendors, at some point you just need to admit Vista wasn't a great effort.

Firefox is gaining on Internet Explorer's marketshare now as well.

The better product wins. IE didn't kick Netscape's ass because of bundling, Netscape simply sucked ass and IE sucked less ass.

Bull****. Firefox is gaining on IE? I thought that, since it is a better product, it shouldn't have to start at 15% and work its way to 80% over the span of a decade? BTW it will never get there anyway.

I don't think bundling is unethical. I think Apple SHOULD bundle iTunes with the iPods.

Why? Seems to me people should be free to pick their media player and not get stuck (or think they need to be stuck) with iTunes and its background programs that annoy the piss out of you so much.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hueij

What is confusing about a list of basic features for a computer?

Nothing, but you were talking about an operating system...

Yes. And. ?

An operating system is not the same thing as the kernel. It includes it, but it is to provide basic functionality of the computer.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Tell me what are Vista's big improvements over XP? As best I can tell, there aren't any. We've got improved search (Google desktop), a nice shiny glass interface, the same old file system and registry setup, with the added inconvenience of about a dozen potential hardware incompatibilities.

Tons of people have crap experiences with Vista. Can't keep blaming it on them or the hardware vendors, at some point you just need to admit Vista wasn't a great effort.

Vista was a massive overhaul of the internals of the operating system.

The registry exists for backup purposes, it is deprecated in Vista thanks to .NET 3.0 (which is really what Vista is about).

Until you start using .NET 3.0 applications, it's not surprising that you don't know what the big deal is. There were massive internal changes that aren't visible for legacy software.

Bull****. Firefox is gaining on IE? I thought that, since it is a better product, it shouldn't have to start at 15% and work its way to 80% over the span of a decade? BTW it will never get there anyway.

Firefox is gaining on IE, yes. It's the better product, but IE is good enough for most people. People who want more have many options to choose from, including Firefox. No competition has been stifled, and consumers have far more choice now than ever before in their browsers.

Why?

Because all products should just work out of the box. Whether you want to change how they work, or use your own products in conjunction with it should be an option for the consumer.

Think about it this way: if MS didn't bundle Internet Explorer, how would you download Firefox?

[Wiglaf]

Vista was a massive overhaul of the internals of the operating system.

The registry exists for backup purposes, it is deprecated in Vista thanks to .NET 3.0 (which is really what Vista is about).

Until you start using .NET 3.0 applications, it's not surprising that you don't know what the big deal is. There were massive internal changes that aren't visible for legacy software.

Right, the point was that Vista isn't a great improvement for most users. I'm sure it benefits certain applications, as well as people who like the new icons. Not the point really.

It's the better product, but IE is good enough for most people. People who want more have many options to choose from, including Firefox. No competition has been stifled, and consumers have far more choice now than ever before in their browsers.

Let's say every house is automatically fitted with only decent carbon monoxide detectors -- they are good enough for basic purposes, but 15% of the time they give false readings. If no one explained this to you, you will keep the detector. The end result? Most people have a crappy detector, and the innovators with a great detector are not rewarded for their invention. Also, some people die and/or become frustrated with their crappy product.

Hopefully you understand now why it is absurd to punish the innovators by preying on the user's relative incompetence or laziness.

Because all products should just work out of the box. Whether you want to change how they work, or use your own products in conjunction with it should be an option for the consumer.

Think about it this way: if MS didn't bundle Internet Explorer, how would you download Firefox?

MS should bundle all major browsers with its OS.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Right, the point was that Vista isn't a great improvement for most users.

...yet. And that is an important qualifier. Windows Vista finally replaces Win32, which is the API we've had since Windows 95. It's old, dated, and difficult to work with. Vista has an all-new API that is far more powerful, easier to use,and will result in more secure, robust applications that can do more things.

Let's say every house is automatically fitted with only decent carbon monoxide detectors -- they are good enough for basic purposes, but 15% of the time they give false readings. If no one explained this to you, you will keep the detector. The end result? Most people have a crappy detector, and the innovators with a great detector are not rewarded for their invention. Also, some people die and/or become frustrated with their crappy product.

A fantastic example. If the detector only works 75% of the time in a life-critical situation, it should not be installed in people's houses. On the other hand, installing an internet browser on someone's computer so they can download OTHER browsers if they want makes sense.

MS should bundle all major browsers with its OS.

Why would they take on the legal responsibility of doing that? How do you define "major browser"? Who decides that? How would this be supported? How will MS deal with people who call up and say "Firefox keeps crashing on mine!"? Why should users deal with bloat?

One of the #1 complaints about Linux distros is they come with a million different programs to do a single thing. It's needlessly complex and confusing for users.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
MS should bundle all major browsers with its OS.

Oh please... get real.

[Aeson]

Re: Re: Re: Pay Up *****, (Microsoft)

Originally posted by Asher
There are certain basic features that operating systems must carry. A browser, a media player, a file explorer, a firewall...all of these used to only be available with subsequent commercial products. Would we really be better off like that?

It would be nice if MS wouldn't tie those products into the OS or make them so difficult to remove. I don't care what MS offers with the OS, just don't want to have to have it installed if I have my own choice of third party software performing that task, or don't need or want that functionality at all.

[Wiglaf]

...yet. And that is an important qualifier. Windows Vista finally replaces Win32, which is the API we've had since Windows 95. It's old, dated, and difficult to work with. Vista has an all-new API that is far more powerful, easier to use,and will result in more secure, robust applications that can do more things.

No, it isn't an important qualifier. People are and have been for a year been forced to upgrade when buying a new computer to this OS, with all its hardware compatibility issues and security vulnerabilities (IE being chief among them)

A fantastic example. If the detector only works 75% of the time in a life-critical situation, it should not be installed in people's houses. On the other hand, installing an internet browser on someone's computer so they can download OTHER browsers if they want makes sense.

It doesn't make sense when A) most people don't know the alternatives exist and B) the alternatives are better. What makes more sense is introducing them to all the options. The better ones, especially.

If you force people to own a product, you have the obligation of telling them the liabilities and flaws of that product.

Why would they take on the legal responsibility of doing that? How do you define "major browser"? Who decides that? How would this be supported? How will MS deal with people who call up and say "Firefox keeps crashing on mine!"? Why should users deal with bloat?

MS would have to be forced to doing it, obviously. I'd define a major browser as one with 5%+ of marketshare, since that is what Firefox attained quickly on its own.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Ming




Oh please... get real.

Firefox's share in the browser industry would jump to 80% overnight. Can't have that, it's only the better product.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Firefox's share in the browser industry would jump to 80% overnight. Can't have that, it's only the better product.

No, it wouldn't. Including other browsers would just confuse people. They would go, "So wait, does Firefox access a different part of the web than Internet Explorer? I just need the Internet, so I'll stick with IE."

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Firefox's share in the browser industry would jump to 80% overnight. Can't have that, it's only the better product.

And why should Microsoft be forced to waste their time and energy supporting a competitor? People can get it for free on the net... nothing is stopping them from doing it if they really want it.

[Wiglaf]

No, it wouldn't. Including other browsers would just confuse people. They would go, "So wait, does Firefox access a different part of the web than Internet Explorer? I just need the Internet, so I'll stick with IE."

Best solution then is to disassociate the OS from the browser completely, or to eliminate IE for its unfair advantage. It has 80% of the marketshare for an artificial reason, might as well give it 0% for another artificial reason.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Ming


And why should Microsoft be forced to waste their time and energy supporting a competitor? People can get it for free on the net... nothing is stopping them from doing it if they really want it.

You assume everyone has the same knowledge about their options.

[Lorizael]

The only reason Firefox has the marketshare it has is because stupid people (most people) can be easily persuaded. Computer nerds were the first to get it. They realized it was better and started to tell their friends about it.

The conversations probably went something like this:

Comptuer Nerd: Oh man, you're still using IE? Dude, switch to Firefox; it's so much better.

Dumb Friend: Er. What does Firefox do? Does it let you do Web 2.0 stuff or something?

Computer Nerd: *blank stare* No. It's... uh... it's just a safer version of IE. Here, download it from this site.