In a world without Microsoft... (POLL)

[Funyuns101]

i would love to get a mac, specifically a powerbook, but i can't afford the high prices and the software is a bit hefty

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: dexvx
I shudder a world without Microsoft. Go on any IBM ASCI White or AS/400 mainframe computer. A simple task like moving/renaming/creating a file is a pain and still is. I'm glad someone actually thought about creating a nice and simple way to interact with computers rather than a stupid clumsy way.

Many people that hate microsoft never even owned or touched a computer in the pre-Microsoft era.

You do know that the GUI was invented at Xerox PARC and first implemented on desktop PCs by Apple don't you? Microsoft "borrowed" liberally from the original Mac OS when designing Windows up through 3.x. Win95 was the first version to pull ahead in terms of multitasking.

I don't "hate" Microsoft, but have made some less-than-fanboy comments about them in the "would you work at Microsoft" thread. And I've been around since the 8-bit days before the IBM PC was even released so yes I know what life was like before MS.

I'd love to see a world where there was a real competitor to MS, but they have been using their monopoly power to crush any potential competitors for over a decade.

I was assuming the author of the post saying Microsoft never existed, not Microsoft wont exist past Windows 95 or something to that extent. Yes Xerox and later Apple was the first to use the GUI, but never had anyone had the audicity to imagine a computer in every household like Bill Gates. IBM CEO in 1950, when asked the potential for the worldwide computer market, he said "oh, 5 or 6".

At the rate Apple was going, innovation wise, you'd probably just start using multi-tasking GUI. It was microsoft, IMO that pioneered GUI into an affordable platform that could be used by the masses.

Debugging 75 million lines of code is the blah. Sometimes I'm stuck with less than a thousand. I think that most poeple think programming is cake, and all you need to do is tell a computer to do it. In reality its far from easy, and increases exponentially the larger you go.

Computer Run Application "___.exe"
Computer Point Mouse, Center
Computer Use Video Card
Computer Shut Off.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without a brick tied to its head." - unknown?

Q. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to write a good software program?
A. More

Definition: Windows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

LOL at the Definition!

 

[Placer14]

Originally posted by: DaZ

I don't know any other software company that puts out as much buggy software as microsoft

Such an arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

The day you come out with an OS as powerful, capable, stable, and feature rich, is the day you can say something like this.

I would like to see you trouble-shoot 75 million lines of code and have it 100% bug free.

Every OS has bugs and glitches, you only see stories about the microsoft bugs because they effect so many people. Doesnt mean every other piece of software is perfect.

Alright...that's your opinion, as the previous statement I made was mine. And yes, ignorance I'd agree with. Arrogance no. OS are the foundation of the software "empire". But when you have an entire company (or even division of such) involving 100k employees to work on some software, you can't tell me 75 milliong lines of code is hard to go through to make sure it works. And yes, i might be asking alot. But my thoughts, I'd start from a bug-free foundation and build features up from that. instead of waht microsoft has done by purchasing various pieces of software from other companies and fitting it to their software 'hybrid' OS. Of course it's going to be buggy. I'm not saying that it's a piece of cake....but a software mammoth that is MS can afford to do it right. If not the first time, on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

And yes, I hear the most about this OS because ~75% people rely on it day in and day out. All the more reason to make a more reliable product. I'm sure if OSX was as widely used as W9x-WXP (and anything in between), some bugs would be found, but I'm willing to venture that there wouldn't be too many.

Please note that I'm indifferent to Mac vs. MS. I have both and quite happy with each, i'm just presenting a devil's advocate type view. Retort as you wish.

 

[Placer14]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PliotronX
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would've been someone else. I'm just glad it wasn't Apple.

Bingo. The nature of computing pretty much necessitates a common OS. Look at how much trouble we used to have sharing files between x86 and Mac. Someone else would have come up with an OS that would become the de-facto standard and they would have behaved in a manner similar to MS. Granted, right now cross-platform file sharing is much easier than it used to be, but would any of you have really wanted to have to deal with 10-12 different OS's back in the early 1990's? There's got to be some sort of standard and if it weren't Windows, it would be something else. If MS had never existed, someone else would have taken its place, it's not like we'd have a whole bunch of different OS's instead.

ZV

Truoble sharing files between x86 and Mac? Is x86 supposed to be an operating system? I'll assume that you meant to write "Windows" as x86 is a processor instruction set, used in many processors that run many different operating systems. Anyway, ssharing files between windows and OS X is easy. click "connect to server" type "smb://windowsmachine/sharename". There does have to be standards, and in fgat there are. There's a jpeg standard. There's standards for the fat filesystem. There's standards for TCP/IP networking. The OS doesn't have to bstandard as long as the file formats and network protocols it uses are standard, as that will allow connections to any other OS that uses the same standards. Right now, the only company I can think of that's using it's own standards for network protocols is Microsoft.

And, IMHO, nitpicking what people say is unnecessary. You knew what they were talking about. Ignorance can be tolerated to a certain point, i think.

 

[Ns1]

i would also like to say that ib et most people who bitch at microsoft know nothing at programming


if you do know how to program, that line was not meant for you. please don't hurt me

 

[Noriaki]

Originally posted by: PliotronX
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would've been someone else. I'm just glad it wasn't Apple.

Yup, there's my view.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PliotronX
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would've been someone else. I'm just glad it wasn't Apple.

Considered in the context of Micro$oft's business practices, that's like saying, If it wasn't Enron, it would've been someone else. It still doesn't excuse what they've done, and their OS is still bloated crap.

 

[GermyBoy]

Originally posted by: PliotronX
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would've been someone else. I'm just glad it wasn't Apple.

Why? You have something against superior hardware? Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean it's not better. It's only expensive because it is not widely used, and the only reason Apple failed in the long run is because they wanted everything to be proprietary, which left the IBM market the only choice for the geeks (the only people who WANTED a computer).

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: PliotronX
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would've been someone else. I'm just glad it wasn't Apple.

Why? You have something against superior hardware? Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean it's not better. It's only expensive because it is not widely used, and the only reason Apple failed in the long run is because they wanted everything to be proprietary, which left the IBM market the only choice for the geeks (the only people who WANTED a computer).

you answered your own question

 

[SuperTool]

There is no difference between option 2 and 3.
How about an option of no MS even if it is bug free?

 

[ElFenix]

who would we have to abuse their monopoly position and violate their contract with the gov't? i don't know... probably someone though... especially knowing they can get away with it with a slap on the wrist...

 

[BD2003]

MS makes great software, but their marketing and business practices are ruthless.

Office is by far the best office suite. IE kicks other browsers asses. Windows XP is by far the best OS ive ever used, and I've used them all. Microsoft makes a lot of buggy software, because they make the software that most of the world uses. Why cant people see that?

Do you REALLY think if another company was the monopoly it would be ANY different?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BD2003
MS makes great software, but their marketing and business practices are ruthless.

Score: 1 of 2 correct. They are ruthless.

Office is by far the best office suite. IE kicks other browsers asses. Windows XP is by far the best OS ive ever used, and I've used them all.

Score: 3 of 3 incorrect.

Do you REALLY think if another company was the monopoly it would be ANY different?

Do you REALLY think that is any kind of excuse? :disgust:

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BD2003
MS makes great software, but their marketing and business practices are ruthless.

Score: 1 of 2 correct. They are ruthless.

Office is by far the best office suite. IE kicks other browsers asses. Windows XP is by far the best OS ive ever used, and I've used them all.

Score: 3 of 3 incorrect.

Do you REALLY think if another company was the monopoly it would be ANY different?

Do you REALLY think that is any kind of excuse? :disgust:

The first quote was his opinion, the second was yours. Try not to dismiss everyone else's ideas as worthless, and yours as gospel!

I agree with you, Harvey about M$ having no excuse for many of their marketing tactics, however I agree with BD2003 on virtually everything else. Windows XP kicks ass IMO, so does office and IE.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Truoble sharing files between x86 and Mac? Is x86 supposed to be an operating system? I'll assume that you meant to write "Windows" as x86 is a processor instruction set, used in many processors that run many different operating systems.

Did you perhaps notice that I said "USED TO HAVE" regarding the trouble? Did you forget that Mac can run Linux/Unix as well, so it's not an operating system either? I originally intended to say "Motorola 68k", but I wanted to include the IBM PPC as well. I know full well that x86 referrs to the processor, thank you, and you surely know full well that it's completely beside the point.

As I said in my first post, but which you decided to disregard, sharing files between Mac OS and Windows may be easy now, but in the early 1990's it was a PITA. My point was that in earlier times it was more difficult and the de facto standard provided by Windows was a boon to the industry.

Quotes from my first post which were completely ignored:

Granted, right now cross-platform file sharing is much easier than it used to be, but would any of you have really wanted to have to deal with 10-12 different OS's back in the early 1990's?

ZV

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
A world without MS would be a world with CP/m

-=bmacd=-

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Oh yeah and you can expect M$ to make and os that will thoroughly cheack every single bit of stupid, useless software normal non tech savy users use.I mean yeah I have had my computer crah on me a few times before but it could have been almost anything that was installed or run in ie or whatever that caused it to crash, not windows. I doubt windows95 would crash if you only used M$ software on it....

 

[Lucky]

You have something against superior hardware?

In 1976 or in 2002?

 

[Placer14]

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
Oh yeah and you can expect M$ to make and os that will thoroughly cheack every single bit of stupid, useless software normal non tech savy users use.I mean yeah I have had my computer crah on me a few times before but it could have been almost anything that was installed or run in ie or whatever that caused it to crash, not windows. I doubt windows95 would crash if you only used M$ software on it....

heh....and i'm sure this is MS's approach to this issue as well. Use our software and "we garuntee your computer won't crash", use 3rd party software at your own risk. ie: Support our monopoly and put competition out of business. This isn't the way the computer/software world should think.

 

[JSSheridan]

Doesn't matter to me. An OS is just an intermediary between the applications and the hardware. It's the apps that are really important.

 

[Electrode]

Disregarding Microsoft's earlier dealings with microcomputer manufacturers, here's what I think the world would be like now if Windows was never generally accepted the way it was:

1. Microsoft would probably be a peripheral manufacturer, competing with the likes of Logitech. Their software sucks ass, but their mice and joysticks 0wn.
2. The OS most people would run would most likely be BeOS, since the only reason it failed was because Microsoft threatened any PC manufacturer who tried to ship systems with BeOS installed.
3. Linux would be much more widely used, marketed as the ideal OS for corporate environments where many computer architectures must work together.
4. Microsoft Office would be seen for what it is: a bloated pile of sh!t that no one in their right mind would want to use, so MS would be unable to crush other, better office productivity suites by changing their already arcane file formats every year or so, since no one would use MS Office in the first place.
5. There would be no winmodems. There would be software modems, but the drivers for them would have to be produced for, at the very least, BeOS and Linux.
6. There would be no e-mail viruses, since Microsoft is the only developer stupid enough to put a scripting language in an e-mail client.
7. Apple would still be the forgotten underdog with 5% market share.
8. The only bad thing: Netscape. If Internet Explorer was never shoved down people's throats, Netscape would still rule the web with an iron fist and a sh!tty browser. There would be no Mozilla. The W3C HTML spec would be ignored. The <blink> tag would still exist. There would be much sadness.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Windows XP is by far the best OS ive ever used, and I've used them all.

That depends. Which is better for grandma, WinXP or OpenBSD? Which is better for a firewall? Which concern is more valid?

That said I have Debian and XP on my system, and I'm happy with both.

Do you REALLY think if another company was the monopoly it would be ANY different?

No, I know it wouldn't. All companies want market domination. It's the nature of the beast.