...

View Full Version : Destroy the Microsoft Lovers!



Deacon Frost
06-08-2009, 09:40 AM
I need someone more verse on Microsoft's failures to help me out in this thread:

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=781090

The people are supporting bing, Microsoft's new search engine, and they fail to see how horrible it is!

:(. I wish I could unsign up from this terrible stream of Microsoft positivity :(.

drhowarddrfine
06-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Bing's traffic build up was a one day event brought on by the hype. The reality has sunk in and now Bing's search traffic has fallen below what Live.com was.
Link (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/07/quick-peak-bings-reign-as-2-search-engine-lasted-one-day/)

evo
06-08-2009, 03:42 PM
If I went on that forum, I too would support Bing and Microsoft.

Do some research before you start initiating flame wars.

Apostropartheid
06-08-2009, 06:26 PM
Indeed, you shouldn't bother. "Informing people" in this case just means "unduly upsetting them".

I really wish they had 1) a name which didn't make me giggle and 2) a better logo.

Deacon Frost
06-08-2009, 07:03 PM
If I went on that forum, I too would support Bing and Microsoft.

Do some research before you start initiating flame wars.

Communist :(... >.>


Bing's traffic build up was a one day event brought on by the hype. The reality has sunk in and now Bing's search traffic has fallen below what Live.com was.
Link (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/07/quick-peak-bings-reign-as-2-search-engine-lasted-one-day/)

Thanks for the find :D. That should kill the thread.


Indeed, you shouldn't bother. "Informing people" in this case just means "unduly upsetting them".

I really wish they had 1) a name which didn't make me giggle and 2) a better logo.


Indeed. Flame Wars are fun though, especially when you get enough people involved. Sure, I won't persuade them in the least bit. They're already bent on doing their evil deeds.

However, I will feel better sticking up for !Microsoft. :)

bazz
06-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Any monopoly is not good. so in the case of OS's, m$ is not good and for search, something so big as google ain't good.

I am surprised no-one in that linked-to thread brought up that google challenged microsoft first, when they introduced chrome. Now microsoft is challenging google. hopefully, they will both beocme major players in both sectors and keep each other 'honest'.

As for the suggestion that google is better simply because iot doesn't force you to use proprietory taskbars, that is not true. they don't force you because they don't need to. worth remembering that everything we buy, has a cost element for marketing included. Google is paid by sponsorship. so it isn't free but because we have no control over their revenue streams, we are exploited.

Would you really want to pay the current price of product X if you knew that say 10% of the price went to fund a dictatorship or an animal cruelty scheme?

If we had to pay for our search results, they might be more accurate and without crud. but becasue we aren't paying ~ and because 'free' seems to be the dominant force in IT ~ we can't complain if product,service or results are rubbish.

SO it looks like google is here to stay and we wold be best served if they had a major competitor.

bazz

evo
06-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Communist? I'm not the one trying to shovel useless arguments down the throats of those who don't nor want to care. Doing what you are is simply belittling yourself and ruining your rep to those online. It's like apple supporters and firefox users who think using a browser or OS is classified 'cool'. Refrain. I'll be updating my signature to 'I love microsoft, bing and ie6'.

drhowarddrfine
06-08-2009, 08:10 PM
Any monopoly is not good. so in the case of OS's, m$ is not good and for search, something so big as google ain't good.Not necessarily. There have been benevolent monopolies in the past but, yes, competition always moves things forward.

Deacon Frost
06-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Any monopoly is not good. so in the case of OS's, m$ is not good and for search, something so big as google ain't good.

I am surprised no-one in that linked-to thread brought up that google challenged microsoft first, when they introduced chrome. Now microsoft is challenging google. hopefully, they will both beocme major players in both sectors and keep each other 'honest'.

As for the suggestion that google is better simply because iot doesn't force you to use proprietory taskbars, that is not true. they don't force you because they don't need to. worth remembering that everything we buy, has a cost element for marketing included. Google is paid by sponsorship. so it isn't free but because we have no control over their revenue streams, we are exploited.

Would you really want to pay the current price of product X if you knew that say 10% of the price went to fund a dictatorship or an animal cruelty scheme?

If we had to pay for our search results, they might be more accurate and without crud. but becasue we aren't paying ~ and because 'free' seems to be the dominant force in IT ~ we can't complain if product,service or results are rubbish.

SO it looks like google is here to stay and we wold be best served if they had a major competitor.

bazz

Indeed, I agree. Monopoly is bad. Neither Google nor MS is a monopoly, they simply have the majority of the market shares. Apple exists against MS. And a lot of stuff exists against Google.

So neither completely control the market. But how one operates is better than how another does.

Microsoft puts a cost on their product. Google doesn't put anything short of bandwidth costs on theirs. Microsoft's product is funded by idiots who don't know how to use anything better. Google is funded by the desire to learn more. What's wrong with that?


Communist? I'm not the one trying to shovel useless arguments down the throats of those who don't nor want to care. Doing what you are is simply belittling yourself and ruining your rep to those online. It's like apple supporters and firefox users who think using a browser or OS is classified 'cool'. Refrain. I'll be updating my signature to 'I love microsoft, bing and ie6'.

Lol, I just don't support people being stupid, and I love instigating discussion. So what if the argument is useless? Just because I know I can't convince a Christian God doesn't exist, doesn't mean I won't try? I'm at least voicing what I think to be right, rather than just keeping quiet and letting people remain in the cloud of stupidity.


Not necessarily. There have been benevolent monopolies in the past but, yes, competition always moves things forward.

Yes, but with competition, there's no monopoly. Good thing, yes, but Microsoft doesn't need to try and get in on this whole search thing. Stealing Google's code to make their search engine is just pathetic.

drhowarddrfine
06-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Neither Google nor MS is a monopoly, they simply have the majority of the market shares.Microsoft was declared a monopoly by the US Justice Department and has been under federal oversite since the 1990s for being one. Google is borderline but has never been determined to be the one that determinates the outcome of a market.


So neither completely control the market.The desktop market is controlled by Microsoft and, at one time, they had a lot to say about how and what worked with their software.


Yes, but with competition, there's no monopoly.

Competition does not mean one is not a monopoly. Control is the deciding factor.

bazz
06-08-2009, 10:35 PM
Microsoft puts a cost on their product. Google doesn't put anything short of bandwidth costs on theirs.


Microsofts product is as free as is googles! You buy a PC, windows is already installed and included in the price.
Google is free at the point of delivery too. It's price is included in whatever you buy from companies that pay google for advertising or for the adwords system.



Microsoft's product is funded by idiots who don't know how to use anything better. Google is funded by the desire to learn more. What's wrong with that?


oh pulleeeze :rolleyes:
see above.



Lol, I just don't support people being stupid, and I love instigating discussion. So what if the argument is useless?

Really? That comment might carry some weight if it wasn't so ridiculous. To have constructive discussion, it is necessary to show some respect both for other people and their own personal choices as well as their views. And if your argument is usless, what's the point in voicing it? You might have the time on your hands to listen to rubbish but most people do not.

Lets see how true your assertion is about google. You say it is funded by the desire to learn. Let's test that. why not google the term: 'constructive discussion'?



Just because I know I can't convince a Christian God doesn't exist, doesn't mean I won't try? I'm at least voicing what I think to be right, rather than just keeping quiet and letting people remain in the cloud of stupidity.


My Grandmother used to say: "There is none as stupid as those who won't learn".
I would encourage you to read up the difference between stating opinion and fact. When people continue to spout their opinion instead of getting the facts on the subject, they show themselves up. The world has more than enough mouth pieces. And when they continue to try to force people to their opinion, which is subjective and without factual basis anyway, they become irrelevant.

Y'know; some of your comments say more about you than thery do add to your debate. Simply because people don't agree with your opinion or - as you described it, "...voicing what I think to be right" - does not make them stupid. Indeed, it could be said that it makes them clever, because they are prepared to hold to their own views rather than being sucked in blindly, by listening to someone else's.

Assertions, if made at all, should be made only by those who Know for fact what they are asserting!



Yes, but with competition, there's no monopoly. Good thing, yes, but Microsoft doesn't need to try and get in on this whole search thing. Stealing Google's code to make their search engine is just pathetic.

How big, do you think, would be the legal action by google if someone stole their code?! bigger than a googol of sh*ts! You seem overly protective of google. Hardly the position of someone who wants to instill constructive discussion. Google brought out an OS called chrome. Microsoft develops their existing search engine. which one has stood on the toes of the other??

Not that that matters in corporate business. That's life. But for anyone to say that monopoly is bad and that competition is good; is a bit feeble when they complain when that competition takes place.

bazz

TheShaner
06-08-2009, 11:38 PM
Microsoft's product is funded by idiots who don't know how to use anything better. Google is funded by the desire to learn more. What's wrong with that?
:confused: I'm an idiot now since I bought a laptop with Windows and MS products? Wait, I'm an idiot with the desire to learn since I also use Google and Gmail :rolleyes: What's wrong is your lack of debating your viewpoints in a rational way that could actually inspire (rather than instigate) constructive discussion.


Lol, I just don't support people being stupid, and I love instigating discussion. So what if the argument is useless? Just because I know I can't convince a Christian God doesn't exist, doesn't mean I won't try? I'm at least voicing what I think to be right, rather than just keeping quiet and letting people remain in the cloud of stupidity.
:eek: Your logic is totally flawed, my friend. Since when does a useless argument to instigate discussion break people free of their so-called "cloud of stupidity"? I can debate for and against both atheism and monotheism all day with logical and theoretical proof for both sides of the argument, allowing me to better understand and reach a conclusion for which one I believe. Whether you're debating theology or search engines, you better be well-versed in both theories/products, because nothing loses a debate quicker than ignorance. If you can offer valid reasons of why Bing is inferior to Google while citing knowledge of both search engines, go on and spark discussion. If not, you put yourself in the same "cloud of stupidity".


Good thing, yes, but Microsoft doesn't need to try and get in on this whole search thing. Stealing Google's code to make their search engine is just pathetic.
Why can't they? I've yet to see a valid argument on why they shouldn't. MS has always had a search presence, i.e. MSN Search and Live, albeit a small one. You've yet to debate Bazz's point of Google entering the browser war, which to me, is more of a branch of Google's domain since MS has at least always had some sort of search presence. Also, any verified sources and cross-references on this "code stealing" you speak of?

-Shane

evo
06-08-2009, 11:45 PM
Deacon, you'll learn that there is no such thing as free, or the desire to learn. Everything boils down to money. And when it does, money is your sole intention. Google makes its lions share from advertising revenue, microsoft makes theirs from the products they sell, when they're not busy pinching staff from other companies. I've learnt to take things with a pinch of salt. Live and let be. Que se ra se ra, cest la vi.

oracleguy
06-09-2009, 12:33 AM
There have been benevolent monopolies in the past but, yes, competition always moves things forward.

I am curious as to which monopolies were benevolent. Could you name the one(s) you were thinking of?


Microsoft puts a cost on their product. Google doesn't put anything short of bandwidth costs on theirs. Microsoft's product is funded by idiots who don't know how to use anything better. Google is funded by the desire to learn more. What's wrong with that?

So what would you call people that use Microsoft products and Google products and FOSS?

What I am getting at is the right tool for the job, some times it is a Microsoft product, some times it isn't.

VIPStephan
06-09-2009, 01:21 AM
I am curious as to which monopolies where benevolent. Could you name the one(s) you were thinking of?


Well, at first this would require a definition of “benevolent”. Benevolence is a very subjective perception. What is benevolent to one might be completely repulsive to someone else.

drhowarddrfine
06-09-2009, 01:42 AM
Microsofts product is as free as is googles! You buy a PC, windows is already installed and included in the price.Um, so you are charged for it. Windows is never free. I bought this laptop and didn't want Windows on it but I couldn't get it any other way. Something I feel is outrageously illegal.

drhowarddrfine
06-09-2009, 01:45 AM
I am curious as to which monopolies were benevolent. Could you name the one(s) you were thinking of?

Eeeeehhhh, I don't remember. Something I read in a book in school years ago. Something like Ma Bell was a pretty good company till they got too big. Hadn't thought about it till now. Benevolent was the wrong word to use.

Remember, being a monopoly does not make one evil.

oracleguy
06-09-2009, 02:12 AM
Um, so you are charged for it. Windows is never free. I bought this laptop and didn't want Windows on it but I couldn't get it any other way. Something I feel is outrageously illegal.

You can get the cost refunded after you buy the computer. I don't remember the exact process but it is possible though it can be kind of a pain to do.


Remember, being a monopoly does not make one evil.

I agree however that is where a monopoly usually ends up. A good example is the current problems with the government sanctioned cable company monopolies in the United States.

bazz
06-09-2009, 02:44 AM
Um, so you are charged for it. Windows is never free. I bought this laptop and didn't want Windows on it but I couldn't get it any other way. Something I feel is outrageously illegal.

Indeed you are charged for it. My assertion was, however, comparative. Google is considered free yet we do pay for it because the costs of business advertising with google is absorbed in their overheads, which determine part of the price we pay for them from the retailer/wholesaler. Windows is 'free' in the same way because its cost is included in the price of the PC we may buy.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

bazz

drhowarddrfine
06-09-2009, 02:49 AM
You can get the cost refunded after you buy the computer. I don't remember the exact process but it is possible though it can be kind of a pain to do.
I tried somewhat. The sales guy claimed he knew nothing about it even though I brought up the case of the Englishman who did so. I think his refund was about $58.

bazz
06-09-2009, 02:55 AM
You have reminded me of when I couldn't locate the key code for my windows and I had had to re-install it. I rang Microsoft on some number I found for them and amongst other things they told me it is illegal for anyone to sell a PC without windows being installed on it. I personally do not like that. Have they forgotten about customer choice being 'king'.

They gave me a new code though I didn't need it. I had forgotten that I had put the sticker on the side of the tower unit. :o :rolleyes:

bazz

oracleguy
06-09-2009, 06:12 AM
You have reminded me of when I couldn't locate the key code for my windows and I had had to re-install it. I rang Microsoft on some number I found for them and amongst other things they told me it is illegal for anyone to sell a PC without windows being installed on it. I personally do not like that. Have they forgotten about customer choice being 'king'.

That reminds me of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Though they have a history of doing weird crap to their customers as you all know. The situation that leaps to mind is the windows error code with DR DOS from the 90s, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

domjoel
06-14-2009, 06:43 AM
well are there any statistics about usage of bing being compared to google? not that it would make any difference because bing is a new player. why don't we just give it more time?

drhowarddrfine
06-14-2009, 03:36 PM
Current search engine usage (http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-daily-20080701-20090614)



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum