M$ actually a good guy?

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Highwind7777, Dec 15, 2001.

  1. Highwind7777

    Highwind7777 Guest

    What do u guys think they're like now. With they're new XP operating system, have they really learned from they're experience. it looks like it to me. They are actually developing stuff to make the customers happy including some of my favourites Bootvis, Ramdisk, and Powertoys.
     
  2. Lonman

    Lonman Bleh!

    Messages:
    2,642
    I totally agree that XP is the stablist MS OS to date. In the same breath it's also the most uncustomizable - "my way or the highway" with even the theme files on the protected files list. And it still has a lot of what M'soft "thinks" i need or want. For instance, MSN Explorer AND IE 6 (make up MY mind, lol) - Instant messenger and a host of other "optional" programs you have to, literally, bring out of hiding to eliminate.

    Good guys?? no. Very, very rich guys that have to keep re-inventing the same thing over and over to keep selling it over and over to STAY rich.

    With XP it appears they've finally made that final transition - getting away from the old 9x code base. I think this will be what makes M'soft the giant it deserves to be now - having a solid product that will create a LOYAL customer base instead of a customer base grumbling under it's breath "hoping" the next release will fix this or that problem.

    I find it ironic that the worlds richest pirate is now fighting tooth and nail AGAINST piracy - old school calls it hypocrisy.

    Do I like XP and will I continue to use it?? Of course - now the real fun begins, and I'm slowly inching my way to that loyal customer base. Hell, now that i've actually shakin it down to a good degree, I'll buy a legimate copy of XP for my machine, when finances permit that is :D .
     
  3. zman

    zman Guest

    I laugh at all the bad press MS get

    Ok they are huge , they are a monopoly

    but look what they have given us ....... i couldnt imagine if MS werent around , sitting in front of a MAC or a linux box ......

    Operating systems takes million and millions of lines of code to develop....

    I think of it like a bottle of wine (hic) takes years to develop to its best
     
  4. gothic

    gothic LinuXPert

    Messages:
    453
    Location:
    Cornwall Nr. England
    Call me a little slow, but has everybody forgotten the "backward compatability" question? Don't get me wrong, I like XP, it's the first offering from M$ that I really like and use....constantly. I haven't been near Linux for OVER A WEEK !! But it appears to me that the only thing achieved with XP is stability and a bloody good UI, AT WHAT COST? How big an installation was windows 3.11, or 95 / 98? I know, technology moves on, when I was running 3.11 / DOS I had a whole 150 meg hard drive, (upgrade to WHAT?????? a WHOLE 500 meg, don't be silly, you'll never use it.)
    How about machine code, you know, that stuff TOS based machines like the Atari was programmed in. How much sleeker, faster and downright smaller our installations would be. "Windows 3000, yes Sir, that'll be $400.00 for the three floppy set" Have Apple got it right? Photoshop for MacOs X is less than half the size of the one for PC, no backward compatability you see.
    OK, i'm a little hard, I realise that Microsoft Software and OS's are the easiest to install and use, and yes, they are getting it right by providing us with a very usable and enjoyable xp-erience, but just sit back awhile and think what it COULD have been.

    p.s. sorry
     
  5. gothic

    gothic LinuXPert

    Messages:
    453
    Location:
    Cornwall Nr. England
    I agree with most of what you say, tho'there are one or two exceptions. One being the increased functionality. How many run of the mill users out there are going to touch on even a tiny percentage of whats on offer, or could it be that they don't even need it. Perhaps Microsoft are jumping to conlusions about what we want. Maybe there are one or two of us left that would LIKE TO CHOOSE !
    I could get most of the functionality from 98 or Me, I just had to install it myself, but I got no choice with xp.

    I fully understand, and agree with your points about security.

    "The more function that comes with a program, the more "weight" it gets, & slows down, NO MATTER HOW YOU CODE IT... "
    Yes, but how much of the bloat is coded compatability? and is that compatability really necessary?



    There I go again, blotting my copy book. I think i'll leave it there before I get debarred for heresy.
     
  6. gothic

    gothic LinuXPert

    Messages:
    453
    Location:
    Cornwall Nr. England
    Just one small point - I was not defending Linux, I was just airing my views on Win32. I know there is no other platform that supports virtually ALL hardware and caters for as many needs, but I just can't escape my love of hard (linux) work, and the reasons (real or imagined) that I switched in the first place.
    As I mentioned elsewhere, XP has managed to switch me back, and the simple fact that I enjoy visiting this site must be some kind of statement in itself.
    Thanks "TOK"