Page 1 of 1

Another reason MS sux

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:12 pm
by lordfoul
If you can't say shit when you need to then what good is it...
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/12/02/ms ... n_dir.html

also WTF?...
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/12/02/ms ... ent_g.html

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:34 pm
by SlyckTom
I've never joined the "MS sucks" bandwagon. Most people on it are running some kind of MS software to begin with. Dont like MS? Dont use their software. I personally have no problem with MS XP or Office XP...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:43 pm
by lordfoul
I was referring to their attitude. I personally enjoy the ups and downs of their software enterprise Tom. I have no fear of them what so ever. I am running XP sp2 and run untested apps, cracks, patches and hacks with reckless abandon. If it breaks I'll fix it. MS is like an 1971 VW van. :D

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:41 am
by Artie
Not to purposely bring back a month's old thread, but I'd just like to state my opinion a bit.

What Microsoft has basically done was made it easy for people to get started with computers and the Internet in general with its "point 'n' click" philosophy. Call them a greedy corporation if you'd like, but without capitalism, there would be no MS in the first place. Without MS, the Internet as we know it would be a much different world than it is now, and as a result, P2P in its current state wouldn't exist. Think about it.

I too don't jump on the "MS sucks" bandwagon, even though I know it's considered kewl and hip for Generation-Xers to. I listened to Kevin Mitnick on "Coast To Coast AM" last year, and according to him, Microsoft's OSs and products don't really have any more holes than any other manufacturer's OSs and products. The reason he gave for Microsoft seeming so full of holes all the time is because of its popularity. Would it serve a hacker any purpose to go looking for holes in Mac or *nix. No, because people don't use them as much as Microsoft. Take Internet Explorer or Outlook Express for example. Yes, they always seem full of holes, but 9 out of 10 people still use them over Netscape or Opera or Firefox, so naturally a hacker or exploit-seeker would target those first. Makes perfect sense to me.

If Bill Gates is the epitome of the power-hungry businessman, that's fine by me. It's not like he killed or raped anybody to get to the top, nor do I believe he ever threw a pie in someone's face.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:50 am
by lordfoul
But you have to admit their attitude sux, unless you agree with their blog censorship and unresonable TOS agreement.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:19 am
by Artie
Correct, I don't agree with a lot of things Microsoft does, especially when that one teenager (whose real name is Mike Rowe) decided to register the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com a couple years ago as a joke and then Microsoft jumped on his ass for doing that.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:22 am
by lordfoul
Yah what where they thinking? It's stuff like that baffles me.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:55 am
by Bunny101
My point of view is that Microsoft was better before, Now they their products is made for complete newbies.

For an example, did anyone see the old Msn Messenger tutorial?.
Then it was a "work" program, Msn Messenger is now just a teen chat program.

So now the only pc i have Windows on is the gamming comp, Since Microsoft have monopol.
Windows XP Corporate Edition SP1(No diffrence from Pro exept some services)
These days WinXP is full of bloat, It take me least 2 hours just to configure and tweak WinXP to a way i can use it.
Also when i am done it uses least 2/3 less resources then the standard config.

All the new things from Microsoft these days is just bloat, If they continue like this, They end up like the original Mozilla.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:06 am
by lordfoul
As you can see Windows and 'nix systems all have plenty of vulnerabilities...
http://www.net-security.org/vuln_main.php

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:17 am
by Bunny101
we all know that....

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:54 pm
by iNaNimAtE
Artie wrote:The reason he gave for Microsoft seeming so full of holes all the time is because of its popularity.

I too listened to that broadcast, and he had some interesting things to say. I didn't agree with everything he said, including this. Maybe they do have a lot of holes because of the popularity, but does anyone take into account that Microsoft really has no agenda for security? Until people started bitching that Windows was insecure, they had no intention of distributing "a secure operating system" as their flagship product. Sure, security went along with development, but I would bet my money that security was not until recently a priority.
Artie wrote:Would it serve a hacker any purpose to go looking for holes in Mac or *nix. No, because people don't use them as much as Microsoft.

Actually, that is untrue. The people who use UNIX and Linux have a need for security, because *nix systems are made for serving. There are hackers that spend all their time searching for holes in Linux and UNIX but aren't paid for it. This creates an extreme advantage over Microsoft, because unlike the security department at Microsoft who simply gets paid for a job, these people for UNIX and Linux actually do it because they want to. Which one is more likely to find a hole and fix it? Take a look at OpenBSD.

lordfoul wrote:As you can see Windows and 'nix systems all have plenty of vulnerabilities...

Well of course they do, but do you think Microsoft gives a shit about fixing them? They well know that regardless of the multi-thousand security vulnerabilities that can exist, almost no one will ever leave them, simply because they have zero competition in the consumer operating system market.

Microsoft is a great and extremely smart company. No one else has created an operating system as easy-to-use yet compatibile with everything out there. I use Linux 90% of the time, but I don't bash Microsoft, simply because there is nothing wrong with them. Yes, they are a corporation (and a damn large one at that), but so what? I hate their operating system, therefore I don't use it unless I have to (for specialty applications), but I must say, their office suite is like no other.

Oh, and no one say that Linux has no viruses because of the lack of popularity. That is simply incorrect.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:06 pm
by DepecheNode
*Removed By Author*

PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:54 am
by Bunny101
Artie wrote:Correct, I don't agree with a lot of things Microsoft does, especially when that one teenager (whose real name is Mike Rowe) decided to register the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com a couple years ago as a joke and then Microsoft jumped on his ass for doing that.


If u just could come up with any ideas like that :!:

PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:52 am
by red duck
No one else has created an operating system as easy-to-use yet compatibile with everything out there.


i belive that is because companies were/are adopting to m$

Butting in

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:25 am
by mrpurplelb
I agree...Microsoft is in business to make money and they do it very well. But are we arguing Microsoft's virtue or the quality of their product?

I guess one could argue the two are linked.

I do make efforts to boycott MS products, but its not always feasable. I dont do it because I think they're evil, I do it because I hate to encourage or support the use of a flawed product. I'll use it, but I haven't PAID for it in quite some time.

You can try to convince me that MS software is no worse than any other, and that the "ease of use" factor might justify the bugs. But if my car were half as unreliable as my computer, I would have to take the bus. Its a good thing I dont depend on my computer in the same way I do almost every other product in my home. If you do depend on a MS computer for your livelyhood, good luck with that.

The notion that we only notice the flaws because of MS's prevalence ignores the fact that most products get MORE reliable with their popularity. The more users you have, the more free evaluation you get. Small niche products have more of a justification for flaws because the lack of users slows the debuging rate. MS certainly cant lean on that excuse.

I'm sure the first toasters caught fire sometimes, but the manufacturers spent THEIR energy perfecting the fundamental purpose of the product before moving on to the bells and whistles.

Microsoft isn't concearned with the overall reliability of their products. They are banking on you getting tired of your OS as it bogs down then rushing out to spend $300 on XP. They ignore key issues while adding needless animation and pretty new themes to their desktop.

I think text entry autocomplete is great, but I'd gladly give it up if I didn't have to reboot after installing new software. Microsoft's eye is always on the NEXT OS...because they know the chrome wheels on a car sell it faster than a reliable motor does.

To be fair, MS is not alone in this strategy...they're just one of the worst. Has anyone here purchased a window fan for the house lately? They last one or two years if you're lucky because selling a lifetime fan is just not profitable.

Microsoft innovates for sure, and most of their products get cudos from people that use them but dont have to maintain them. Does anyone here own a PT Cruiser?Sucker...you know its just a Dodge Neon with a dorky looking retro body on it right? But that's okay...you're happy because you feel unique driving it, even when you're on the way to the mechanic.

As far as the silly censorship MS incorporates into their services, I dont care as long as I have other options. They're obviously trying to use the "burn the books" method of protecting their interests. If people arent enlightened about filesharing, they probably wont do any copying of MS products. They can do whatever the he**...errr heck they want as long as they dont lobby congress to do the censoring.

Gary