What would Microsoft have to do?
-
A while back in response to a post (http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?forumid=1159&select=93109&tid=93017#xx93109xx ), christian wrote this: You're joking, right ? M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now, but I hope to goodness you're not claiming without them we'd all be using Apple ]['s and ZX81's Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. I don't bite the hands that feed me because imagine a world without Microsoft. If you don't think words hurt, just remember all of MS's "partners" who testified against the company for the DOJ. We almost lost a good thing(and we would have if Gore got elected.) So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? What would MS do to make you not support them. Do you use their products, but would still stick with them if the climate had changed and jumped from asp to jsp? I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. I :love: Martin Marvinski
Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Why not? Back in the day, the Apple and Motorola team was looking quite good. MS never had better products than Appple - just better marketing. Martin Marvinski wrote: Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. The GNU utilities (which make up the bulk of most Linux distributions) were started on 68000's and whatever mini-computer hardware was around at universities in the mid 80s. To oversimplify, the GNU project was started because of overly-restrictive OS licenses used on the various Unixes and VMS systems of the day. So, if you want to get picky, GNU (and hence Linux) should be seen as a reaction to Unix and VMS licensing, not MS. MS and Intel just* made x86 processors common - which made them an obvious target for the Linux kernel when that came along in the early 90s. If Apple had won, Linux would've ended up on 68Ks first. Martin Marvinski wrote: how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? I'm not "loyal" to them at all. I write for Windows cause that's where the money is. In fact, I feel ever-so-slightly stifled by MS because their dominance makes it unprofitable to write for other platforms. -c * - no small feat, i know
-
A while back in response to a post (http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?forumid=1159&select=93109&tid=93017#xx93109xx ), christian wrote this: You're joking, right ? M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now, but I hope to goodness you're not claiming without them we'd all be using Apple ]['s and ZX81's Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. I don't bite the hands that feed me because imagine a world without Microsoft. If you don't think words hurt, just remember all of MS's "partners" who testified against the company for the DOJ. We almost lost a good thing(and we would have if Gore got elected.) So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? What would MS do to make you not support them. Do you use their products, but would still stick with them if the climate had changed and jumped from asp to jsp? I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. I :love: Martin Marvinski
I just have to agree with you :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Although I currently develop exclusively for Microsoft operating systems, I do have some serious concerns: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place. 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. 4. General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of bad press lately (virii and security issues) and anti-trust problems on at least two continents I think Microsoft should slow down a bit and put on a kinder, gentler face. Just my $0.02! :rose:
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
Mike Mullikin wrote: 4. General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of bad press lately (virii and security issues) I think MS was behind the press when the XP bug was fixed and then in the news for a week. This way nearly everyone who has XP knows that a fix is out there; hopefully preventing another Code Red from coming into being. And with the auto-updating feature of XP most people will get it without knowing anyway :) James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. Mike Mullikin wrote: General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of
Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Baloney! If it's so secure, how come they just had to patch the worst security flaw EVER in a Windows operating system? There was a UPnP vulnerability in which your computer could be exploited just by connecting to the Internet! Martin Marvinski wrote: If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. That would be nice, but it will never happen. Newer MS OS's often won't run on older hardware, so a lot of low-end users or those without much money don't upgrade often. They probably also don't have big broad-band connections that would allow a subscription-based model to work, either. Martin Marvinski wrote: If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. What if you have a laptop? What if you are, say, on a plane and have no Internet connection, and the OS thinks your configuration changed and you need to reactivate? You are toast. And although MS claims that no personal information gets sent to them, how can we be sure? And remember, we have MS to thank for two huge annoyances - 8.3 filenames and backslashes for path separators. Even STILL, in these days of long filenames, we at my company have to keep certain filenames as short (8.3) or else something somewhere will break. As far as backslashes for path separators, C was around before MS (I believe), which makes it MS's fault when I have to write code like this: CStirng someFile = "..\\some\\path\\file.txt"; Or access UNC paths like th
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. Mike Mullikin wrote: General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of
Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7050-2001Dec20.html Martin Marvinski wrote: Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Maybe, maybe not. Remember, MS is a hugely profitable company. Those profits come from the luxury of having no real competition (they're in court on anti-competitive, monopoly charges, remember). They have no reason to lower prices in any real way. Anyway, people are already on a subscription based service - every 18 months, they shell out $200 to get the latest round of MS Office. Do you work for MS? -c
-
A while back in response to a post (http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?forumid=1159&select=93109&tid=93017#xx93109xx ), christian wrote this: You're joking, right ? M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now, but I hope to goodness you're not claiming without them we'd all be using Apple ]['s and ZX81's Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. I don't bite the hands that feed me because imagine a world without Microsoft. If you don't think words hurt, just remember all of MS's "partners" who testified against the company for the DOJ. We almost lost a good thing(and we would have if Gore got elected.) So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? What would MS do to make you not support them. Do you use their products, but would still stick with them if the climate had changed and jumped from asp to jsp? I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. I :love: Martin Marvinski
Martin Marvinski wrote: So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. When someone says M$ it doesn't bother me, because I'll turn around and use $un when that comes up :) Thats usually enough to let others know how I feel :-D James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. Mike Mullikin wrote: General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of
Martin, You seem a little too pro-Microsoft. Relax. Microsoft is a large coporation, not a family member or religion. They produce computer software. Computer software is a tool. Granted this tool can be used for great things, but it's that usage that is great not the software itself. 1. XP may be the most secure Microsoft OS in history, but that ain't saying much. I agree that Microsoft presents a big target for crackers and script kiddies, but they also make it way too easy. They need to tighten things up. Period! 2. No one wants to be forced to upgrade. It's just not human nature. Why pay for features that you do not want or use? If my current version does everything I require, why should I be forced to learn a new interface or re-write a procedure. Also, your internet connection theory is hogwash. What happens if I have work to do and my internet connection is down? 3. Saying "If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation?" is nonsense. It's like saying, "If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with the police storming your house or bugging your telephone?" It just doesn't sit well with many people. If I spend several hundred dollars on a piece of software, I don't want big brother badgering me for product codes at two in the morning when I change out a video card. 4. Microsoft needs to look to the future. Their corporate reputation is important. If they can't publicly admit when they have a problem or show a little more compatibility and flexibility with competitors they risk alienating themselves from their customers. Look, I'm generally considered pro-Microsoft but they are not perfect and hey... you're the one who asked the question. ;)
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
-
1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place. Actually... :) Security tracking sites show that Linux has more security flaws than ANY of Microsoft's operating systems. Also, people like Apple only see the quality of MS operating systems improving since MS has so many people gunning to hurt the OS. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Tim Smith wrote: Security tracking sites show that Linux has more security flaws than ANY of Microsoft's operating systems. Also, people like Apple only see the quality of MS operating systems improving since MS has so many people gunning to hurt the OS. Actually... :) I didn't say that Linux (or Apple) was more secure than Windows. I said they aren't going away. With OSX Apple has made a definite stride forward and Linux is improving very rapidly. I say again "...if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place." Microsoft has a huge lead in the market and therefore momentum, but things can change very quickly in software and often times the perception of security is more important than actual security when it comes to sales and ultimate market share. Right now Linux/Unix has the perception of being more secure than Windows. If Microsoft doesn't work 100 times harder than the OSS folks to improve their actual security and their perception of security they are fools.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Why not? Back in the day, the Apple and Motorola team was looking quite good. MS never had better products than Appple - just better marketing. Martin Marvinski wrote: Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. The GNU utilities (which make up the bulk of most Linux distributions) were started on 68000's and whatever mini-computer hardware was around at universities in the mid 80s. To oversimplify, the GNU project was started because of overly-restrictive OS licenses used on the various Unixes and VMS systems of the day. So, if you want to get picky, GNU (and hence Linux) should be seen as a reaction to Unix and VMS licensing, not MS. MS and Intel just* made x86 processors common - which made them an obvious target for the Linux kernel when that came along in the early 90s. If Apple had won, Linux would've ended up on 68Ks first. Martin Marvinski wrote: how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? I'm not "loyal" to them at all. I write for Windows cause that's where the money is. In fact, I feel ever-so-slightly stifled by MS because their dominance makes it unprofitable to write for other platforms. -c * - no small feat, i know
Why not? Back in the day, the Apple and Motorola team was looking quite good. MS never had better products than Appple - just better marketing. LOL... Is that why Excel constantly won awards on the MAC platform? Microsoft has done some really excellent work. But I agree with others, if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Why not? Back in the day, the Apple and Motorola team was looking quite good. MS never had better products than Appple - just better marketing. LOL... Is that why Excel constantly won awards on the MAC platform? Microsoft has done some really excellent work. But I agree with others, if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
ok. "never" was the wrong word - they do/did/will have some good stuff. but what they have isn't so much better than everyone else. what they really had/have is brutal, edge-of-the-law marketing. -c
-
A while back in response to a post (http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?forumid=1159&select=93109&tid=93017#xx93109xx ), christian wrote this: You're joking, right ? M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now, but I hope to goodness you're not claiming without them we'd all be using Apple ]['s and ZX81's Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. Without MS and Intel linux probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. I don't bite the hands that feed me because imagine a world without Microsoft. If you don't think words hurt, just remember all of MS's "partners" who testified against the company for the DOJ. We almost lost a good thing(and we would have if Gore got elected.) So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? What would MS do to make you not support them. Do you use their products, but would still stick with them if the climate had changed and jumped from asp to jsp? I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. I :love: Martin Marvinski
Hey, I've been quoted !!!! Martin Marvinski wrote: Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? You mean like saying 'M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now' ??? Do you seriously believe I'm wrong, and without Microsoft we WOULD be using Apple ]['s ? We'd all be using Mac's, and better off for it. Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. Really ? I'm interested as to how you believe that Wintel has had the monopoly on ideas ( especially ones stolen from XEROX ) ? Martin Marvinski wrote: I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. You know why we have these things ? AMD. Without AMD, Intel would be selling us 800 MHz processors about now. See what happens when there is competition ? Martin Marvinski wrote: Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Why, why, why ? How can you *think* that ? Martin Marvinski wrote: Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. So ? It's also Bill Gates who said no-one would ever need a PC faster than a 286. Martin Marvinski wrote: So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. you're a sensitive little puppy, aren't you ? Martin Marvinski wrote: So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? I'm loyal to *me*. When M$ do a good thing ( GDI+), I say so. When they do a bad thing (C#, no C++ conformance in VC7 ), I say so. I live in the real world. Martin Marvinski wrote: I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. So if Apple or Linux takes over, you'll stick with M$ to your detriment ? I doubt it. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Did he also mention that you should respect your elders? I :love: Martin Marvinski
Martin Marvinski wrote: Did he also mention that you should respect your elders? *John's* grandfather ? I doubt it - he probably just had a piece of wood with nails hammered into it, or a gun full of buckshot to make the point.... Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. Mike Mullikin wrote: General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of
Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. And that's a big achievement, isn't it ?</sarcasm> Martin Marvinski wrote: If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. What world are you inhabiting ? The majority of users buy a PC and expect it to last as long as a TV does. No WAY are they going to pay for a new OS so they can still run the same software they always have, not to mention the abject terror they would feel at the thought of replacing the OS. Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Of COURSE they would. And without video piracy the cost of hiring a video would drop as well - these are not money making corperations, but benevolent entities. Pass the weed. Martin Marvinski wrote: Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. No, now that the PC growth boom has slowed down and there's not enough people to speed it up again, the only way for M$ to continue their rate of growth is to charge more and/or more often. I don t begrudge their right to make money, that is what a company does. But let's not kid ourselves, OK ? Martin Marvinski wrote: If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? Simply put - having to call them over and again, when I upgrade my PC, the fact that they can *shut down* an OS by no longer offering activation for it, all of this is a *bad* thing for the consumer. Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has to defend itself. If almost got broken up. If it had just been quiet it may just as well have been. They barely got out of that one thanks to the pro-corperate Bush administration. There is a difference between defending oneself and being arrogant. Did you not follow the story, or is it those rose coloured glasses of yours coming into play ? BTW I note you just got here - welcome. Don't worry about me, I'm always opinionated. :-) Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Security - If they don't solve some of their OS security issues they are in deep $hit. Linux and Apple are not going away and if Microsoft continues to stumble, one or both could make serious strides in the market place Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Subscription based licensing - This whole concept concerns me. I do not want to be tied to an internet connection. I know right now they say subscription based licenses will be optional, but what happens tomorrow? If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Product Activation - People should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't like being inconvenienced so Microsoft can sell a few more copies of Office or Windows XP. Microsoft has been one of the fastest growing companies in world history and Gates is the richest person in the world. In my humble opinion this was mainly due to DOS, Windows and Office being the most pirated pieces of software in the world. The legal copies far outweigh the illegal, but the sheer number of copies in use is what makes it so great. If Microsoft trys to milk the cow too often or too hard, people may look to cheaper alternatives. If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. Mike Mullikin wrote: General Arrogance - Confidence is a wonderful thing - Gates and Ballmer exude it. However with the world-wide economy in the dumps, a bunch of
"If everyone upgraded at the same time..." I could say alot to this, but I'll leave it at...HAHAHAHAHA! Product Activation - as was stated before, there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS who have illegal MS software, which is actually a bonus to M$. Because if I couldn't get it free, I wouldn't use it (as I bet MILLONS upon MILLONS of others would say the same). So, if I (and MILLONS upon MILLONS of others) don't use M$, then M$ loses their monopoly which in the end results in a competitive market, (which there is not one now). Does M$ have a monopoly (*cough* justice depart *cough*)? Goto the websites of dell, hp, compaq, gateway...etc and see what OS system options they give that you can get with your computer.
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. When someone says M$ it doesn't bother me, because I'll turn around and use $un when that comes up :) Thats usually enough to let others know how I feel :-D James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
James T. Johnson wrote: When someone says M$ it doesn't bother me, because I'll turn around and use $un when that comes up Cool - I'll use that next time I write my friend who works for $un :-) Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
I just have to agree with you :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
Anders Molin wrote: I just have to agree with you You agree with this tripe ? Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Hey, I've been quoted !!!! Martin Marvinski wrote: Why do people not give Microsoft credit for all the things they have done? You mean like saying 'M$ might be behind most of the jobs we can get as of now' ??? Do you seriously believe I'm wrong, and without Microsoft we WOULD be using Apple ]['s ? We'd all be using Mac's, and better off for it. Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't think we would have had as much progress right now without Intel and Microsoft. Really ? I'm interested as to how you believe that Wintel has had the monopoly on ideas ( especially ones stolen from XEROX ) ? Martin Marvinski wrote: I know we would be further than a ZX81 but I don't think we would have 2Ghz and $799 PC prices. You know why we have these things ? AMD. Without AMD, Intel would be selling us 800 MHz processors about now. See what happens when there is competition ? Martin Marvinski wrote: Computers today without MS would probably run at the speed of a 486, and we'd have to run some $600 Unix OS while costing us $5000 for the hardware. Why, why, why ? How can you *think* that ? Martin Marvinski wrote: Remember that it was Bill Gates who wanted a PC on every desktop. So ? It's also Bill Gates who said no-one would ever need a PC faster than a 286. Martin Marvinski wrote: So please don't slander a company that has been so good to the industry by writing something cheesy like 'M$'. you're a sensitive little puppy, aren't you ? Martin Marvinski wrote: So my question is how loyal to Microsoft are each of you? I'm loyal to *me*. When M$ do a good thing ( GDI+), I say so. When they do a bad thing (C#, no C++ conformance in VC7 ), I say so. I live in the real world. Martin Marvinski wrote: I know it would take alot for me to give up Microsoft because I know how good they were and are to the industry. So if Apple or Linux takes over, you'll stick with M$ to your detriment ? I doubt it. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Writing "M$" all the time is really cheesy, neither fun nor statement, and absolutely wimp.
peterchen wrote: Writing "M$" all the time is really cheesy, neither fun nor statement, and absolutely wimp. To be honest, I think you're all a pack of pussies for making such a fuss over it. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. And that's a big achievement, isn't it ?</sarcasm> Martin Marvinski wrote: If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. What world are you inhabiting ? The majority of users buy a PC and expect it to last as long as a TV does. No WAY are they going to pay for a new OS so they can still run the same software they always have, not to mention the abject terror they would feel at the thought of replacing the OS. Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Of COURSE they would. And without video piracy the cost of hiring a video would drop as well - these are not money making corperations, but benevolent entities. Pass the weed. Martin Marvinski wrote: Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. No, now that the PC growth boom has slowed down and there's not enough people to speed it up again, the only way for M$ to continue their rate of growth is to charge more and/or more often. I don t begrudge their right to make money, that is what a company does. But let's not kid ourselves, OK ? Martin Marvinski wrote: If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? Simply put - having to call them over and again, when I upgrade my PC, the fact that they can *shut down* an OS by no longer offering activation for it, all of this is a *bad* thing for the consumer. Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has to defend itself. If almost got broken up. If it had just been quiet it may just as well have been. They barely got out of that one thanks to the pro-corperate Bush administration. There is a difference between defending oneself and being arrogant. Did you not follow the story, or is it those rose coloured glasses of yours coming into play ? BTW I note you just got here - welcome. Don't worry about me, I'm always opinionated. :-) Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Hi Christian. Being opinionated is what makes life intresting. So how's your Linux computer doing? ;p I remember reading that in the 80's IBM's PC was about 3000 dollars and that did not include the monitor. To develop hardware and software costs lots of money. If you had a multitude of companies they would not have enough resources to develop and inovate as much as MS and Intel. I read that last year alone that MS spent over 5 billion dollars on research and development. Remember that it was IBM ( at that time facing it's own anti-trust problems) that introduced the "blue book" of hardware and made the whole industry by using off the shelf hardware (i.e. Intel's cpu). Remember that there were a bunch of different hardware platforms and none of them were compatible with each other. That is why without MS there would not have been the progress there is now. Q.E.D. I :love: Martin Marvinski
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Microsoft has just released Windows XP the most secure MS OS. They are also the #1 target because they are so big. If Linux was that widely used, they would most likely have 5 times as many security problems. Baloney! If it's so secure, how come they just had to patch the worst security flaw EVER in a Windows operating system? There was a UPnP vulnerability in which your computer could be exploited just by connecting to the Internet! Martin Marvinski wrote: If everyone upgraded at the same time we wouldn't have to support so many different versions of an OS as developers. We could be concerened with just the newest. As for the internet connection, it will most likely be integrated into your telephone bill and not having one will be like not having a telephone. Microsoft would also lower the price on every copy because of the economies of scale. Right now only about 10% of the people upgrade. When an OS costs Billions to develop, then it makes sense that it costs 199 an upgrade. Once we have a subscription based model everything will be cheaper. That would be nice, but it will never happen. Newer MS OS's often won't run on older hardware, so a lot of low-end users or those without much money don't upgrade often. They probably also don't have big broad-band connections that would allow a subscription-based model to work, either. Martin Marvinski wrote: If you aren't commiting a crime what is your problem with product activation? If you follow the laws then you shouldn't have a problem with MS. You will just get your Product Code and thats that. The only people who will have problems are those who try to cheat MS out of their hard earned money. What if you have a laptop? What if you are, say, on a plane and have no Internet connection, and the OS thinks your configuration changed and you need to reactivate? You are toast. And although MS claims that no personal information gets sent to them, how can we be sure? And remember, we have MS to thank for two huge annoyances - 8.3 filenames and backslashes for path separators. Even STILL, in these days of long filenames, we at my company have to keep certain filenames as short (8.3) or else something somewhere will break. As far as backslashes for path separators, C was around before MS (I believe), which makes it MS's fault when I have to write code like this: CStirng someFile = "..\\some\\path\\file.txt"; Or access UNC paths like th
Navin wrote: Baloney! If it's so secure, how come they just had to patch the worst security flaw EVER in a Windows operating system? There was a UPnP vulnerability in which your computer could be exploited just by connecting to the Internet! How does that vulnerability become the worst ever? Any vulnerability is bad, even more so when script kiddies get to run the code of their choice. But it doesn't make it any worse than the exploit that code red used. also, shit happens; remember red hats snafu about a year ago, something about shipping a server component with the default password of 'q'? [Going from memory that was the password anyway, but my memory likes to play tricks from time to time :)] James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki