More Microsoft Bashing....
-
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
-
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
:gag:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
Not sure if the following information is accurate, I took it from one of the posts on that site: <Quote> "...Microsoft is a money making machine. Even if they aren’t growing, I don’t see any indication at all from their financial results that they are in any danger of dying. Over $3 billion a month… wow… I wish my company had Microsoft’s problems." </Quote> Oh, how can I say this ... :omg: ...
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
I don't think all is well within Microsoft. I sense a lot of internal struggle going on, as Microsoft tries to restructure itself to meet the challenges of Linux, Google, Yahoo and the rest. The company has got a little stodgy as most large corporate institutions tend to do. However there are a lot of smart people still working there and I'd expect Microsoft to pull themselves out of the mire. If I was Bill Gates, I'd break the company up into seperate self-controlling entities. Windows, Office, MSN, Developer Tools, Gaming etc. That would give each team a chance to break free of the corporate structure and show us what they can really do. The divisions would then have to survive on their own merit and not be propped up by each other. Cutting a lot of corporate fat would help speed up product development and release. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
Wow, great, another "Microsoft is dead/dying/will-die article. For all Longhorn's delays, you'd think Apple could take some market share, or Linux pound them in the server arena. And wasn't this year supposed to be "the year of the Linux desktop"? Yeah, come to think of it, last year was too. And the year before. Yet this is the first year the Linux server share has actually declined in growth. And while Apple has released some great operating system service packs and charged money for them, I still see everyone running Windows. The whole "mind share" idea is right, you get people hooked on Windows and they'll never leave. There's no way I could ever pull, say, my parents for instance, from an operating system that doesn't have a start button, internet explorer, outlook, & office. Sure there are alternatives in all areas, but that requires learning something new, and when combined with multiple new software packages, the average Joe will be dying to run the familiar old XP, with IE and Office. Frankly, most of all this, I just don't like the zealotry, you know, the kind you find on Slashdot. These people[^] whose moral compass defines commercial software as evil, and Richard M. Stallman as a kind of messiah, the GPL as Scripture, and anything in dissent of the Linux-Stallman-GPL trinity gets flamed to high heaven and moderated out of the discussion, akin to medieval heresy. Take Sun, for example. They've opened Java, open-sourced Solaris and put it under an OSI-approved software license. Yet just the other day, I (a C#/.NET guy) was defending Java from an onslaught of "Not free enough! Not GPL compatible! Stallman warned us of the Java trap!" slew of nonsense. Even today, go look at Slashdot's frontpage story, where Linux frontman Eric S. Raymond gets slammed for disagreeing with the GPL part of the trinity. It is lunacy that morality be measured against a software license! How pathetic the zealotry really is; it's a total turnoff for someone who's interested in technology rather than idealogies based on software licenses.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about:
-
Wow, great, another "Microsoft is dead/dying/will-die article. For all Longhorn's delays, you'd think Apple could take some market share, or Linux pound them in the server arena. And wasn't this year supposed to be "the year of the Linux desktop"? Yeah, come to think of it, last year was too. And the year before. Yet this is the first year the Linux server share has actually declined in growth. And while Apple has released some great operating system service packs and charged money for them, I still see everyone running Windows. The whole "mind share" idea is right, you get people hooked on Windows and they'll never leave. There's no way I could ever pull, say, my parents for instance, from an operating system that doesn't have a start button, internet explorer, outlook, & office. Sure there are alternatives in all areas, but that requires learning something new, and when combined with multiple new software packages, the average Joe will be dying to run the familiar old XP, with IE and Office. Frankly, most of all this, I just don't like the zealotry, you know, the kind you find on Slashdot. These people[^] whose moral compass defines commercial software as evil, and Richard M. Stallman as a kind of messiah, the GPL as Scripture, and anything in dissent of the Linux-Stallman-GPL trinity gets flamed to high heaven and moderated out of the discussion, akin to medieval heresy. Take Sun, for example. They've opened Java, open-sourced Solaris and put it under an OSI-approved software license. Yet just the other day, I (a C#/.NET guy) was defending Java from an onslaught of "Not free enough! Not GPL compatible! Stallman warned us of the Java trap!" slew of nonsense. Even today, go look at Slashdot's frontpage story, where Linux frontman Eric S. Raymond gets slammed for disagreeing with the GPL part of the trinity. It is lunacy that morality be measured against a software license! How pathetic the zealotry really is; it's a total turnoff for someone who's interested in technology rather than idealogies based on software licenses.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about:
-
I find this kind of funny. A friend of mine who hates "M$" sent this to me. I find it funny how all these companies and people are so focused on taking down Microsoft. I like Mac's, UNIX and Windows. I also get a kick out of people who love to bash "M$". I find it amusing. :laugh: http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/dont_look_now_but_the_coroner_is_measuring_microsoft_for_a_black_suit/
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. We shouldn't assume something's debugged just because everyone in the whole world has access to the source code.
If you forget about the "M$ i$ $tup1d" part of the article, it raises a question that is still valid: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Those who saw the initial versions of MS software know what I am talking about: I remember eagerly waiting for the new Office version, because I was absolutely sure that there were so many new features that I couldn’t hold my expectation while I waited for all those floppies to install. Today, while I can name a lot of kernel, disk and general performance improvements on Windows XP, a lot of people cannot really say what’s the difference between Windows 2000 and XP besides the new funnier look, and I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users. Even MS versions internally Windows 2000 as NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1, because there are fewer versions. Maybe I’m spoiled, but where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
If you forget about the "M$ i$ $tup1d" part of the article, it raises a question that is still valid: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Those who saw the initial versions of MS software know what I am talking about: I remember eagerly waiting for the new Office version, because I was absolutely sure that there were so many new features that I couldn’t hold my expectation while I waited for all those floppies to install. Today, while I can name a lot of kernel, disk and general performance improvements on Windows XP, a lot of people cannot really say what’s the difference between Windows 2000 and XP besides the new funnier look, and I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users. Even MS versions internally Windows 2000 as NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1, because there are fewer versions. Maybe I’m spoiled, but where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago Yeah. The company is maturing, IMO. It's not the fast, agile, cute 2 year old girl with curly blonde hair[^] that Google is. That said, I still look forward to new versions of Visual Studio. I get excited playing with Avalon, and going through the docs of WinFX, imagining the new possibilities that will be opened to .NET developers. And despite WinFS getting cut out of the initial release, I'm still looking forward to Longhorn.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Conversation With a Muslim Judah Himango
-
If you forget about the "M$ i$ $tup1d" part of the article, it raises a question that is still valid: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Those who saw the initial versions of MS software know what I am talking about: I remember eagerly waiting for the new Office version, because I was absolutely sure that there were so many new features that I couldn’t hold my expectation while I waited for all those floppies to install. Today, while I can name a lot of kernel, disk and general performance improvements on Windows XP, a lot of people cannot really say what’s the difference between Windows 2000 and XP besides the new funnier look, and I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users. Even MS versions internally Windows 2000 as NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1, because there are fewer versions. Maybe I’m spoiled, but where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Yes but I can say that I also am not dreaming of how soon I can upgrade to the next generation of computer, either. I am perfectly happy with W2k on my 2.8 Gig box. I can not say the same with Dos 2.1 on my 4.7mhz (and no hard drive) box I had 20 years ago or even the 25mhz 386 I had 10 years ago (or was that still the 286?) I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
If you forget about the "M$ i$ $tup1d" part of the article, it raises a question that is still valid: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Those who saw the initial versions of MS software know what I am talking about: I remember eagerly waiting for the new Office version, because I was absolutely sure that there were so many new features that I couldn’t hold my expectation while I waited for all those floppies to install. Today, while I can name a lot of kernel, disk and general performance improvements on Windows XP, a lot of people cannot really say what’s the difference between Windows 2000 and XP besides the new funnier look, and I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users. Even MS versions internally Windows 2000 as NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1, because there are fewer versions. Maybe I’m spoiled, but where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? Having used it for three years now, and perhaps more importantly having seen other people using it over the same periods, I will answer "yes". I'm not going to justify that any further as I have done numerous times in the past here on CodeProject because ultimately no one cares anyway. It's an opinion. Daniel Turini wrote: I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users My web site logs from CodeProject users* show 68% using Windows XP, 17% using Windows 2000 (and 2% using Windows 98, but let's not go there). That is just developers who read the Lounge and SB though. Stats for other sites I manage give XP around a 75% average share, and Windows itself at around 90%, but again most are targeted and not general-use. * When a CP user loads that little graphic in my signature it is logged on my web server. Daniel Turini wrote: ...where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? I wouldn't start to worry until the competition gets close to being on the same level, only then will it become a real issue. Windows XP was a massive improvement over what we had before, in everything from speed to reliability, that it is going to be hard to top even for Microsoft themselves. (And I think they know that themselves which is why things have been silently disapearing from future releases because they just aren't needed yet.) Likewise Office XP was such an improvement over the previous offerings and got so many things right that Office 2003 (the core programs) for all its extra strengths ultimately felt like a service pack. I honestly cannot remember Micrsoft Word locking up and crashing on me in this millenium. That is one heck of an achievement over the past (and I mistreat Word a hell of a lot for a developer). Surely we should let the market decide when Microsoft should add new functionality to their products?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr
-
If you forget about the "M$ i$ $tup1d" part of the article, it raises a question that is still valid: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Those who saw the initial versions of MS software know what I am talking about: I remember eagerly waiting for the new Office version, because I was absolutely sure that there were so many new features that I couldn’t hold my expectation while I waited for all those floppies to install. Today, while I can name a lot of kernel, disk and general performance improvements on Windows XP, a lot of people cannot really say what’s the difference between Windows 2000 and XP besides the new funnier look, and I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users. Even MS versions internally Windows 2000 as NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1, because there are fewer versions. Maybe I’m spoiled, but where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
I agree that, with all of those people out there, they are moving like their feet are in the mud. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that Win2003 is very good, and very stable, and very mature. What new features are people waiting on so badly? Searchable file system? Got it already (MSIndexServer, Google Desktop Search, MSN Desktop Search). Call a web service? What percentage of users need to do this? Software developers already have toolboxes bursting with code to call web services. A new UI? How many people struggled with the change from W2K/98 to XP? The PlaySchool look. Now we need to retrain again for yet another UI. So, to summarize, I think that OS that people are using TODAY (W2K,W2K3,XP) has been more than adequate for the last couple of years and there is not going to be a rush to upgrade, nor will there be compelling reasons to do so until the OS's currently in use reach their end of life. This means that the only revenue MS will get on Longhorn is from factory pre-installs. My $.02, FWIW. onwards and upwards...
-
Wow, great, another "Microsoft is dead/dying/will-die article. For all Longhorn's delays, you'd think Apple could take some market share, or Linux pound them in the server arena. And wasn't this year supposed to be "the year of the Linux desktop"? Yeah, come to think of it, last year was too. And the year before. Yet this is the first year the Linux server share has actually declined in growth. And while Apple has released some great operating system service packs and charged money for them, I still see everyone running Windows. The whole "mind share" idea is right, you get people hooked on Windows and they'll never leave. There's no way I could ever pull, say, my parents for instance, from an operating system that doesn't have a start button, internet explorer, outlook, & office. Sure there are alternatives in all areas, but that requires learning something new, and when combined with multiple new software packages, the average Joe will be dying to run the familiar old XP, with IE and Office. Frankly, most of all this, I just don't like the zealotry, you know, the kind you find on Slashdot. These people[^] whose moral compass defines commercial software as evil, and Richard M. Stallman as a kind of messiah, the GPL as Scripture, and anything in dissent of the Linux-Stallman-GPL trinity gets flamed to high heaven and moderated out of the discussion, akin to medieval heresy. Take Sun, for example. They've opened Java, open-sourced Solaris and put it under an OSI-approved software license. Yet just the other day, I (a C#/.NET guy) was defending Java from an onslaught of "Not free enough! Not GPL compatible! Stallman warned us of the Java trap!" slew of nonsense. Even today, go look at Slashdot's frontpage story, where Linux frontman Eric S. Raymond gets slammed for disagreeing with the GPL part of the trinity. It is lunacy that morality be measured against a software license! How pathetic the zealotry really is; it's a total turnoff for someone who's interested in technology rather than idealogies based on software licenses.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about:
You were voted a 1 for that? :wtf:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Daniel Turini wrote: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Yes but I can say that I also am not dreaming of how soon I can upgrade to the next generation of computer, either. I am perfectly happy with W2k on my 2.8 Gig box. I can not say the same with Dos 2.1 on my 4.7mhz (and no hard drive) box I had 20 years ago or even the 25mhz 386 I had 10 years ago (or was that still the 286?) I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
Must have been the 386...the max MHz that 286's went up to was 20, if I recall correctly. I remember when I upgraded my 20Mhz 286 ALR FlexNode to a Northgate 25Mhz 386. Man, did it fly! onwards and upwards...
-
You were voted a 1 for that? :wtf:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
:laugh: Probably by some Linux zealot who felt his views threatened by reality. Hopefully it wasn't our friendly outlaw programmer. :-)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Conversation With a Muslim Judah Himango
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Does Windows XP really feel like a work of a thousand professionals for over 3 years of coding on Windows 2000? Having used it for three years now, and perhaps more importantly having seen other people using it over the same periods, I will answer "yes". I'm not going to justify that any further as I have done numerous times in the past here on CodeProject because ultimately no one cares anyway. It's an opinion. Daniel Turini wrote: I recall reading that there’s still more Windows 2000 Professional users than Windows XP Professional users My web site logs from CodeProject users* show 68% using Windows XP, 17% using Windows 2000 (and 2% using Windows 98, but let's not go there). That is just developers who read the Lounge and SB though. Stats for other sites I manage give XP around a 75% average share, and Windows itself at around 90%, but again most are targeted and not general-use. * When a CP user loads that little graphic in my signature it is logged on my web server. Daniel Turini wrote: ...where is the MS that Netscape complained that produced so many (useful, BTW) features and so fast that no one could not even reach? I wouldn't start to worry until the competition gets close to being on the same level, only then will it become a real issue. Windows XP was a massive improvement over what we had before, in everything from speed to reliability, that it is going to be hard to top even for Microsoft themselves. (And I think they know that themselves which is why things have been silently disapearing from future releases because they just aren't needed yet.) Likewise Office XP was such an improvement over the previous offerings and got so many things right that Office 2003 (the core programs) for all its extra strengths ultimately felt like a service pack. I honestly cannot remember Micrsoft Word locking up and crashing on me in this millenium. That is one heck of an achievement over the past (and I mistreat Word a hell of a lot for a developer). Surely we should let the market decide when Microsoft should add new functionality to their products?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr
David Wulff wrote: Likewise Office XP was such an improvement over the previous offerings and got so many things right that Office 2003 (the core programs) for all its extra strengths ultimately felt like a service pack. I could take or leave the rest, but Outlook 2003 has been the first version, ever, to be truely usable for me. True pity is what i feel for those poor souls who gave up their own money for any of the previous versions... (ok, so i paid maybe $5/ea. for the 2000 and XP versions, but that's probably about fair)
My god, you're a genius! - Jörgen Sigvardsson, The Lounge
-
Daniel Turini wrote: MS is becoming slower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Yes but I can say that I also am not dreaming of how soon I can upgrade to the next generation of computer, either. I am perfectly happy with W2k on my 2.8 Gig box. I can not say the same with Dos 2.1 on my 4.7mhz (and no hard drive) box I had 20 years ago or even the 25mhz 386 I had 10 years ago (or was that still the 286?) I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: or even the 25mhz 386 I had 10 years ago (or was that still the 286?) Ten years ago we already had P-133, time really flies, doesn't it? http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80586/Intel-Pentium%20133%20-%20A80502133%20or%20A80502-133.html[^]
-
Must have been the 386...the max MHz that 286's went up to was 20, if I recall correctly. I remember when I upgraded my 20Mhz 286 ALR FlexNode to a Northgate 25Mhz 386. Man, did it fly! onwards and upwards...
basementman wrote: max MHz that 286's went up to was 20 The 286 I had was a 12MHz, Not quite sure when I upgraded. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: or even the 25mhz 386 I had 10 years ago (or was that still the 286?) Ten years ago we already had P-133, time really flies, doesn't it? http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80586/Intel-Pentium%20133%20-%20A80502133%20or%20A80502-133.html[^]
JazzJackRabbit wrote: Ten years ago we already had P-133 Maybe you did but "WE" (i.e. ME) did not. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
David Wulff wrote: Likewise Office XP was such an improvement over the previous offerings and got so many things right that Office 2003 (the core programs) for all its extra strengths ultimately felt like a service pack. I could take or leave the rest, but Outlook 2003 has been the first version, ever, to be truely usable for me. True pity is what i feel for those poor souls who gave up their own money for any of the previous versions... (ok, so i paid maybe $5/ea. for the 2000 and XP versions, but that's probably about fair)
My god, you're a genius! - Jörgen Sigvardsson, The Lounge
For me it started with Office XP, and Office 2003 just rounded off the corners a little bit (quite literally ;P ). Stability was the kicker - OXP just didn't crash* anymore! For the first time ever I was able to work without having to save every thirty seconds. It really was a godsend for me. * Outlook excluded
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
basementman wrote: max MHz that 286's went up to was 20 The 286 I had was a 12MHz, Not quite sure when I upgraded. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
I actually remember all of the pre-pentium machines I had... scary :-> WangPC Wyse 8Mhz 286 Multitech 10Mhz 286 Wyse 16Mhz 386 ALR 386SX ALR Flexnode 20Mhz 286 Northgate 25Mhz 386 ALR Flyer 33Mhz 486 ALR FlexCache 66Mhz 486SX onwards and upwards...