• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sucker Punched by Microsoft

I

Ioman

Senior member
I found a great article about how Microsoft has been taking advantage of consumers. Those of you with a technical background have known this for years, but does the average consumer? "The truth of the matter is that while each version of Windows is more stable, we have nothing to compare it too except the previous version of Windows...". Lets hope that an alternative solution to Windows comes out before all is lost
 
When I say a Viable Alternative I am referring to an easy to use OS which the average consumer can use at home. You and I may see BEos, Mandrake or other OS's as an alternative but the sad part is that the average consumer doesnt. That is my point.
 
And it's a point well taken here. I have always stated that anyone who can afford a PC has access to information on alternative OS's. If the masses of home users are ignorant of *nix, it has to be a result of one of the following

1) They don't care to educate themselves further
2) *nix is too difficult for them to understand
3) They are happy with what they have ( Windows)

Regardless of the reasons, they are responsible for thier situation.
When will you guys realize that comparing Windows to *nix is like comparing apples to oranges.
Neither of them is meant for everyone.
What bothers me is all the Windows bashing some of you *nix guys partake in (not all, just some). If you think it sucks dont use it! It wasnt designed for bitheads anyhow, it was designed for your folks.
 
Ioman, that article is a bunch of junk. The truth is that Microsoft has been offering a highly stable operating system since 1993. It was called Windows NT 3.1. Windows NT 4.0 was released in 1996 and it was a great operating system, especially at the time it was released. For use as a graphics workstation, NT 4.0 blew away Linux in 1996. In fact, I think it's still better than the very newest Linux distributions. Don't forget the release of Windows 2000(NT 5.0) in 2000. That article doesn't even mention any of Microsoft's operating systems in the NT line. The author acts like the only thing Microsoft has offered until Windows XP(NT 5.1) was Windows 95, 98, and ME. Windows 95, 98, and ME ARE very unstable, but they were never intended by Microsoft to be its flagship operating system. Windows 95 was a 16-bit/32-bit hybrid operating system released just to get users to start down the path to using 32-bit application software. If users had switched to NT 4.0 in 1996 like I did, they would have had a highly stable, 100% 32-bit Microsoft operating system for the past 5 years now.
 


<< Ioman, that article is a bunch of junk. The truth is that Microsoft has been offering a highly stable operating system since 1993. It was called Windows NT 3.1. Windows NT 4.0 was released in 1996 and it was a great operating system, especially at the time it was released. For use as a graphics workstation, NT 4.0 blew away Linux in 1996. In fact, I think it's still better than the very newest Linux distributions. Don't forget the release of Windows 2000(NT 5.0) in 2000. That article doesn't even mention any of Microsoft's operating systems in the NT line. The author acts like the only thing Microsoft has offered until Windows XP(NT 5.1) was Windows 95, 98, and ME. Windows 95, 98, and ME ARE very unstable, but they were never intended by Microsoft to be its flagship operating system. Windows 95 was a 16-bit/32-bit hybrid operating system released just to get users to start down the path to using 32-bit application software. If users had switched to NT 4.0 in 1996 like I did, they would have had a highly stable, 100% 32-bit Microsoft operating system for the past 5 years now. >>




I don't think you are a good representative of the average home user. Can you parents use NT at home? Most likely not. This article was dead on when addressing home users. Windows 2000 was not directed to the average home user at all. Remeber this article addresses average home users.
 
Ioman You clearly arent looking at Windows from the perspective of the average home user either. You seem to suggest that we

<< (need) an alternative solution to Windows before all is lost >>

.

I would suggest to you that the average home user is not only happy with XP, they are frickin overjoyed with it. Only your disdain for Microsoft could make you blind to this.

XP is the best thing that ever happend to people who know nothing about computers. XP is pretty snazzy even from an IT perspective. It's a solid OS. If you want it to hold your hand it will. If you want it to let you go, it will.

It's pretty clear that some people around here think MS is in the position they are in today solely because of thier business practises and advertising schemes. This is only partially true.
The other component of the equation is that they make a pretty reliable (very in XP and 2000's case), easy to use, Operating System.
If you want alternatives just for alternatives sake, I will agree with you.
If you want alternatives because you think MS puts out poor products, I will not.
 
Actually I like windows xp quite a bit.

Here is a piece from the story.
"Am I worried about my computer crashing? Not a chance; I am running Windows XP Professional. Windows XP is the most stable version of Windows to date."

I like Windows XP a lot. The article is meant to provoke people from both sides which it apparently has. No personal attacks are needed man. I agree with your statement.
 
No personal attack intended. The article bothers me because the fellow
1) Says how great XP is
2) Says MS is taking advantage of us.

If they wanted money for crap I would agree with statement #2. But XP clearly isnt crap, as per #1.
 


<< No personal attack intended. The article bothers me because the fellow
1) Says how great XP is
2) Says MS is taking advantage of us.

If they wanted money for crap I would agree with statement #2. But XP clearly isnt crap, as per #1. >>




So you are saying that Microsoft has not taken advantage of consumers by releasing a new operating system every year? A home operating system that has more service packs and bug fixes with each new version?
 


<<
So you are saying that Microsoft has not taken advantage of consumers by releasing a new operating system every year? A home operating system that has more service packs and bug fixes with each new version? >>




I dont think MS is taking advantage. MS gave people what they wanted, people nowadays have expected some things not to work in Windows. Thats nothing new. Things had to progress to this point. It not like MS had XP in 1994 and decided to put out crap to get rich. They where just at the right place at the right time. It could have happened to any other OS. As far as another OS coming out in a year, I doubt it. MS will have a hard time out doing themselves, since most W2K users are not budging. MS will have an even harder time trying to convince people to use Windows Whatever over XP, like XP over 2K.

Besides Apple's OS X.1 is a great alternative
.
 


<< So you are saying that Microsoft has not taken advantage of consumers by releasing a new operating system every year? A home operating system that has more service packs and bug fixes with each new version? >> >>



I must have missed a few of thier OS releases then friend, because where I am they certainly don't release a new OS every year. Every two years would be closer to the truth, but then I have to buy a new computer about every two years as well. I can assure you its not to run the latest/greatest thing from Microsoft either, it's to keep up to date with the games I play.
I don't hold it against the game coders for pushing the limits of technology, that's progress. Same goes for MS. If it comes too quick for your likeing, you can always opt out. No one is forcing you to do anything.

Service pack wise, 2000 is not on a faster pace than NT 4.0 was. Frequent hotfixes are necessary these days due to the number of people trying to exploit the code amd the increased need for security as business moves onto the net. Again, patching products after release is not unique to MS. It's an industry standard. At least we can be thankful that MS is religous about it. I couldnt say the same for other organizations.
 
Thats good to hear! It's people like you who are keeping the economy going. Most home PC users don't buy a new ocmputer every two years, more like 4 years statistically speaking. What type of games are you into ? I am quite the gamer myself.
 


<<

<< So you are saying that Microsoft has not taken advantage of consumers by releasing a new operating system every year? A home operating system that has more service packs and bug fixes with each new version? >> >>



I must have missed a few of thier OS releases then friend, because where I am they certainly don't release a new OS every year. Every two years would be closer to the truth >>



1998 -- Windows98
1999 -- Windows98se -- not a service pack or patch...a new OS....cost $100
2000 -- WindowsME. Windows2000
2001 -- Windows XP -- home and pro

(between 1995 and 1997 -- Windows95 and Windows95 SR2)
 
If I were advising my parents to get a computer (they are both long dead) I would point them to a Mac. I have been using PCs too long now to change (21 years!). 🙂 It is interesting to note how much stuff we use on PCs came from Apple . . . especially SCSI and Firewire. 🙂
 
my mom uses mandrake 8.1 with kde... she loves it... well, she likes it more then any version of window.

let me tell you, folks. There's a steep learning curve associated even with all the flavors of Windows. We just don't see it here because I suppose it was more "intuitive" for us to learn then the "average home user".

I'm building an ecom site for my boss and he does *not* know how to use his windows ME platform. He blindly clicks around until something works for him.

You know Nautilus? THAT is an easy to use system (especially in green mode). I like the idea of having three levels of usage. I think more applications should have that so that people can "upgrade" when they've mastered a certain feel.

-S
 
Linux, any distro, is not as easy as windows... not yet anyway... don't slam me cause I personally hate MS and am running linux, but.......

I'd say the only other OS that can compare with windows in ease of use and functionality is OS X.1

L8R
 
I agree with Abzstrac's statement. It would be very nice if Apples computers were more mainstream where you could buy them at more stores than you currently can.
 
I know this would never happen because Billy boy owns stock in Apple, but wouldn't it be great if Apple would port OS-X to the PC side and give Windowz a run for it's money.
 
I have no idea what MS will do to top XP in the consumer market but I will say XP looks pretty damn good. All OEM bundling, integration and standards-pushing issues aside it impressive me enough to finally order it. I see no sucker punch.
 
I think WinXP is the perfect home OS. It's easy to use, very stable and extremely compatible. Linux isn't user friendly enough for everybody yet and so it can't really compete in the mainstream desktop market. Macs are easy to use but unless people are used to them they'll probably choose Windows PCs. Why? Compatability, most people are used to using PCs at work and are used to the UI and the apps on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top