TROLL QUESTION
-
Even though MS is the most resourceful software comapny in the world and hires the most accadmecally qualified and supposedly the most intelligent developerers, it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis. Instesd it produces buggy software tested on it's smug users through a a number of versions. Not that MS software isn't good or the company is evil, but with its awesome financial resources, though the company could do better,it doesnt. Why?
-
Even though MS is the most resourceful software comapny in the world and hires the most accadmecally qualified and supposedly the most intelligent developerers, it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis. Instesd it produces buggy software tested on it's smug users through a a number of versions. Not that MS software isn't good or the company is evil, but with its awesome financial resources, though the company could do better,it doesnt. Why?
do you have any proof that MS produces software that is more buggy than software put out by anyone else? no? didn't think so. -1 -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
do you have any proof that MS produces software that is more buggy than software put out by anyone else? no? didn't think so. -1 -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917That's not the point. The point is that as the leading software company, they should, well, put out leading software. They don't. WinXP and 2000 are quite nice, I'll give them that. Office is a godsend, but damn annoying at times. Thier SQL Server sucks. Exchange is awful, and would be worthless save for Outlook integration. IIS is super-trash. Hell, most of their back office sort of apps are pretty bad. Or maybe you consider them average, which still means Microsot is underperforming.
-
Even though MS is the most resourceful software comapny in the world and hires the most accadmecally qualified and supposedly the most intelligent developerers, it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis. Instesd it produces buggy software tested on it's smug users through a a number of versions. Not that MS software isn't good or the company is evil, but with its awesome financial resources, though the company could do better,it doesnt. Why?
Learn to proof-read, retard. The reason is the same as why we see posts like this from idiots like you. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
That's not the point. The point is that as the leading software company, they should, well, put out leading software. They don't. WinXP and 2000 are quite nice, I'll give them that. Office is a godsend, but damn annoying at times. Thier SQL Server sucks. Exchange is awful, and would be worthless save for Outlook integration. IIS is super-trash. Hell, most of their back office sort of apps are pretty bad. Or maybe you consider them average, which still means Microsot is underperforming.
strictly speaking, MS is performing well enough for all of its stockholders to be very happy. and as a corporation, that's all they are required to do. more to the point, if their stuff was awful, worthless or super-trash, people would quit buying it. but, it isn't and people haven't. most importantly, their apps meet the standards of the marketplace. if people demanded bug-free software, it would cost many times more $$'s to produce, and therefore many times more $$'s to purchase. and people don't want that. they want software that's adequate, at a price they can afford (Ford not Mercedes). personally i have a problem with the way MS does business, but i won't deny that i think their software is pretty good, all around. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Even though MS is the most resourceful software comapny in the world and hires the most accadmecally qualified and supposedly the most intelligent developerers, it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis. Instesd it produces buggy software tested on it's smug users through a a number of versions. Not that MS software isn't good or the company is evil, but with its awesome financial resources, though the company could do better,it doesnt. Why?
troll-1 wrote: it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis So if it were up to you, we'd be typing our CP messages from a command prompt in *nix? Now that's innovation!!! Apple, X windows, windows, (read any gui os), stole their ideas from the real innovators at Xerox about 30 years ago. Get a life and quit complaining. :zzz::zzz::zzz:
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!" -
troll-1 wrote: it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis So if it were up to you, we'd be typing our CP messages from a command prompt in *nix? Now that's innovation!!! Apple, X windows, windows, (read any gui os), stole their ideas from the real innovators at Xerox about 30 years ago. Get a life and quit complaining. :zzz::zzz::zzz:
Jason Henderson
quasi-homepage
articles
"Like it or not, I'm right!"Hey! Don't knock command prompts. There is alot you can do with a command prompt that is both clumbsy and timely with a GUI.
-
Even though MS is the most resourceful software comapny in the world and hires the most accadmecally qualified and supposedly the most intelligent developerers, it does not produce innovative ,imaginative or quality software on a consistant basis. Instesd it produces buggy software tested on it's smug users through a a number of versions. Not that MS software isn't good or the company is evil, but with its awesome financial resources, though the company could do better,it doesnt. Why?
-
Sorry, but I can never resist a cheap joke :-D Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: Sorry, but I can never resist a cheap joke "Always yield to Temptation, it may not pass your way again!" Your bear looks great in leather, by the way..:) "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
Sorry, but I can never resist a cheap joke :-D Elaine :rose: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Trollslayer wrote: Did someone say 'troll' ? Did you mean to say "Did Someone say 'M.M.'?"?
Anonymous wrote: Did you mean to say "Did Someone say 'M.M.'?"? Hey, don't call Michael Martin a troll.
-
strictly speaking, MS is performing well enough for all of its stockholders to be very happy. and as a corporation, that's all they are required to do. more to the point, if their stuff was awful, worthless or super-trash, people would quit buying it. but, it isn't and people haven't. most importantly, their apps meet the standards of the marketplace. if people demanded bug-free software, it would cost many times more $$'s to produce, and therefore many times more $$'s to purchase. and people don't want that. they want software that's adequate, at a price they can afford (Ford not Mercedes). personally i have a problem with the way MS does business, but i won't deny that i think their software is pretty good, all around. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917MS software is overall pretty good but it's not that excellent in terms of the resources they put behind it. Popularity isn't a true measure of quality. Considering the size of their profit margins, MS could produce bug free (almost) software and still make huge profits by selling software at affordable prices if they are a little bit considerate towards the users. How would they suffer if they spend a couple more millions towards quality purposes?
-
MS software is overall pretty good but it's not that excellent in terms of the resources they put behind it. Popularity isn't a true measure of quality. Considering the size of their profit margins, MS could produce bug free (almost) software and still make huge profits by selling software at affordable prices if they are a little bit considerate towards the users. How would they suffer if they spend a couple more millions towards quality purposes?
they don't have to. why spend time and money doing things that won't help them make more money? people already love their stuff. few people have any serious complaints. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
MS software is overall pretty good but it's not that excellent in terms of the resources they put behind it. Popularity isn't a true measure of quality. Considering the size of their profit margins, MS could produce bug free (almost) software and still make huge profits by selling software at affordable prices if they are a little bit considerate towards the users. How would they suffer if they spend a couple more millions towards quality purposes?
Now, when you use the words "bugfree" and "code" together then please add an emoticon like :~ or :-D , or people will find you slightly naive... It's not like they have a policy of randomly inserting bugs, many people seems to believe that they are having some kind of godlike/demonic powers, but they actually have to abid the same laws of nature as every other programmer. troll-1 wrote: How would they suffer if they spend a couple more millions towards quality purposes? In the same way that every other company would suffer if they had to throw money earmarked for paychecks after code that is allready having a good balance of quality and costness. :zzz: "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!" -Rincewind
-
Anonymous wrote: Did you mean to say "Did Someone say 'M.M.'?"? Hey, don't call Michael Martin a troll.
Martin Marvinski wrote: Hey, don't call Michael Martin a troll. Are there many trolls who are 6' 2" and 210? :confused: Thanks for reminding people that I am MM. I have been around since CP's 2nd week and was at CG acouple of years before that. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
