OSDev.org

01000101 wrote: The only OS developers tactics in which i hate, are Apples with their completely negative and finger-pointing ads/commercials. If you havent noticed, their ads are "we're better than microsoft" while microsofts ads are "we make life easier".

Haha. I agree with you there. Anybody with half a brain wouldn't believe those commercials.

Maybe I should make a commercial about how I bought a MBP and had it sitting on my desk for 6 months because every time I would use its wireless card the kernel would panic on me. Had it sent in for repair and no success.

The silly thing was, it was a patch released by Apple that was causing the problem. For if I restored the system and didn't ever install patches it would work fine. They finally fixed it in 10.5. Of course I had to go buy the OS to fix something that should have worked in the first place. Apple is no better than Microsoft.

bloodhound23 wrote:Not necessarily their ads. As Alboin linked to it's things like that that make me angry.

Makes you angry? Maybe you should grow up a little then. They did nothing against the Law in that case, and in most cases they have lost, it was purely based upon over the top left wing reasoning on the part of the Idiots making the decisions. For example, the EU's decisions that it's apparently against the law to not follow other people's standards, even in situations where those standards are lacking, or more recent then your own implementation.

I personally have no problem with there business "tactics". They simply do business, that's life, they do it well, and they have product's that people like, and they make money becaue of it. They've never aimed to become a total monopoly so they can charge excessie prices, and there system quite clearly encourages competition. I'm glad to see them helping the free market thrive instead of using the law combined with people's ignorance as a business practice like other's. (*coughs* google *coughs*)

Quite the opposite of Solar, i have no problem with Microsoft, i just think Windows isn't that great an Operating System. It's the best out of the many available though.

I prefer microsoft to apple, as companys and as OS providers.

XP was immense, Vista is pretty, but slow and bloated.

They make a PC extremely easy to use, but not so easy it bores more advanced users.

It is also more comfortable (imho) to use for everyday use than linux.

It is also more comfortable (imho) to use for everyday use than linux.

Depends on what Linux distro, how good you are at using Linux, skills, and what you are doing day to day.

Windows would piss me off too much.

-JL

in the ease-of-use category, it's too difficult to pick one because I honestly have not used linux in the same amount as I've used Windows. Ease-of-use is indeed based upon skill, but you have to spend time with an OS to develop skill and therefore you will be partial to that OS and find the other ones you dont know as well to be more challenging.

Tyler wrote:...in most cases they have lost, it was purely based upon over the top left wing reasoning on the part of the Idiots making the decisions.

As for your definition of "left wing", you sound like a U.S. citizen who considers everything left of the Republicans to be "the commies"...

I won't discuss individual lawsuits here. But Microsoft has a history of pushing through courts, buying out competitors, and pulling every trick in the book to make sure they come out top. While that's (mostly) legal, even encouraged in no-holds-barred capitalism, and certainly laudable from a shareholder point-of-view, you might note that none of that is aimed at providing a better product, merely at making sure no-one else gets to threaten their market share.

That's diametrically opposed to why I made software engineering my profession, and that's why I dislike them.

...they have product's that people like...

...because they have no choice, basically...

They've never aimed to become a total monopoly so they can charge excessie prices, and there system quite clearly encourages competition.

You really believe that, don't you?

Quite the opposite of Solar, i have no problem with Microsoft, i just think Windows isn't that great an Operating System. It's the best out of the many available though.

So we're of the same mind as far as Windows is concerned.

piranha wrote:

It is also more comfortable (imho) to use for everyday use than linux.

Depends on what Linux distro, how good you are at using Linux, skills, and what you are doing day to day.

I use Linux every day for several years now, and have helped set up various desktops and servers with Linux. And most often, Linux is not up to par in ease-of-use to Windows.

Most of the problems Linux has here can be overcome (WLAN config, getting locales and keymaps right for all apps, finding the right drivers and software for your not-so-common hardware like DVB-T, ...), but only if you have the know-how, and sometimes requiring significant effort. (I still have to come up with a locale / keymap config that doesn't bork on umlauts in one case or another.)

What's much worse is the handling of updates. I use a distro (Gentoo) that handles updating with extreme grace compared to some others, and still sometimes things break and require manual fixing, something that happened to me only once with Windows (a hotfix that broke a driver).

I see the strengths of Linux in other places. Security and price, mostly. The money you sink into Windows until you have a secure and well-equipped system is insane.

I don't belive that you have to sink alot of money into microsoft products to create a secure envoronment. Once the initial purchase is made (the OS itself), it is then up to the consumer to act occording to common sense to create a secure setup.

To put it into perspective, I use AVG as my Anti-Virus + Anti-Spyware, a free software distribution that works fantastic in my opinion. In the past few years, I have not even got a single virus or malware. why? beacuse I don't visit sites that are obviously either porn sites or warez sites.

Updates are free for microsoft, so I don't see the cash inferno there either.

Also, if general security was your focus, it is no more insecure than linux I would imagine, but think about it this way, when ~80% of the market (probably more) is Windows based, what do you think the virus makers and "1337" h3x0rz are making their scripts for and taking so much time to break? it's not the OS that only a few people (in perspective) use, its going to be the big hitter. Exploits aren't just there, someone has to take the time to look for them, and they won't waste their time on something that doesn't produce malicious results. That is why there are so many known issues with Windows.

[edit] oh, and I resent that left-wing remark! [/edit]

Solar wrote:

Tyler wrote:...in most cases they have lost, it was purely based upon over the top left wing reasoning on the part of the Idiots making the decisions.

As for your definition of "left wing", you sound like a U.S. citizen who considers everything left of the Republicans to be "the commies"...

Yeah, i'll admit, i should probably have though about what i was writing before posting that. The fact remains though, that had any of you read the actual court decisions (not other peoples interpretations), as Techies you would be ashamed. In the EU case, the Judge was left believing that it was wrong (legally) that Microsoft didn't follow other people's standards. All standards that were referenced were open, and not the official requirements of any system.

I could actually imagine myself as a crazy Republican religous Zealot when i read my own statement back I swear i'm not, I'm just your average Conserative Anti-Religous Zealot.

Solar wrote: I won't discuss individual lawsuits here. But Microsoft has a history of pushing through courts, buying out competitors, and pulling every trick in the book to make sure they come out top. While that's (mostly) legal, even encouraged in no-holds-barred capitalism, and certainly laudable from a shareholder point-of-view, you might note that none of that is aimed at providing a better product, merely at making sure no-one else gets to threaten their market share.

That's diametrically opposed to why I made software engineering my profession, and that's why I dislike them.

Hmm, i suppose if that's the way you see it... I've never seen a paper yet that shows that an unbounded free market would fail if the consumers were intelligent, so it seems like you're just saying they were practicing business. If they don't create a better product (despite the fact many of there purchases have created very useful products, Virtual PC, SQL Server, Groove, which have all been heavily modified and improved by Microsoft), then people will turn to competitors, it's there own loss when they lose customer's because they don't make good products. However, the products that come out of those deals are some of the best in their respective fields, so i have no complaints until i find better software.

At least they use current Laws in there advantage. What really bugs me is companies like Google and Opera suddenly deciding Microsoft can't do something because they want to do it, or make more money doing it. If Google suddenly decided making a bootloader would make them money, i know they would go to court and try to claim microsoft can't ship a bootloader with there Operating System. It's claims like this that are assumed to be true (Internet Explorer shoudln't be bundled) that create a lot of their bad press, when people should just go use a different System if they don't like it.

Solar wrote:

...they have product's that people like...

...because they have no choice, basically...

Everyone has choice, it's the free market, and Microsoft haven't prevented it (or even tried imho). If people are too stupid to consider alterantives, as they are in all sectors of the market, it is not for the business to be left to blame. Also, people have always had choice, they liked the early software enough to adopt it, and though i can't speak for everyone, i find Office and Visual Studio to be the best products available that do there tasks, and i like to think i know some alternatives

Solar wrote:

They've never aimed to become a total monopoly so they can charge excessie prices, and there system quite clearly encourages competition.

You really believe that, don't you?

Of course... everything they have done is normal business practice. The evil motto that most people reference was purely an internal note, and it is common for businesses to encourage themselves internally in such ways. In the end, business is about getting your product out into the world, and Microsoft's actual practices are fine, despite people's assumptions based upon a note never meant for outside eyes. I have never seen them do anything that could create a monopoly... if you don't like the software, go somewhere else.

Solar wrote:

Quite the opposite of Solar, i have no problem with Microsoft, i just think Windows isn't that great an Operating System. It's the best out of the many available though.

So we're of the same mind as far as Windows is concerned.

Yeah, it'll bug me till my grave, but it's all i have until you or Brendan produces me a working quality OS.

Hope this didn't sound too serious, i wrote the last one in the middle of the night, it's now morning, i haven't slept, so i'll add best wishes here to try to add some friendly

As for Microsoft never "planning" to stiffle competition... I could harp on the bootloader war (where OEM's were not allowed to offer dual-boot systems under threat of not getting Windows licenses anymore), or the Microsoft tax (try getting the laptop of your choice without a Windows license), or software patents and their application (not only) by Microsoft, or...

But I won't.

Solar wrote:

As for Microsoft never "planning" to stiffle competition... I could harp on the bootloader war (where OEM's were not allowed to offer dual-boot systems under threat of not getting Windows licenses anymore), or the Microsoft tax (try getting the laptop of your choice without a Windows license), or software patents and their application (not only) by Microsoft, or...

But I won't.

If OEM's want to boot another system, they could just not sell Windows, when all OEM's stop selling Windows, Microsoft lose out... free market.

And yeah, I'm against the ease of which Software Patents are awarded so i won't argue there but to bring up the cleche, everybody does it

Tyler wrote:

Solar wrote:

...they have product's that people like...

...because they have no choice, basically...

Everyone has choice, it's the free market, and Microsoft haven't prevented it (or even tried imho). If people are too stupid to consider alterantives, as they are in all sectors of the market, it is not for the business to be left to blame. Also, people have always had choice, they liked the early software enough to adopt it, and though i can't speak for everyone, i find Office and Visual Studio to be the best products available that do there tasks, and i like to think i know some alternatives

The problem is, most programs run on windows, and windows only. Many linux programs have also been ported to windows, so yes if you want to use program X, 80% chance you're forced to use windows. Even more so with computer games.

Its like, how much choice do you really have when its about deciding wether or not to jump in front of an approaching train.

lets see here. Huge group of well-paid trained software developers all working on projects assigned to them in groups... or a huge groupe of unorgonized variable-skilled unpaid developers working on whatever they feel like, when they get around to it... If you havent got the metaphore yet, that would be Microsoft and the *nix community.

And you wonder why Windows has the games, the supporters, and the liscences? It's hard to gain reputation as an OS, when the 'cool' stuff that people want, has to be PORTED from another OS.

Combuster wrote:

Tyler wrote:

Solar wrote: ...because they have no choice, basically...

Everyone has choice, it's the free market, and Microsoft haven't prevented it (or even tried imho). If people are too stupid to consider alterantives, as they are in all sectors of the market, it is not for the business to be left to blame. Also, people have always had choice, they liked the early software enough to adopt it, and though i can't speak for everyone, i find Office and Visual Studio to be the best products available that do there tasks, and i like to think i know some alternatives

The problem is, most programs run on windows, and windows only. Many linux programs have also been ported to windows, so yes if you want to use program X, 80% chance you're forced to use windows. Even more so with computer games.

Its like, how much choice do you really have when its about deciding wether or not to jump in front of an approaching train.

Hmm... so people buy the games... so the games work and run... so Why exactly would people not want to use Windows? If the competition doesn't have good reason to be switched to, and they don't, don't blame Microsoft. I'll happily switch to any other system just for a good development enviroment. I think the ease of which Gamers are moved from One Console to the next is proof enough it takes serious competition and not just sitting around blaming Microsoft.

To put it into perspective, I use AVG as my Anti-Virus + Anti-Spyware, a free software distribution that works fantastic in my opinion. In the past few years, I have not even got a single virus or malware. why? beacuse I don't visit sites that are obviously either porn sites or warez sites.

You sound a bit like my mum. She complained when she had Norton that all these "VIRUS DETECTED" windows would open, but with AVG she didn't get any messages. Therefore she thought AVG was better at defending her.

I told her that:
- Both software will report when they've detected a virus.
- The viruses are usually hidden inside of files the user will download. So in most cases an equal number of viruses will come onto the system regardless of which AV she is using (I know some AVs block Outlook viruses, have firewalls, etc but she didn't use Outlook and had ZoneAlarm).

So by Norton displaying more messages doesn't mean she's getting more viruses using Norton, but rather Norton was better at detecting them.

Then I told her it was just a random thought and I don't like Norton either (nor do I like AVG; I use to use it but it was causing too much harddrive activity). I've switched to avast!.

Windows Vista is okay. People say it's bloated, but people also said that about Windows XP, Windows 95, etc.

The Linux world is no exception. People claim KDE and Gnome are bloated. But with Linux at least you have a choice

I was using XFCE for a while. It was nice and neat. Then I switched to KDE because I didn't find it bloated and it was a lot more 'comfortable' for me.

Right now I'm most 'comfortable' with Windows XP and KDE. I think comfort is the key word when choosing an environment. If you're comfortable you're happy and you're efficient. Over time, using an comfortable environment will become comfortable as you become more familiar to it.

Tyler wrote:If the competition doesn't have good reason to be switched to, and they don't, don't blame Microsoft.

Looking too shallow, dude. What we are looking at, here, is something that "vanilla" capitalism tells us should never happen: Monopoly. The theory says, once a company gets too big, smaller, more agile competition crops up and eats away at the big one's market share.

This might work at the green table, but with something like Microsoft, we're looking at monopoly in multiple markets.

What does that mean?

Well, have a look at gaming. Microsoft has the market share, so the platform is primary target for a) the games developers, and b) the hardware manufacturers. Have you noticed how every new GPU generation is advertised as "DirectX 15.2 compliant" or somesuch? Linux can either reverse-engineer DirectX (second-best solution), or field their own API like OpenGL (second-best solution) while taking great care not to get sued over some IP patents.

And virtually every PC out there is sold with an inclusive Windows license, so people dual-boot for their gaming anyway. Why should games developers aim for Linux?

It's like that in many areas. Microsoft has, very skillfully I admit, become #1 player in so many closely related fields that the theories of the "more agile newcomer" simply don't apply. You'd have to play catch-up in all those fields at once - which you cannot do unless you're already a big corporation with the funds to burn.

Ah sheesh, I'll just shut up now and spend my time with something more productive...