I finally had enough of Microsoft! - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: I finally had enough of Microsoft!

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    112
    That's the way buisness goes. I'm pretty sure all of you know that Microsoft has molded themselves in a monopoly. However, MS is such a big part of the technology industries that the economy can't afford to have it shut down. And that's buisness. They're smart (yet evil) in only making microsoft products compatible with other MS product:

    people complain because m$ makes it very difficult to transact with anyone not using a m$ product. if a person using star office sends a document to someone using office, the office user gets the message "support for this file type has not been installed. Would you like to install it now? They freak and call the sysadmin, who usually complains like hell for being pulled away from more important duties (irc) and usually doesn't know what star office is anyway and why should something he/she didn't authorize need to be used at all.
    I had that problem. My computer at home had another word processer other that office and when I went to school to print it out or to edit parts of it, Office could not read it so I was stuck. The solution I had to fixing this, was getting office xp from the school for a $10.00 fee. (Universities have a "reproduction" licence). Ever notice how 99.99% percent of the computers issued out with Windows installed come with Microsoft Works and not Microsoft Office? Works uses the WKS extension and microsoft uses DOC. Two totally different files coming from the same company. One can't read the other? Get both. If kind of brings up the golden rule for buisness. ::Supply and Demand::
    A good majority of the schools, universities, colleges, work places, etc. use microsoft products and only microsoft products because the PC computer is seen as a better buisness computer than the Mac. And what do the PCs come with? A fully functional Microsoft OS complete with games, other MS products preinstalled, 2 bedroom; 1 bath, kitchen, home entertainment center. IT DICES IT SLICES.... you get the picture.
    Viper

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    317
    Originally posted here by lucktsm

    I may miss some games, but hey I would rather spend my time trying to get WINE to work.
    You don't really have to give up yer games any more. There is Direct X 8 support for *nix systems. Check it out here.

    Myself, I really like FreeBSD, though I don't much care if I can play a game or not. I like the stability and the ability to just all out manipulate the OS. M$ has done a great job and forming an OS that is really kind of user friendly. You don't have to go through great pains to get the thing installed, and if you don't really goof with it or tweak it too much, it will run fairly stable. On the same token, it needs patching right from the time you install, which can be a pain in the rear on a dial up. I know, *nix machines need patching too, but when M$ released the OS and within the first days of public release had an 18MB patch that needed installing, that was just uncalled for. What a pain.

    The compatability is a whole can of worms that is just too broad a scope to be covered in one post and I'm leaving it at that.
    \"I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing.\"


  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    32
    As for games, I'm a gamer but its sad that everyone develops with directX and such
    Do you understand how useful directx is? It is a pretty good improvement to any OS, and it isn't for stability so the whole stability usefulness things doesn't make that much sense. Directx also works on the web, and so is fairly useful to improve graphics, I don't think that graphics improvement and stability are in the same category. Jus' 'cause linux is less mainstream and so is hacked and cracked less doesn't make it a great OS.
    I know, *nix machines need patching too, but when M$ released the OS and within the first days of public release had an 18MB patch that needed installing, that was just uncalled for. What a pain.
    You need to know how incredibly hard it is to create an OS. One good thing about *nix systems is that they don't have to do all that, for example, x-windows, freebsd didn't create it, they just had to find a way to implement it. An OS is a lot of hard work, and some things you don't realize until somebody gets bored and tries really hard to think of a way to hack something.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    110
    I still go for the Windows, although it has so many bug report. There is always a downloadable patch for the bug.
    Listen closely to your enemies. They tell you your faults.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    458
    Um, not really true. That is the reason there are so many cracks and hacks and exploits for windows. Sure, the vital ones are patched, but there are plenty of exploits that can crash a system that are never fixed except in the next OS.

  6. #16
    Senior Member linuxcomando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    430
    Welcome, to the world of kernel hackers
    I toor\'d YOU!

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    317
    I do know that it is not easy to build an entire OS

    NOTE/ Disclaimer: The following is merely the opinions and thought of myself and myself alone. There is not necessarily and evidence to back this up, I present this as fodder for the fire as it may be nothing more than the ill advised rantings of a bumbling egotard.


    On the same token, M$ hasn't really build an all new OS in some time. They keep adding buggy code to the ones that exist and remove bits of them. It is my understanding that M$ has development teams that should be capable of catching bugs, developing seperate layers and implementing those seperate layers of the OS into the preceeding layers. If this indeed accurate, then they are not really all that different from the FreeBSD developers working to find a way to implement X. It would seem that logistically they are doing the same thing, just w/ less public knowledge.
    They also have Quality assurance groups that are assembled to catch bug. They caught a number of bugs prior to the OS's release, hence the patch that was so readily available right after release of XP. They knew they were releasing a buggy OS, they had the patch in development. What prevented them from pushing back the release date? It certainly wasn't a respect for their perspective consumers, because if they polled their perspective consumers they would have known that on average people would rather wait and get an OS that is functional and doesn't require major patchwork straight out of the vendors box.
    \"I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing.\"


  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    214
    Windows is ok for a home or workstation environment. It's got a nice GUI, and simple to use. But if you need something free -- and more secure -- for servers, *nix is great.
    Either get busy living or get busy dying.

    -The Sawshank Redemption

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    458
    Chefer,
    They keep adding buggy code to the ones that exist and remove bits of them
    Give me an example, other than ME. 2000 is a great OS, 98 had some really nice extra features, and XP (which my friend has and I use often enough as he hosts my server) is very fast when loading, very stable and fairly secure. I don't think you know that you're talking about. Sorry ta say. And so I suppose you think that every time something like freebsd or red hat comes out with a new version they build an entirely new OS an use nothing of what they have spent tons of money and many man hours on before to make the previous version? I think you need to think again. Once you build an OS you don't go building an entirely new one, you improve on what you have, and fix your mistakes and make things better, building an entirely new OS just makes no damn sense.
    And sure those quality groups may have found the bug, but I don't think yo realize how hard it is to ship millions of copies of software all over the world for international release. You also don't know the circumstances surrounding the bug and you don't know when they found it. Perhaps they found it after and the engineers had to rush to put out a patch before the press could give MS bad press. The fact that they put out a patch so quickly after the release of Xp proves that they work fairly hard to keep their patches current and to provide security for their new OS.

  10. #20
    M$ has some great stuff depending on what ya wanna do, and not every OS is for everybody. I myself use M$ for legacy apps and games (gotta love Max Payne I suppose), but for programming, networking, servers and stability, I prefer *NIX. Not everybody will agree with this, but this has been a source of debate since the inception of the OS itself.

    Moreover folks, if you are tired of something and want something different cuz it does not meet your needs, by all means move on. I happen to use both

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides