...

View Full Version : Why Bash Microsoft?



Basscyst
11-18-2003, 04:04 AM
OK- I've been drinking and I feel like starting a debate. Maybe this has been posted b4 but not while I was around. I'll start simple. John makes a product. John is greedy. John sells said product to M$. M$ makes millions of dollars more off John's product then they paid. People get mad at M$. Why not get mad at John? GO -->

bcarl314
11-18-2003, 01:41 PM
OK, I'll bite.

The problem is that, that is not how M$ does things.

More "REAL WORLD" example.

John and Bob are working on similar project (unbeknowst to each other) developing the next great widget program.

John and Bob finish the project at the same time.

M$ sees the product and contact John and Bob. Bob say's go to (you know where) this is mine. I developed it and I'm going to sell it to the public for $99. (example).

John say's, "You bet, I'll sell my soul for $100,000".

M$ distributes the product for almost free with their operating system.

Bob can't compete at that level for he asks M$ to buy him out as well. M$ says go to (you know where) you had your chance.

Bob sues M$ for copyright infringment, monopolistic practices, unfair advantage, etc...

M$ pays off supreme court judge to rule that this is M$ expressing freedom of speech (or some other [insert stupid argument here])

M$ sues Bob for DMCA violations

Bob loses (for the same reasons above)

Now that there's no competition, M$ charges $999 and cuts support after 1 week.


There you go. Typical M$ Business plan. Buy competition. Squash competition. Jack up prices. Make money.

Next -->

COMMENT: It's not that I hate M$ products, some of them are quite nice and user friendly. But rather it's that I HATE their business ethics / practices. That's the real problem with M$.

Roy Sinclair
11-18-2003, 04:20 PM
Of course your take on MS's business practices are both simplistic and overdramatized. While MS has done nearly everything you say at one time or another, those are exceptions to their normal business practices and not standard practices.

What bothers me the most about all the MS bashers is their faith in other companies competing against MS, especially when those companies are guilty of doing the same things that MS has done.

IBM, Sun and Oracle are all guilt of the same business practices and things wouldn't be a whit better if one of them were to gain the same kind of domination that MS has (actually IBM once had that domination and since I can recall that, I remember IBM being worse in it's practices back then than MS is now).

bcarl314
11-18-2003, 04:31 PM
True. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

And I recognize that my example was a dramatization however, when looking for creativity and innovation in the marketplace, monopolies rarely make any significant contribution.

Sure, they standardize processes as M$ has done, but that standardization comes at a price.

The question is: Are we willing to accept that price? Currently we are, so M$ continues to exist. However, if we decide that we require innovation more than standardization, we need to be able to move forward. M$ time and again has proven they do not want that to happen. And rightfully so. That would mean the end of their business. They continually use their monopoly to shut down competition (IE Explorer is one good example of this, as well is their $8,000,000 grant to SCO to fight IBM over Linux source code) which they need to be held accountable for.

Mhtml
11-19-2003, 05:18 AM
With the ever increasing popularity of nix systems, M$ bashers are becoming more than a minority. My problem with most M$ bashers is that they don't have a proper reason for disliking the company. It is becoming a fad to be anti-ms.

In my oppinion Microsoft have produced many brilliant products and founded many markets by themselves.

Also bcarl, I find your argument to be very weak as has already been stated it is common practise for companies to do what you have stated, although no company does it quite like how you said.

Besides, one a product becomes very successful, say like IE for example Microsoft decide that you'll have to pay for it and it will not be included in their os.

People don't buy Microsoft products because they're cheap, they don't buy the operating system because it comes with a certain product. They buy these things because of the amount of time, money and skilled professionals they have working on the programs. Microsoft create quality user interfaces to nearly all of their products, some programs adapt to how you work, most work they way you want to work in the first place.

With the widespread adoption of broadband technologies by many thousands of people every month support for software has reached a new level, as far as I can tell Microsoft are leading the charge here with the new features of windows xp including the remote desktop progam which allows direct interfacing with a users computer to visually show them how to achieve something or fix a problem.

In most cases I see no reason to bash Microsoft. Most who do don't even know why, they only have the idea which isn't backed by any facts.

:D

oracleguy
11-19-2003, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Mhtml

People don't buy Microsoft products because they're cheap, they don't buy the operating system because it comes with a certain product. They buy these things because of the amount of time, money and skilled professionals they have working on the programs. Microsoft create quality user interfaces to nearly all of their products, some programs adapt to how you work, most work they way you want to work in the first place.

Somewhat, but it is more that Windows comes on most consumer computers by default. So people end up buying compatible products.

bcarl314
11-19-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Mhtml
Also bcarl, I find your argument to be very weak as has already been stated it is common practise for companies to do what you have stated, although no company does it quite like how you said.

Exactly my point. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I live in some deluted fantasy world where we all hug and love each other, but the overall coprporate attitude of large companies, and the business ethics, are the fundamental problem.

Does M$ do anything worse than the old IBM or AT&T monopolies? No. However, the government, in both cases, stepped in a said, "You've got an unfair competitive advantage in your marketplace and are using that advantage to the detrement of the industry". M$ seems to be skating past that issue. Especially with the current US administration.

Typically you don't see the business practices and ethical problems like the ones at large cops, in small to mid-sized businesses. Oh sure they exist, but those compaines are severly impacted when they try to over charge for products or provide poor service. To have a stable, viable small business you really need to focus on customer satisfaction. On the other had, large businesses tend to focus on revenue growth, profits, and share holder value rather than customer service. (Dispite what their PR departments say)

M$ is not the only company I don't like, they're plenty of them out there. Best Buy, Large Banks, (I use credit unions - member owned!), some telecom companies (Q-worst for example), Network solutions, and the list goes on.

Although, I guess my viewpoint may be a little distorted. I'm the 3rd generation in my family to own and operate a small business. I know what customer service is, how to provide it, and when I'm not getting it. That's my biggest grip. I'm not singling out M$ as suggested, rather saying that they are the stereotypical large corporation.

Roy Sinclair
11-19-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by oracleguy
Somewhat, but it is more that Windows comes on most consumer computers by default. So people end up buying compatible products.

There's some very good reasons why Windows comes on most computers that MS's detractors don't like to acknowledge because those reasons count for a lot more than the arm-twisting MS also used.

One major improvement was the richer API provided by Windows and the ease of developing drivers for Windows as compared to DOS. Prior to Windows a hardware manufacturer for a device like a printer often had to write dozens of drivers in order to support all the various software packages because those packages all supported different interfaces. With Windows they were forced to write one additional driver to support Windows but with new applications being written for Windows and with many of the older applications being rewritten for Windows the amount of work they had to go through in order to develop new hardware was reduced.

That advantage was also available to the big competitor for Windows at that time, namely OS/2. So why did Windows beat OS/2 it's technically superior competition? Through software applications and price. Until it was already too late to win the battle, IBM kept the price of OS/2 quite a bit higher than the DOS/Windows bundle, but that was only a small factor. The big difference was that MS also provided high quality, low cost development tools (Borland deserves a kudo here, they also provided such tools and kept competitive pressure on MS to keep their tools low priced as well). The cost of the development tools for OS/2 were considerably higher and they were also a lot harder to use with less available documentation.

Because the applications people used were developed for Windows, OS/2 eventually lost that battle.

Interestingly enough, during the early years of Windows MS couldn't get much developed for it, not until MS finally came out with their own applications for Windows would a lot of other software vendors consider porting theirs to Windows. As it turned out, having a lead in those applications turned out to be another competitive advantage for MS. That lead was improved by missteps by their competition. Take Word Processing for example, Wordperfect was the king of that market, any new printer would always have a driver for Wordperfect or they could count on very few sales.

When MS ported their Word product to Windows, Wordperfect decided to wait before investing in developing their own Windows product. They were however so enamoured of their own printer driver interface that when they did finally take the plunge, they wasted a lot of their development money on making their own printer driver interface for Windows instead of using the already developed interface. It also didn't help that they rushed their product to market before it was ready so their first couple versions were very buggy and unstable. By the time they recovered from those mistakes and had a stable and usable product available they'd already lost much of the market.

OTOH, Lotus 123 lost it's place as the primary spreadsheet program because MS looked at it's Windows applications and decided they could bundle them together and offer them for an attractive price. That wasn't an "anti-competitive" action, it was in fact a very competitive action since MS wasn't the leader in any of those product categories. It also turned out to be a very good move for the user community who responded by buying a lot of those MS Office bundles and ultimately established the MS applications as the leaders in that market. After all, why buy copies of WordPerfect, Lotus 123 and Harvard Graphics separately when you could get equivalent products to all three of those for a price that was less than the cost of just one of them.

Another great example is going on right now, the MS media player has always been present in Windows since the 3.1 days but now we have RealMedia and Apple complaining to the EU that MS is competing unfairly by continuing to provide and improve that player. This despite the fact that both of those players add a nearly useless, ram and cpu cycle wasting background application when you install them. The RealPlayer is inflexible, surrounded by advertisements and their preferred format yields a poor quality video. Quicktime has good video quality (maybe even excellent quality) but the Apple people just can't resist trying to make the interface like the Mac so Windows users a frustrated by a program that acts "strangely" for no good reason. MS on the other hand has made their player really customizable and made it easy to build really wild looking cusotmizations so people can have fun with their player. I don't see why it's so hard to understand why people prefer to use the MS media player. FWIW, Real and Apple could easily write CODECs to allow their proprietary media formats to be played within the MS player but instead of focusing on promoting their media formats they've instead chosen to spend their efforts in being contrary and stubborn because people don't like their players as well as the one from MS.

oracleguy
11-19-2003, 05:40 PM
I do agree with you Roy. If memory serves, didn't M$ at first not release some or all of the APIs? They used them in their programs but didn't tell anyone else. In a way, it is good that they did, otherwise level of interaction between 3rd party products with the OS. And I am in support of it, I mean without it, I couldn't have written a simple vb prog to shutdown my computer when it is ran so I can use it as a scheduled task.

Don't know how many of you have heard this but Microsoft wants or was at least considering making it so instead of a software box saying you need 500mhz cpu, 128megs of ram, etc. It would say you need a system rated 50 points or higher (or whatever). I think this is a really dumb idea, one of the most obvious side effects would be that people would be driven to have more points than their friends. And depending on how the score was calculated, my computer could be rated 75 points so I would think a 50 point peice of software would work, but if the algorithm gives you an X ammount of points for ram, I could have 4gigs of ram and it would unbalance my score. (Probably not the best example but hopefully you see my point) It would be my guess that game publishers wouldn't take on the idea, or at least not lose the existing specs (aka list both on the box).

Roy Sinclair
11-19-2003, 07:31 PM
I do agree with you Roy. If memory serves, didn't M$ at first not release some or all of the APIs? They used them in their programs but didn't tell anyone else. In a way, it is good that they did, otherwise level of interaction between 3rd party products with the OS. And I am in support of it, I mean without it, I couldn't have written a simple vb prog to shutdown my computer when it is ran so I can use it as a scheduled task.

Well, yes and no. MS's Office group did indeed use ONE undocumented Windows API in their software. I don't recall who it was that figured that out but since it was relatively easy to install software that monitored API usage even in Windows 3.x it's really pretty difficult to hide the use of an API. IIRC, it turned out that the undocumented API they used actually had a documented counterpart that would have worked better anyway. All in all, it turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Of course there was a real basis behind the complaints, but it wasn't a case of using hidden APIs. The reality behind the complaints was that the MS Office group was creating enhanced and common functionality across their products in the form of what's now known as the "Common Controls". Those "Common Controls" were picked up by the Windows development group and added to Windows with the purpose of making them available to everyone for development but because they were developed by the Office group they got used first in those programs before the rest of the world had a chance to learn about them. That's not the only enhancements to Windows that have come from the Office group but it's probably the best example. It's that kind of cross-pollination between the OS and Application groups that's behind the allegations of using hidden APIs and other "unfair advantage" complaints and also what's the real reason why there was such an effort to get MS split into two different companies during the court battles. The whole "undocumented APIs" thing actually muddies the waters and removes the focus from the real point.

Shift4Sms
11-19-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by bcarl314
M$ pays off supreme court judge to rule that this is M$ expressing freedom of speech (or some other [insert stupid argument here]) If you have proof of this then case closed -- the M$ towers will fall and the judge(s) involved will be disbarred and probably imprisoned. Show me the proof...

Jason
11-19-2003, 09:27 PM
If you have proof of this then case closed -- the M$ towers will fall and the judge(s) involved will be disbarred and probably imprisoned. Show me the proof...

smarty it was a situation.....not real....nice try though


Jason

oracleguy
11-20-2003, 12:55 AM
He still has a point.

bcarl314
11-20-2003, 03:18 AM
As mentioned before it was a dramatization. Granted, not a REAL example, but you must admit that the M$ legal machine is quite well oiled!

Not only that, they are now actively
supporting (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/17/2110216&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=187&tid=88&tid=98&tid=99) the destruction of linux and GPL.

I think they deserve the bashing they get!

Shift4Sms
11-20-2003, 03:45 AM
Point taken. But what if proof is given that the LINUX community did steal core source code from SCO? Should this be dismissed solely on the grounds that GPL is good and all else is bad?

Roy Sinclair
11-20-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by bcarl314
As mentioned before it was a dramatization. Granted, not a REAL example, but you must admit that the M$ legal machine is quite well oiled!

Not only that, they are now actively
supporting (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/17/2110216&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=187&tid=88&tid=98&tid=99) the destruction of linux and GPL.

I think they deserve the bashing they get!

That's funny, I've thought the MS legal machine more closely resembled a Rube Goldberg machine than something well tested and working smoothly. As an example, in the big anti-trust suit they never once tried to prove that the real reason Netscape failed was because their browser was both defective and effectively unchanged for several years. Not good things to allow to happen in a competitive environment. Incidentally, those are the same reasons why IE is now set to lose it's market share.

MS's sending cash to SCO is just another example of the how poor MS's legal team is doing, they just rolled over and forked out cash to SCO rather than take even a rudimentary step to see if there was any validity to SCO's claims. If you've been following the news about MS lately, you'll see that such extortion seems to be the order of the day. The cash that went from MS to SCO was to grant MS a license to use the SCO code, reading more into it than that is just the usual mis-reading of MS by those who've decided they want to hate MS.

bcarl314
11-21-2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Shift4Sms
Point taken. But what if proof is given that the LINUX community did steal core source code from SCO? Should this be dismissed solely on the grounds that GPL is good and all else is bad?

Absolutley not. Stealing is stealing. The problem is that IBM, in their lawsuit against SCO, has filed motions to compel SCO to prove 1) that they have the same code and 2) the code which is similar is not in the public domain.

SCO just went off making wild claims with no evidence to support it.

I remember seeing some link from an SCO meeting where they showed some exapmles of "copied" code. The only time I saw the code match was in the comments. So, do somments constitute copyright violations? If so, then every time you do this...



/* Begin if statment */


You must be infringing on some copyright.

Roy Sinclair
11-21-2003, 10:55 PM
Yeah, there's a lot that can be said about the SCO "sue the world" strategy, one of the most obvious being that it's a scorched earth policy which will leave them with no friends.

SDP2006
11-22-2003, 01:33 AM
I don't have any personal issues with them, but I think they are mostly disliked because they're the giant in the computer/software industry.

Mhtml
11-27-2003, 03:18 AM
Another reason people buy Microsoft products, and why Microsoft will stay very strong in the software market is the education program they have going..

They have it going at my school, the government payed Microsoft an initial X amount of money and since then Microsoft provide free volume licensed copies of any product to any public school in the country, whatever they want, whenever they want...

Now if you can see where this is going... Microsoft products are on all of the 670 computers at my school, now when a class goes to use the computers for research, they use Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows and then maybe Microsoft Office XP. When a computing class is being taught about spreadsheets or word processing or surfing the net, they use Microsoft products, when my software class is about to program something I teach them, most will open up Microsoft Visual C++, or if the teacher is there Microsoft Visual Basic or QBasic.

The end result, after 6 years of schooling is nearly 200 Microsoft drones entering the workforce, and eventually buying their own computers... All trained and familiar with Microsoft products...


Sheer brilliance if you ask me.
That's a little inaccurate, about 20 of those students would be familiar with nix, if they decide to tinker in our nix labs.

Shift4Sms
12-01-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Mhtml
Another reason people buy Microsoft products, and why Microsoft will stay very strong in the software market is the education program they have going... If this is a factor of why MS is so successful then my question would be: Why does the MS education program work so well when Apple has been focusing on this approach since it's inception? My initial programming education was on the college mainframe and Apple II's. Now I almost exclusively use MS based products.

I think the main reason why I migrated towards MS products was that Apple had very little presence in the business world. Maybe the combination of the education program with a strong business world presence works while just the education program by itself does not work and possibly breeds some of the MS hatred?

liorean
12-01-2003, 07:12 PM
I think the education world is really quite separated form the business world in terms of equipment. As an example, I've not seen a university use anything other than Borland Builder for C++ (on the Windows platform), but in the business world MVC++ and Visual Studio rules supreme.

Roy Sinclair
12-02-2003, 08:53 PM
Apple is the company that could have been in the position MS now has but stubbornly and resolutely refused to take the necessary steps. The blame mostly lies with Steve Jobs too so it's unlikely you'll see a change in the status quo either since he's still in charge there.

How could Apple be in that position? It goes back to when BG went to SJ and requested (begged) SJ to port the MacOS to the PC platform because BG wanted OUT of the OS business and specifically wanted to be able to develop one set of applications (MS Office)which would run on any MacOS supported hardware.
SJ refused to port, his vision of Apple has always been based on Apple being a hardware company and not a software company. It's SJ's continued focus on the Apple hardware and the premium prices they charge their captive audience which prevented them from gaining the crown MS now holds.

Had SJ been just a little wiser this thread might have been titled "Why Bash Apple?".

Mhtml
12-03-2003, 05:21 AM
Indeed, but perhaps it's not to late. Microsoft are currently developing their 64bit version OS and Longhorn (one in the same?) so if Apple really wanted to shake up the market by bringing their OS to the PC platform they could do it by making a 64bit version OS which although would come out after the release of the Microsoft OS they could perhaps place more time and effort into keeping the stability of the Apple OS and storm the market with some brilliant software...

Now I'd like to see that .. :D

liorean
12-03-2003, 10:39 AM
Well, it's a nice dream, but you realise part of the reason Apple didn't jump onto the x86 train was that some very bad design decisions were taken in the original 8088 and 8086 systems, which we still live with today on the PC side, but are luckily absent from the PowerPC systems? The endian difference for the systems that allows a PowerPC system to just extend a cell, but requires the x86 architecture to merge two separate cells instead is perhaps the most evident. The paging systems and the operation sets (RISC vs. CISC) are perhaps the ones that matter the most, however.

Roy Sinclair
12-03-2003, 07:33 PM
Endian issues are important but not insurmountable, Unix is an example of an OS available for both architectures. Also some processors like the now defunct Dec Alpha were bi-endian (meaning they could be configured to work either way) which IIRC, could be controlled on a thread by thread basis.

The Motorola processors always had a better instruction set than the Intel processors but the underlying instruction set doesn't mean much to the majority of coders who've never truly dealt with code at that level. RISC vs CISC issues are actually irrelevant, the advantages that the "RISC" environments brought to the table have been incorporated into the "CISC" environment anyway. RISC was always a misnomer to me anyway, when the concept was first floated the "new" RISC machines only had 6 times as many instructions as the old CISC mainframe I was working with at the time and even then nearly all the programs we ran only used about 15 instructions from that set.

Regardless, good OS design strategies have long tried to isolate and limit architectural specific code in order to increase portability.

Basscyst
12-07-2003, 06:47 AM
I bet you all thought I was going to start a debate and not participate. I won't argue with to much that has been said here, it is all quite informative. I will spread some ideas though.

Science in itself works best when it is communistic, capatalism does nothing for science but slow it's progress. Now I'm not saying I'm for communism or anything I AM a proud American, but imagine if everyone shared there ideas and discoveries with everyone else. I think there are few people in this world who wouldn't benefit from a second third or fourth etc. . .eye on their work. Ahh the downfalls it would bring. Ahh the technologies that would advance.

So what does this have to do with the topic? Well - Lets see. 1 operating system, 1 media player, 1 graphics design suite, 1 text editor, 1 office suite and so on and so on. All with there source code open for others to build on and submit for software improvement. All growing as the industry advances through the ideas and innovations of all man.

But who gets paid? This is where the communism thing gets fuzzy - when I say communism I mean the sharing of Ideas not Money.

That is what M$ does. Try to get (and pay for) the best version of whatever tool and integrate it into 1 big application that just keeps growing and improving. However lame they are at accomplishing it (but at the same time the most succesfull).

Should the company (entity would be a better word) governing this be Microsoft? No, probably not. But I'll say this, had there been 20 other companies jumping on the windows band wagon at the start making their own innovations in operating system development and 7 different PC manufacturers all pumping out PC's with 20 different operating systems - In my opinion - It would have been a great hinderence on the development of the industry.

Care to argue? Lets take this forum for example.

Basscyst

Skyzyx
12-11-2003, 09:22 PM
Microsoft is the king of "Not Invented Here". They bought DOS, they copied many interface elements from Mac OS (who got their ideas from Xerox), they bought Hotmail, they bought Link Exchange, they created MSN to compete with AOL, same thing with Messenger vs AIM. They created IE from the Mosaic codebase (created by the guys who started Netscape), they came up with J++ to compete with Java, they're developing XAML to compete with Mozilla's XUL. They bought WebTV. What's the deal?!

Microsoft's products are almost never as good as the other products out there, but people buy/use the products because they have the Microsoft label on them. Combine that with the anti-competitive tactics that they were using when licensing the Windows OS to hardware vendors, and you have a downright evil company.

And as many of us know, all of that talk in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case about "Internet Explorer is a fundamental part of the OS" is crap! I've got the standalone versions of IE 3-6 to prove it! The problem is that Microsoft is very smart/savvy, and the Department of Justice and your average corporate/consumer client is rather dumb.

Shift4Sms
12-12-2003, 01:07 AM
I beg to differ on "They bought DOS". They created DOS. It was a lot of the look & feel of the initial version of Windows that they copied from the Mac OS.

"They bought this", "they bought that" is a normal business practice -- I don't see this as necessarily being evil.

I don't like some of the anti-competitive tactics they use but this is a double-edged sword. As a developer of a competitive product I am upset because I can't mark up my prices as much as I would like. But as a consumer, prices are relatively low compared what could be. Hell, if Scott McNealy had his way, your OS would sell for $1000+ per PC -- this "champion" I could do without!

As for Netscape, once IE3 was released, the current version of IE was always far superior than the then current version of NS. This has been true up until NS7. Anyone who does any HTML, DHTML or JavaScript programming should know this. NS7 is the first version that may give IE a run for its money. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape put themselves behind in market share since at one time they had almost 100% browser market.

Skyzyx
12-12-2003, 02:13 AM
I agree with the statement about Netscape and Internet Explorer, I'm glad that Scott McNealy doesn't have his way, but they did buy DOS. Paul Allen bought it from a guy he was aquainted with (I believe) for $10,000. That's just simple, factual information.

Roy Sinclair
12-12-2003, 05:37 PM
They did indeed purchase a CPM clone, but it wasn't DOS as we knew it. They still had to alter it to work with the IBM PC which introduced a number of odd quirks and they made other changes before they produced the original DOS release.

Netscape 3 vs IE 3 was close but I think Netscape was actually still ahead at that point. It was Netscape 4 vs IE 4 where the suporiority of IE over Netscape was established.

Netscape 6/7 is just a bastardized version of the Mozilla browser, but the Mozilla browser is the best browser out there now (IMO) and I'm really heartened by the fact that there are other browsers out there nipping at their heels. I just wish MS would get off their lazy duffs and bring IE up to snuff as well.

I wonder if MS decided to let IE stagnate in the hope of getting rid of some of the heat they've taken for having written IE in the first place.

Shift4Sms
12-12-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
Netscape 3 vs IE 3 was close but I think Netscape was actually still ahead at that point. It was Netscape 4 vs IE 4 where the superiority of IE over Netscape was established.

Netscape 6/7 is just a bastardized version of the Mozilla browser, but the Mozilla browser is the best browser out there now (IMO) and I'm really heartened by the fact that there are other browsers out there nipping at their heels. I fully agree. If NS had any business sense and put any money into R & D, they would have stayed on top. Instead, they entrenched themselves and decided to fight MS in the courts and ignore the fact that technology wise, IE was leaving them in the dust.

Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
Netscape 6/7 is just a bastardized version of the Mozilla browser... Again, I fully agree but I try my best to forget NS6 (I hope I'm not confusing 6 with 5???). NS6 was one of the biggest pieces of crap ever released. I could hang the browser, and sometimes the entire PC with simple DHTML. My experience with 7 leads me to believe that it is pretty solid.

liorean
12-12-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
They did indeed purchase a CPM clone, but it wasn't DOS as we knew it. They still had to alter it to work with the IBM PC which introduced a number of odd quirks and they made other changes before they produced the original DOS release.Yeah, they had to code for some bad design choices of Intel's. Too bad IBM didn't chose a more easily extendable processor architecture to build their platform on.

Netscape 3 vs IE 3 was close but I think Netscape was actually still ahead at that point. It was Netscape 4 vs IE 4 where the suporiority of IE over Netscape was established.Was just going to say that nn3 was still ahead of ie3, but that they were about equal as of ie4, if not a slight bit tipped toward the ie end. With ie5, however, the scales weighed entirely towards ie...

Netscape 6/7 is just a bastardized version of the Mozilla browser, but the Mozilla browser is the best browser out there now (IMO) and I'm really heartened by the fact that there are other browsers out there nipping at their heels. I just wish MS would get off their lazy duffs and bring IE up to snuff as well.Yeah, either that or kill it off. As it is, they are making the worst possible decision by just letting it collect dust. (They could always build an enhanced browser on top of Gecko and replace ie with that - then they would get to the Mac and Linux platforms without having to put down a huge load of work on it. Since the browser's core would be free for them to use, and they can do any extensions in such a manner that they don't have to give back to the community, they would actually have both stolen their main competitor's entire repertoire of arguments for changing over, as well as gotten an entire working program essentially for free.)
I wonder if MS decided to let IE stagnate in the hope of getting rid of some of the heat they've taken for having written IE in the first place.My guess: They don't need ie any more. Ie was a way to eliminate a threat (the Internet in the hands of Netscape) as well as a way to introduce closer-to-the-user interfaces. They gain no money from it, and certainly not from making it standards compatible so that every other company easily can do the same functionality and thus produce replacement products that can do everything they can in the same way. They currently have more to lose than gain in taking up the standards train when it comes to money. Have a look at MSXML instead. That's one application that hasn't been at a standstill. My guess is that that's the future, standards compliant browser that you will see when Microsoft get's their arses out of the wagon and produces a browser to blow the competitors away. (With their record, I don't think they would settle for about-on-level-with-Gecko.) No, I wouldn't expect any large changes in HTML and tagsoup capabilities (including rendering) in ie even after Longhorn.

liorean
12-12-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Shift4Sms
Again, I fully agree but I try my best to forget NS6 (I hope I'm not confusing 6 with 5???).There was no ns5. AOL didn't think releasing a browser that was one version behind the leader would do, so they sadly incremented it.
NS6 was one of the biggest pieces of crap ever released.Couldn't agree more. AOL was desperate, and Netscape was already lost. They should have done the projects in paralell, and converted to Gecko a year later instead.
I could hang the browser, and sometimes the entire PC with simple DHTML. My experience with 7 leads me to believe that it is pretty solid. It's all evident in the version numbering. Ns6 was Moz 0.6.4. You'd not expect a product in 0.6.4 release to be production quality, would you?

Skyzyx
12-12-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by liorean
There was no ns5. AOL didn't think releasing a browser that was one version behind the leader would do, so they sadly incremented it.

Actually, when the Mozilla Project first got spun off as an open-source project, it was to do development on Netscape Communicator 5.0 based on the 4.x codebase. When they realized that what they had was crap, the scratched 5.0 and released the Gecko-based Netscape 6-point-oh (which was M18 by the way... not 0.6.4. I believe that 6.01 or 6.1 was the 0.6.4).

Shift4Sms
12-12-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Skyzyx
When they realized that what they had was crap, the scratched 5.0 and released the Gecko-based Netscape 6It seems funny that they realized 5 was crap but couldn't figure out 6 was also crap!

liorean
12-12-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Skyzyx
Actually, when the Mozilla Project first got spun off as an open-source project, it was to do development on Netscape Communicator 5.0 based on the 4.x codebase. When they realized that what they had was crap, the scratched 5.0 and released the Gecko-based Netscape 6-point-oh (which was M18 by the way... not 0.6.4. I believe that 6.01 or 6.1 was the 0.6.4). You're right about ns6.0==M18, it seems Mozilla 0.6.4 (Which by happenstance PREDATES Mozilla 0.6) is either ns6.01 or ns6.1. However, the numbering of the Netscape browser is not connected with the change of the rendering engine. The new engine was (up until ns6pr1 was released) still supposed to be 5.0, but at that time the business-savvy (Yah, right!) Netscape marketing team chose to up it in a try to seem to not be a version behind ie. Something that really hurt the browser. I doubt waiting for Mozilla 1.0 would have hurt the browser less, however. They should have released an improved version of the Mozilla engine (which, confusing as it is, is the name of the old engine) and THEN chosen to concentrate on the Gecko (then called NGLayout) engine.

(Oh, and sorry for the confusion about the name Mozilla (rendering engine != browser ~= development group != opensource project...), but it's not I that caused it in the first place...)



Originally posted by Shift4Sms
It seems funny that they realized 5 was crap but couldn't figure out 6 was also crap!They figured out the CODEBASE of what would have been nc5 was crap, but the codebase of ns6 was okay. They just needed two years more to polish the INTERFACE...

ionsurge
12-12-2003, 10:00 PM
In answer to the original question, power causes greed amongst those who have less of it.

As far as I am concerned, M$ can't code to save it's life, and when they try, they quite simply knock out code that is so mindless that it makes you confused as hell.

However, I think Microsoft as a company are the best company out there - exing Google who I absolutely adore.

Microsoft has got the computer industry quite far - and the fact that I have had every single release of Windows & MS DOS since the good old days with a 386 DX, isn't a cause for bias. They do make good software, and well the fact that I am using XP Pro, which has never crashed since I installed it says a lot in itself.

As for this NS/Moz discussion, I have no idea how that came into the topic the way it has... :)

liorean
12-12-2003, 10:13 PM
Come on, we're mainly a web development forum, and when Microsoft is mentioned, web developers can't stop themselves from mentioning Netscape, in the same way economists wouldn't be able to not mention Lotus 1-2-3 or Quatro Pro. Or why not the old WordPerfect vs. Works/Office Word discussion...

Roy Sinclair
12-12-2003, 10:23 PM
When Netscape 6.0 was released the current IE version was 5.5 so Netscape renamed what had been called up to that point Netscape 5 into Netscape 6, in other words, "marketing".

The big problem with NS 6 was that it was based on a Beta version of the Mozilla browser which was acknowledged as "not yet ready for prime time". Rather than wait the extra months it would take, they decided to rush the release. More "marketing" driven decision making by people without two brain cells to rub together.

FWIW, Netscape 4 was released in a hurry too. Netscape knew MS had IE 4.0 in development and after MS released the first beta versions they raced ahead of their planned schedule and released Netscape 4 before it was ready. That browser was released with a multitude of bugs, most of which were never fixed despite a long series of incremental releases of the Netscape 4.x browser.

I think Netscape rushed the release of 4.0 because they saw it as important to establish their new DOM before MS released IE 4 with it's superior features (which they could see by examining the IE 4 beta). They saw that if the superior IE 4 DOM and browser was released first that they were going to loose a large percentage of their users very quickly. What they didn't understand was that their continued failure to produce a better browser was going to have the same result. Look at how many years passed between the release of Netscape 4 and Netscape 6. Only the most stubborn people and the people with no alternatives hung onto Netscape 4 for the whole of that time.

liorean
12-12-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
FWIW, Netscape 4 was released in a hurry too. Netscape knew MS had IE 4.0 in development and after MS released the first beta versions they raced ahead of their planned schedule and released Netscape 4 before it was ready. That browser was released with a multitude of bugs, most of which were never fixed despite a long series of incremental releases of the Netscape 4.x browser. Yeah, I remember that. JavaScript 1.3 wasn't ready at the time of the nc4 release, it didn't hit the browser until nc4.04, at which time Netscape did a major campaign to get their users to update...
I think Netscape rushed the release of 4.0 because they saw it as important to establish their new DOM before MS released IE 4 with it's superior features (which they could see by examining the IE 4 beta). They saw that if the superior IE 4 DOM and browser was released first that they were going to loose a large percentage of their users very quickly. What they didn't understand was that their continued failure to produce a better browser was going to have the same result. Look at how many years passed between the release of Netscape 4 and Netscape 6. Only the most stubborn people and the people with no alternatives hung onto Netscape 4 for the whole of that time. Not only the superior DOM. They were working on JSSS at the time, and realised that if they didn't hack together a CSS -> JSSS mapping in a few months, they would stand there with a whole different set of features, something that might have seen the death of the company as W3C sided with Microsoft and almost all the other companies with an interest. Companies that didn't want Netscape and Netscape inventions to dominate the market. Microsoft was the player to break the monopoly...

(Did I mention that almost all crashes in nc4 are because of the CSS -> JSSS mapping? They did a very bad job there.)

Alex Vincent
12-13-2003, 11:15 PM
For the record:

Netscape 6.0 was based on Mozilla 0.6.
Netscape 6.1 was based on Mozilla 0.9.2.
Netscape 6.2, on Mozilla 0.9.4.
Netscape 7.0 was based on Mozilla 1.0.
Netscape 7.1 (the last Netscape release we'll probably ever see) was based on Mozilla 1.4.

liorean
12-13-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Alex Vincent
Netscape 6.0 was based on Mozilla 0.6.Nope. Not according to the user agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0
The 6.01 user agent string also states M18:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01But then again, there's confusion about the version numbering, and it may be that Mozilla spun off 0.6.4 and 0.6 from the M18 milestone, without changing the user agent string.
Netscape 6.1 was based on Mozilla 0.9.2.
Netscape 6.2, on Mozilla 0.9.4.
Netscape 7.0 was based on Mozilla 1.0.
Netscape 7.1 (the last Netscape release we'll probably ever see) was based on Mozilla 1.4. Yeah, unless we get it even worse:
<http://webperso.easyconnect.fr/danielglazman/weblog/newarchive/2003_11_23_glazblogarc.html#s106968121616897144>
There's even a petition against that change: <http://www.savenetscape.org/>

me'
12-22-2003, 11:00 PM
If you think about it, MS can't have got where they are by being nice. My main reasons for hating them is: IE. It's free, that means no profit there. 90% of people use it, it's 90% more decrepit, more outdated, slower, less safe, and I'm not even going to mention standards compliancy. The day Microsoft give up the ghost is the day I go on random happy fits and give all my money away.
They won't abide by anyone's laws. Yes I'm still ranting about IE. Why not give it a quick run-down and fix the bugs in the rendering engine? Better still, why not swap out the rendering engine for Gecko? Better still, why not encourage the use of Mozilla? Don't give me some corporate branding crap in answer to this. If MS took a step back once in a while, everyone would love them.
It's already been mentioned once in this thread. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. While I don't believe this, it's certainly true in MS's case. They've become so big and all powerful that they just monopolise and grow even bigger, with no regard to smaller companies. A little human regard wouldn't hurt their multi billion dollar financial base, I'm sure.

ionsurge
12-25-2003, 02:40 PM
me'

1. As far as I have understood, Internet Explorer 7 will no longer come with the next release of Windows, and it will be sold as a stand alone package. It is free, and well you get what you pay for, so stop complaining. You think it is slow, then don't use it. No one is making you use IE. Your preference may be to use Mozilla, my preference is to use Opera, others prefer to use FireBird, but the majority prefer to use Internet Explorer.

2. Why should Microsoft abide by the laws of w3c? They are just an organisation, and they are not a set authority where by which the web has to obey the rules that they may set. Who came along and made them the rule makers, the ones who set the standards, the official law of the internet? Nobody has, nobody will, nobody can. I donít have to follow their rules; I donít have to obey by what they say I should do. I can code a page how I want it to be coded. I choose to use what I use, and I donít follow w3cís standards, I follow my own. I donít care about a page being valid xhtml 1.1, what is that meant to be? It is simply a guideline by which you choose to follow. I donít follow the herd, and I donít see why Microsoft should. Microsoft could easily re-write the way the internet works, and have pages abide by the rules that they make. There is nothing to stop them, and there is nothing to stop a group of anti-Mozilla appearing. You will not be able to argue against those who could follow Microsoftís rules, and you cannot prove w3 to be correct.

Further you say that Microsoft should put Mozilla in the Windows Package. Why should they stick in Mozilla into their Windows package, they do not own Mozilla, they do not fund Mozilla, and what have Mozilla done for Microsoft? All they have done is provide a group of people who base their rules to that of an organisation that has nominated itself as the rule maker, to rally against them. So, why should Microsoft implement Mozilla into that package? It is like saying stick in Konqueror into the Windows package. That argument is inane; it has no sense, and no logic.

You then go on to say that Microsoft should swap their engine for that of another. Why swap their rendering engine for something else, they don't need to change the engine, and if they don't want to change, they donít have to. So why say something like 'swap out the rendering engine for Gecko'? Your argument again is futile. No set body in the internet says how something should be rendered. The developers choose how something should be rendered, and you are not one to say that how Microsoft render something is incorrect. They have created their own rules to render a page, and Mozilla have chosen to follow those made by w3c. Who are to say that w3c are incorrect, and Microsoft are not?

You say that Microsoft have no regard for smaller companies. Microsoft are a huge corporate player in the software industry, they use what powers they can, as would you. That is the nature of business, and I doubt that you will take a step back either, and let your competitors grow stronger. Microsoft has built their foundations, and they have helped many other companies do the same. They have helped people that others would not help; they have helped businesses that others would not buy. You have no basis to say that Microsoft do not help other smaller companies. Do you see Apple helping other companies, giving grants or loans? Do you see Linux, or Solaris helping other companies? So why simply blame Microsoft for something that you claim them to do?

3. You said:

It's already been mentioned once in this thread. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. While I don't believe this, it's certainly true in MS's case.
I think that there is a slight paradox there. Try rephrasing that, and when you do, think of http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ before you repost.

You arguments lack foundations; your reason has no roots, so please think about what you say before you say it.

bcarl314
12-25-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by ionsurge
me'

1. As far as I have understood, Internet Explorer 7 will no longer come with the next release of Windows, and it will be sold as a stand alone package. It is free, and well you get what you pay for, so stop complaining. You think it is slow, then don't use it. No one is making you use IE. Your preference may be to use Mozilla, my preference is to use Opera, others prefer to use FireBird, but the majority prefer to use Internet Explorer.

2. Why should Microsoft abide by the laws of w3c? They are just an organisation, and they are not a set authority where by which the web has to obey the rules that they may set. Who came along and made them the rule makers, the ones who set the standards, the official law of the internet? Nobody has, nobody will, nobody can. I donít have to follow their rules; I donít have to obey by what they say I should do. I can code a page how I want it to be coded. I choose to use what I use, and I donít follow w3cís standards, I follow my own. I donít care about a page being valid xhtml 1.1, what is that meant to be? It is simply a guideline by which you choose to follow. I donít follow the herd, and I donít see why Microsoft should. Microsoft could easily re-write the way the internet works, and have pages abide by the rules that they make. There is nothing to stop them, and there is nothing to stop a group of anti-Mozilla appearing. You will not be able to argue against those who could follow Microsoftís rules, and you cannot prove w3 to be correct.

Further you say that Microsoft should put Mozilla in the Windows Package. Why should they stick in Mozilla into their Windows package, they do not own Mozilla, they do not fund Mozilla, and what have Mozilla done for Microsoft? All they have done is provide a group of people who base their rules to that of an organisation that has nominated itself as the rule maker, to rally against them. So, why should Microsoft implement Mozilla into that package? It is like saying stick in Konqueror into the Windows package. That argument is inane; it has no sense, and no logic.

You then go on to say that Microsoft should swap their engine for that of another. Why swap their rendering engine for something else, they don't need to change the engine, and if they don't want to change, they donít have to. So why say something like 'swap out the rendering engine for Gecko'? Your argument again is futile. No set body in the internet says how something should be rendered. The developers choose how something should be rendered, and you are not one to say that how Microsoft render something is incorrect. They have created their own rules to render a page, and Mozilla have chosen to follow those made by w3c. Who are to say that w3c are incorrect, and Microsoft are not?

You say that Microsoft have no regard for smaller companies. Microsoft are a huge corporate player in the software industry, they use what powers they can, as would you. That is the nature of business, and I doubt that you will take a step back either, and let your competitors grow stronger. Microsoft has built their foundations, and they have helped many other companies do the same. They have helped people that others would not help; they have helped businesses that others would not buy. You have no basis to say that Microsoft do not help other smaller companies. Do you see Apple helping other companies, giving grants or loans? Do you see Linux, or Solaris helping other companies? So why simply blame Microsoft for something that you claim them to do?

3. You said:

I think that there is a slight paradox there. Try rephrasing that, and when you do, think of http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ before you repost.

You arguments lack foundations; your reason has no roots, so please think about what you say before you say it.


Hmm, for a moderator, that's a pretty crappy post! Seems almost like your trying to flame!

And about #2, the w3c is a CONSORTIUM!. A group of industry leaders, professionals, and devlopers who try to standardize the some internet protocols. If your not abiding by thier rules, why abide by any? Let's throw out all the RFCs as well. Hell, we don't need TCP/IP do we?

The fact is, these standards are set, with input from anyone who wishes to comment (MS included). Once they are set, they are not laws, but non-conformance should not be supported by the public! If MS doesn't adhere to these recommendations, then they are, in my view, illeagly using the monopolistic powers in a way that harms the entire community!

me'
12-25-2003, 09:28 PM
but the majority prefer to use Internet Explorer.No they don't, the majority don't know better. As Dave Shea put it, the majority don't know what HTTP, IE or even HTML stand for. The Majority don't know you can connect without clicking that little 'E'. The majority aren't ignorant, they're misinformed.
2. Why should Microsoft abide by the laws of w3c? They are just an organisation, and they are not a set authority where by which the web has to obey the rules that they may set. Who came along and made them the rule makers, the ones who set the standards, the official law of the internet? Nobody has, nobody will, nobody can.Why? Imagine a world where no-one standardised the way trains work, the track measurements etc. Great, anyone that uses Virgin trains (english example, may not translate too well) and wants to get to London from Edinburgh has to get off at Birmingham, drive 20 miles to the nearest compatable train station, take a second train to Kent, then drive another 50 miles and take a train up into London. Insane, and as the web development world grows, more and more applications are going to be built in web browsers, and the need for standards grows. Without the W3C, the world in which we live would be extremely different.
I donít follow w3cís standards, I follow my own. I donít care about a page being valid xhtml 1.1, what is that meant to be?Standards don't matter? What are you, drunk? Why do you think huge digital media corporation Macromedia chose to update Dreamweaver, the most popular WYSIWYG developing environment out there, to abide by the W3C and the standards they set?
It is like saying stick in Konqueror into the Windows package.That's like saying Microsoft and the W3C are in direct competition! Why does Microsoft claim as much compliance as it can muster? Why is it a member of the w3c? The w3c are important.
Who came along and made them the rule makers?...No set body in the internet says how something should be rendered. The developers choose how something should be rendered, and you are not one to say that how Microsoft render something is incorrect.Of course no-one makes the laws, ever wander why they're the w3c reccommendations? If no set body chose how something should be rendered, the entire web would faction off, and we'd have a problem similar to the one 'I wrote my application in UNIX, and so it won't run on OSX or Windows. I could re-write it, but why bother? I'd make nearly enough money this way. Re-writing would mean thousands upon thousands of changes'. I'm not the one who choses how things are rendered, but in my opinion, the w3c are. Why? They're headed by the guy that invented http, html and the web as we know it. Come on, doesn't he know best?
I think that there is a slight paradox there. Try rephrasing that, and when you do, think of http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ before you repost.I'm sorry. I've seen propaganda before, and individuals do support good causes, but as a company Microsoft are perhaps the most hated in the world, and that has to be for a reason. People don't just hate on no grounds. I understand that you have to be ruthless to survive a lot of the time, but not all the time! Why does the EU or the UN exist? Because large organisations (in this case, countries) want to co-operate. It's not impossible.

Bottom line: sure, support what you want. But don't support the w3c, you won't last 10 minutes in the web development world. Their standards are easy to support, and I'm afraid the w3c will only grow in power. They are a good organisation.

Mhtml
12-26-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by bcarl314
Hmm, for a moderator, that's a pretty crappy post! Seems almost like your trying to flame!

And about #2, the w3c is a CONSORTIUM!. A group of industry leaders, professionals, and devlopers who try to standardize the some internet protocols. If your not abiding by thier rules, why abide by any? Let's throw out all the RFCs as well. Hell, we don't need TCP/IP do we?

The fact is, these standards are set, with input from anyone who wishes to comment (MS included). Once they are set, they are not laws, but non-conformance should not be supported by the public! If MS doesn't adhere to these recommendations, then they are, in my view, illeagly using the monopolistic powers in a way that harms the entire community!

bcarl314, that's a pretty crappy excuse for a post! Seems almost like your trying to flame!

We don't really need TCP/IP, there are entire networks based on other protocols, you can use another protocol if you want, and all the websites built by people who use IE and don't know about the standards and don't care for another set of rules by which computers communicate will continue using tcp/ip so long as they use the top quality products from Microsoft which make computing super easy for the youngest and the oldest of people with it's many usability features and countless hours and dollars put into development and research.

How is MS harming the entire community? By making most pages which are coded in a copmletely invalid way according to those standards set by the w3c appear in a way which for the most part makes them usable?

Ionsurge was just saying for me' to think about reasons for hating Microsoft as with most people his views seem completely unfounded and as with you playing follow the leader.

What has ionsurge being a mod got anything to do with this anyway? Not once did he really flame, it was a copmletely objectional post in opposition to me'. .. Does that not conform to the title of this thread?


No they don't, the majority don't know better. As Dave Shea put it, the majority don't know what HTTP, IE or even HTML stand for. The Majority don't know you can connect without clicking that little 'E'. The majority aren't ignorant, they're misinformed.
OMG :rolleyes: so you're saying that people can't find things out if they want to? People use ie, they click the 'e' because it does what they want, they don't need to know what http stands for they don't need to know what HTML stands for. You are ignorant not misinformed.


Why? Imagine a world where no-one standardised the way trains work, the track measurements etc. Not to hard to imagine, initially Australia had different colonies each with different track guage. As the need and benefits of unity and trade became more apparent track guages became unified and colonies merged to form a federation and Australia became one.

As with this example, say one colony decided not to join (which did happen) and they kept different track guages, they would be the ones who make train travel harder. It is all the other browsers who are trying to get people to change and the w3c who are trying to get people to change which make it harder.

People hate Microsoft because they are miserable, they are miserable and Bill Gates isn't. BG is rich beyond their wildest dreams and is used as a measure of wealth even and is extremely successful and they are not. People don't understand that Microsoft is the great company it is because Bill is nothing short of brilliant!

It is simply envy..

WA
12-26-2003, 11:14 AM
Ok people, please post your opinions without getting personal. There is always a way to do that, regardless of the subject or how passionately you feel about it. Things like:

-that's a pretty crappy excuse for a post!
-Standards don't matter? What are you, drunk?
-You arguments lack foundations; your reason has no roots, so please think about what you say before you say it.

are not arguments, but unnecessary "commentaries" that only put the other person on the defense, starting the snow ball of flaming. Please refrain from those from this point on.

If I spot any more inflammatory commentaries, I'll have no choice but to close this thread. They are what killed the "Webmaster Pit" a couple of years ago.

me'
12-26-2003, 02:26 PM
OMG so you're saying that people can't find things out if they want to? People use ie, they click the 'e' because it does what they want, they don't need to know what http stands for they don't need to know what HTML stands for. You are ignorant not misinformed.They might think that IE does what they want it to do, but if they tried Mozilla, I'm sure most would find it does what they want it to do so much better. Okay, so Firebird is still pre 1.0 version, and there's still loads of minor bugs, but people simply don't know of how many security holes, patches, bugs etc. there are in IE! You must agree that IE is the worst browser out there. Surely other people would realise this if they knew other browsers existed.
It is simply envy..That's not the reason I hate Microsoft. I wouldn't want Bill Gate's money. That may sound like a overly hopeful phrase, but seriously, I wouldn't. I don't plan on becoming a CEO of a huge corporation in the future, I'm not like that. I'd rather have a life where I help people out, get a lot of pleasure out of it, and hopefully make enough money to get by with a decent life! I don't need billions.

If you think about it, the web dev world is fairly 'together', due to the huge efforts of people like the w3c and wasp. Everyone codes in (X)HTML, a standard set by the w3c (they may not follow those standards, but it's still (x)html). There may be trouble getting people to code for web standards, but once they're 'converted', they generally stay that way. There may still be factions, for example Apache vs IIS, but you can run the same PHP file (if it doesn't contain proprietary code) on a server based on both. That's because PHP is standardised. Surely you see the significance of this? If standards don't matter, why does the w3c have so much influence? Why did someone start wasp (www.webstandards.org)? More to the point, why have so many people joined wasp? Why did Zeldman (www.zeldman.com) write DWWS (http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/)?
It is all the other browsers who are trying to get people to change and the w3c who are trying to get people to change which make it harder.Because they're the minority? Even though the code they write is less ambigious, friendlier to computers and humans? There are reasons behind standardizition.
Please refrain from those from this point on.Duly noted. I'm sorry.

oracleguy
12-26-2003, 07:55 PM
No they don't, the majority don't know better. As Dave Shea put it, the majority don't know what HTTP, IE or even HTML stand for. The Majority don't know you can connect without clicking that little 'E'. The majority aren't ignorant, they're misinformed.

I have to agree with Mhtml here, saying something like that is like saying for a preson to use their car they have to understand how it works. Like when they press the gas pedal, they don't have to know that the throttle cable connects to the throttle body which opens up and lets air into the intake manifold in order to use the car. I think a general understanding of how something works is important if you are going to frequently use it nonetheless.

It will just take time, think about it only in the last 10 years or so has the internet really been around for the general public. Give it another 25 and a good deal of the people using it will have been using it since they were young, and usually if you grow up with something, you know more about it than people who started using it when they were older.

me'
12-27-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by oracleguy
I have to agree with Mhtml here, saying something like that is like saying for a preson to use their car they have to understand how it works. Like when they press the gas pedal, they don't have to know that the throttle cable connects to the throttle body which opens up and lets air into the intake manifold in order to use the car. I think a general understanding of how something works is important if you are going to frequently use it nonetheless. But the majority would be much happier if we gave them a better car for free! Especially if they're currently driving a car that forces you go on at red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road and doesn't come with doors or a windscreen (windshield)!

swmr
02-21-2004, 01:36 PM
I stumbled across Just Say NO to Microsoft (http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/index.html) while searching for something unrelated, & thought it might be a useful source of info., somehow. ;)

Mhtml
02-22-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by me'
But the majority would be much happier if we gave them a better car for free! Especially if they're currently driving a car that forces you go on at red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road and doesn't come with doors or a windscreen (windshield)!
lol, as much as I am a pro Microsoft person I can't help but find that funny.

@swmr -- Good link!!


Microsoft isn't evil.

But it is too powerful, and consumers are being harmed by it.

They're limiting the available software, and charging us more and more for it.

I agree with that entirely but you have to understand that there are two sides ( ok more, but 2 for this thread so far ;) ) to it.. On a business side of it, M$ is absolutely brilliant. They play their cards right. I'm sure if someone came up with a nix distro which behaved more like windows xp except obviously more stable and had the guts to go to big corporations and get people using it, get it used in schools etc and people would learn it and use it and program for it.

Microsoft will always have market share until someone comes out with something that caters to the majority and minority user groups... Which won't happen because no one wants to do it, they expect everyone else to just drop Windows and move to nix...

patbuzz86
02-26-2004, 10:49 PM
All i have to say in response to this thread is BSOD ????
come on they could at least change the color of that god damn thing
thats why linux rocks

patbuzz86
02-26-2004, 10:54 PM
and as i posted my reply to this thread what happened. The "awesome" bill gates smited me and IE crashed. I dont know i just feel that M$ is just a huge monopoly - not so much anymore but it was. and plus i just think that bill gates is creepy i mean come on he is wierd.

sad69
03-12-2004, 12:37 AM
come on they could at least change the color of that god damn thing

http://toastytech.com/files/bsod.html

This is a cool thread. I'm not very educated in the history of it all, and I don't really follow politics either so it's nice to read up on this stuff.

Some of the remarks and comments along the way were too funny as well!

Anyhow, take care,
Sadiq.

Mhtml
03-13-2004, 12:45 PM
>> Some of the remarks and comments along the way were too funny as well! <<

Just reading over it, I'm suprised I haven't made a few enemies! :D ... Should think before I speak from now on ... ;):p



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum