Jump to content
just_some_guy

Why I have concerns about Microsoft

Recommended Posts

As mentioned above... for most users it is a moot point.

 

As an example. if I walked around the office and replaced everyones copy of Office 2007 with version 1.0, I recon one person would complain that it <i>looked</i> different... and no one else would even notice the lack of features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's bullshit. Even if you're talking about OS's MS doesn't have a total monopoly.

Microsoft have an effective monopoly in the OS and office apps markets.

 

what he said ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of Microsoft abusing their monopoly - explicitly with IE - I'd like to ask if people think they did the same thing with TCP/IP stacks?

 

I remember back in high school, one of the library computers (running some variant of windows - 3.x, if not 95) was old enough that you had to manually load the TCP stack. Trumpet, maybe?

 

From vague memory, MS later integrated a port/version of one of the BSD stacks, before later re-writing their own one.

 

I remember at one point, reading about the various versions of the Amiga OS (especially post 3.0) where they included one or two versions of a time-limited TCP stack for you to try out. It made me wonder why on earth you wouldn't just ship one with the OS - either free, or officially licenced - because it seemed like one of those things you kind of expect an OS to come with by default, to make your life easier in terms of getting on with doing stuff. Which is how I sort of see MS shipping no IE for some versions of Windows in Europe, these days.

 

ie, why do I not hear people decrying MS for shipping a default TCP/IP stack with Windows, and 'stifling the competition'?

Wow, Trumpet Winsock. I thought people forgot all about them. I threw out an old Ozemail signup disk (Floppy disk) that was just a branded Trumpet disk, just the other day. I thought I was the only one on thet planet that remembers those days. Remember the Netbeui update for Windows 3 and then 3.11 with TCP/IP ?

 

Whilst it was crappy, it paved the future and helped push TCP to the masses ( along with Unix/Linux)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above... for most users it is a moot point.

 

As an example. if I walked around the office and replaced everyones copy of Office 2007 with version 1.0, I recon one person would complain that it <i>looked</i> different... and no one else would even notice the lack of features.

I have 3 copies of Office 2 on 5.15" disks (Double Density) and 2 or 3 copies of office 4 on 3.5" HDD (15 disks in a set from memory) - all legal and looking for a home ... if you have the disk drives.

Maybe time for a field test ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, even I can remember trumpet and netbeui :p

Who can't? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, even I can remember trumpet and netbeui :p

Who can't? :p

 

brains, he's only like 19 or something and a half (sorry).

 

 

 

:p

Edited by iamthemaxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe they did.

That would have been very early 90's.

Perhaps just retird to the bench ?

 

"The rest is history. Peter marketed the Trumpet Winsock privately in the early months of 1994 at a time when the Internet was growing rapidly. The sales grew exponentially and within months Peter had to leave his university job to nurture and grow the fledgling small business into a multi million dollar company. The company grew to the point where it established an overseas office in Los Angeles to service North American customers. The internet was at a point of rapid expansion by now with many users still using Windows 3.x The release of Windows 95 in 1995 was a turning point for both Trumpet and the Internet. Suddenly customers did not need a Winsock stack as one was provided for free within Windows. However customers still wished to continue with a product they knew and many customers even though they had Windows 95 still preferred to use Trumpet Winsock. As it was clear that the lifetime of a Winsock stack was fairly short, Peter and his company, Trumpet Software, had been working on several other ideas, and these included a NAT product (Firesock), a general purpose internet server (Fanfare) and Trumpet Mailbird (a derivation of the email component original Trumpet Newsreader). Sadly, as has too often happened in the industry, the inclusion of many of these basic internet applications in Windows has made it hard for such products to survive."

 

http://tattsoft.com/aboutUs.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed one of the moderators on this forum currently has the Windows logo as his avatar. Well, I applaud him for being upfront about his biases. In a similar spirit of openness, I'm listing here why I have concerns about Microsoft. And, because TL:DR is endemic on Atomic, I have limited myself to a maximum of two explanatory points per reason.

As already pointed out, I didn't set my avatar myself.

But even if I had, you surely would have worked out that it was in jest, right?

If you've ever perused the Apple section of the forums, you'll find I post there more often than most other technical sections. In fact, I primarily work with Macs professionally, although I use a range of OSes myself.

 

The funny thing is, having a windows logo as an avatar is so ridiculously blatant, it has to be either a straight-faced parody, or a true zealot. As you like to say, "It was just a joke, why take it seriously".

 

As for microsoft, as I see it, the continued loyalty comes down to a number of factors. Primarily, backward compatibility. However, as microsoft tends to try and use their own, secretive, often patented technologies, this has the effect of 'lock-in'. Microsoft's recent loss of market share, and profit I think comes down to a few factors:

 

Vista failed, as judged by the consumer.

Apple shifted to intel.

 

Combined with a very public acceptance of microsoft's practices.

 

A lot of people, shifting to macs, from 'wintel' machines (anecdotally) have been happy they can finally "get rid of microsoft" and use vmware fusion or parallels to run the little things they need every so often. Things like MS money, etc, which some people do actually use.

 

XP was a relatively simple move, for the consumer. In most cases it worked flawlessly without effecting hardware. XP was also spiritually (in terms of UI layout) similar to earlier releases.

Vista had dozens of innovative features cut. The features that remained, were easy to implement, and not terribly innovative.

Vista broke a LOT of hardware compatability. That is, there were no vista drivers for them, and the xp drivers did not work. This shat off a LOT of customers, many of whom were told by salespeople (not MS staff, I know) that it would work fine. MS were pretty aggressive about XP being a dead end, and MS offered incentives for IT staff to push Vista.

 

The result was disaster for many customers, having to fork out for new devices. Not terribly old ones, necessarily, either. Many devices such as industrial labelers, simply didn't have drivers for the older revisions, cost many thousands of dollars, and weren't even legacy devices, being USB based, not LPT.

 

In contrast, and in my experience, there were issues with the 10.5 launch for mac. There were printer issues, however in many cases, if the manufacturer did not update the ppds for their printers, then third parties could at least do that for them, and move the few troubled old drivers across to the new OS.

 

So, in my experience, a lot of people have felt locked in and stuck with MS products they don't want to use. In many cases, that means they are happy to learn something totally new, especially if they feel that Vista will break their backwards compatibility, and if they feel that they will have to invest time in learning Vista's differences in UI layout and setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already pointed out, I didn't set my avatar myself.

But even if I had, you surely would have worked out that it was in jest, right?

If you've ever perused the Apple section of the forums, you'll find I post there more often than most other technical sections. In fact, I primarily work with Macs professionally, although I use a range of OSes myself. The funny thing is, having a windows logo as an avatar is so ridiculously blatant, it has to be either a straight-faced parody, or a true zealot. As you like to say, "It was just a joke, why take it seriously".

Whether serious or a joke, it was just a topical lead-in to a serious thread I wanted to write to explain why I often post black humour jokes about Microsoft.

 

But for the record, yes, I did think your Windows avatar was serious. There's always a lot of geeky enthusiastic hype prior to the release of a new version of Windows. I thought your avatar might just be another example of that.

 

Plus, that people can change your avatar without your consent would never have occurred to me.

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Trumpet Winsock. I thought people forgot all about them. I threw out an old Ozemail signup disk (Floppy disk) that was just a branded Trumpet disk, just the other day. I thought I was the only one on thet planet that remembers those days. Remember the Netbeui update for Windows 3 and then 3.11 with TCP/IP ?

I certainly remember having to learn how to reset the stack asnauseum to get access back :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Netbeui update for Windows 3 and then 3.11 with TCP/IP ?

Windows 3.0 didn't have any networking functionality in the OS itself. Any connectivity was provided from underneath Windows by DOS TSRs, or by add-on applications like Trumpet and Netware.

 

Windows for Workgroups was the first Windows to actually contain any native networking code.

 

This post brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood retro addict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Netbeui update for Windows 3 and then 3.11 with TCP/IP ?

Windows 3.0 didn't have any networking functionality in the OS itself. Any connectivity was provided from underneath Windows by DOS TSRs, or by add-on applications like Trumpet and Netware.

 

Windows for Workgroups was the first Windows to actually contain any native networking code.

 

This post brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood retro addict.

 

Yes that is correct. I know I reffered to it as an update but I was playing nice !

 

I remember squeezing the memory in config.sys and trying to load everything into higher memory so the Tsr's (Including the mscdex and mouse drivers) did not limit me too much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take on things, Microsoft has as it's number one priority protecting it's monopoly at all costs.

 

http://files.me.com/blhatton/4062ze

Neat compilation there.

 

I. Microsoft’s Elimination Of Rival Media Players

 

...RealNetworks...

To be fair, RealPlayer was shit anyway. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take on things, Microsoft has as it's number one priority protecting it's monopoly at all costs.

Awesome link thanks. Wish I'd had that before I write my original post ... would have saved me a lot of remembering and typing :)

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, that people can change your avatar without your consent would never have occurred to me.

He certainly had consent to change my avatar :)

It's tak's way of getting back at me, for ignoring him so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the paper.

 

First of all, it seems to support the EU ruling regarding IE and Windows, which already makes the paper slightly less credible.

 

Then, who actually authored the paper is not overly clear.

 

There is very little text, with most pages actually containing references rather than writing.

 

What text there is, seems to be hugely subjective.

 

Microsoft has done a lot of dodgy stuff, but if you want to attack them in a credible way, you should highlight this and present it objectively, allowing the facts to speak for themselves. This paper does not do that, and instead present a particular interpretation of history. It's not authoritative, and I'm not even sure it's worth taking seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the EU and their courts are not "credible", okay...

 

The reason there are so many references is to back up the author's arguments by providing sources for the information, that's so you can reach your own conclusions on the topic, it's called academic writing.

 

And, yes this is just one interpretation of history which was why I chose to introduce it as "An interesting take on things".

 

I just read the paper.

 

First of all, it seems to support the EU ruling regarding IE and Windows, which already makes the paper slightly less credible.

 

Then, who actually authored the paper is not overly clear.

 

There is very little text, with most pages actually containing references rather than writing.

 

What text there is, seems to be hugely subjective.

 

Microsoft has done a lot of dodgy stuff, but if you want to attack them in a credible way, you should highlight this and present it objectively, allowing the facts to speak for themselves. This paper does not do that, and instead present a particular interpretation of history. It's not authoritative, and I'm not even sure it's worth taking seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the EU and their courts are not "credible", okay...

They are credible, certainly. I never said they were not.

 

The reason there are so many references is to back up the author's arguments by providing sources for the information, that's so you can reach your own conclusions on the topic, it's called academic writing.

No, it's not, and this paper is certainly not academic.

 

And, yes this is just one interpretation of history which was why I chose to introduce it as "An interesting take on things".

Fair enough.

 

It's basically an interesting blog post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the EU and their courts are not "credible", okay...

They are credible, certainly. I never said they were not.

First of all, it seems to support the EU ruling regarding IE and Windows, which already makes the paper slightly less credible.

By supporting the EU ruling the paper becomes less credible???

 

So the ruling is credible yet supporting it is not???

 

The reason there are so many references is to back up the author's arguments by providing sources for the information, that's so you can reach your own conclusions on the topic, it's called academic writing.

No, it's not, and this paper is certainly not academic.

I guess there are too many references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×