Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13753 posts, RR: 18 Posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1679 times:
It seems to me to be jealousy. Not only of his wealth, but more of his "dominance" of the PC market.
However, why is this? If people didn't like MS. Why does it control approx. 90% of all OS' in the world.????
Hmm.. What else to write?
Well I support MS> Without it, you must admit, the comptuer wouldn't be as global and expansive as it is today. So there you have it. Like it or not, I think MS is the "centre" of the computer and internet revolution
CYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
Well it seems mr. Jared can develop an OS which can run all of the softwere currently available bug free...... Don't crisitsize something that you dont understand. If it wasn't for microsoft you wouldn't be on the internet today.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13753 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
Yes I thihn it is because MS is the biggest. And you're right
"Is the car with the most, best, latest, useful features the one that sells the most? No.
Just because 90% of the world uses it does not make it the best."
So Jared: Why do 90% of the world use it?
My explanation. THe software is reliable (up to a point that is), and is at the forefront of it's kind. It maybe a bit expensive (in the UK anyway), but if 90% of the people in the world are prepared to pay that much, they must be doing something right.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
I don't hate Microsoft. In fact, if it wasn't for the MS/Intel monopolies, I would be rather pissed off. After all, they brought something very useful to the PC market: standardization.
I (vaguely) remember the times when we had DOS6.2 and Win3.11 on a computer. We had three different settings to choose from in booting up DOS - one for each game installed on the computer, as all had different memory requirements. It was messy, to say the least.
Windows might be the ultimate tool in allowing illiterate people to use computers (all you need is look at pictures and icons etc.), but it is damn useful if you want to play games, or even work. It gives a standard base that 90% of all software is compatible to.
One of the reasons why it took me very long to actually buy a 3D-graphics card was the lack of a common standard that all games work with....
That said, while I like Windows (despite the crashes) and Excel, I HATE Word. Why can't everyone use a proper word processor, like WordPerfect?
CYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
Let's go back in time a shoot bill gates before he founded microsoft. The PC's as we know them today would never have existed. This likely means that MAC would have taken over, and everyone knows what a nightmare that would be......seeing a sticker with an apple on it stampted on every computer.
Bombstar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
Why would people hate microsoft because of Bill Gates? He's not the president of Microsoft anymore, nor is he the richest man in the world (according to my last update). I think its because of Microsoft's anti-competitiveness that pisses a lot of people off, the fact that they were growing bigger and bigger every day. I dont really care anymore. I hate their software, but there is nothing anyone can do that will really make a difference.
Jared From United States of America, joined May 2001, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
I can do just fine without MS in fact I don't have a piece of MS software on my computer.
I could use an apple computer with mac os, I could use pc hardware and run linux. I am a big supporter of both actually, and I use both. Windows and any MS piece of software I have ever used has been buggy, bloated, etc.
"So Jared: Why do 90% of the world use it?"
Because it is given to them and they feel it is adequate.
I use netscape. I absolutely hate IE. Most people probably use IE, why? Because it comes standard as the default on computers. Macs ship with IE as the default actually and Windows well we all know about that fiasco.
I don't "hate" MS, I just do not use their software because I don't like it.
I don't hate Bill Gates, I again just don't use his products because I don't like them.
CYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Mac and Linux is good if your into spreadsheats, pie charts and word processing. IE is better than netscape, that is why people use it. It is just as available as IE on the internet, yet few people use it. If Windows really did suck as much as you say it does, wouldn't have softwere producers converted to Mac OS when desigining their softwere a long time ago?
Im sure Mac OS and Linus run virtually bug free, but thats because just about nothing is compatible with them.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
A LOT more people use Windows than anything else. By the way, there are a lot more cockroaches than humans.
Jared is right about Mediocrity. The best selling American car is the Ford Escort. LMAO!!!!!
Windows has lots of users, not because it is the best, but because Gates is a genius and knows exactly how much of a shitty product the market will tolerate.
By the way, Macs aren't just for schools and graphics anymore. They can do anything a PC can do. And I don't know much about Linux, but I've heard good things about it. Thanks to the popularity of the iMac, software companies are foolish to neglect that market. There are plenty of titles for MacOS.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
Jared just killed the entire justice department's case against Microsoft. He doesn't use any Microsoft products - Ergo, consumers DO have a choice. If your PC comes preinstalled with Windows and MS Office, you are free to reformat your hard disk and install Linux or whatever.
The case against Microsoft is just jealousy on the part of some liberals who don't like to see a company or a person become enormously successful in business, and his competitors who were not smart enough to think of what Gates thought of before him.
In the early days, Apple got too greedy, and refused to license out their technology and architecture to other manufacturers. If you wanted to run Apple-compatible software, you had to buy an Apple. IBM got this right, and as a result IBM clones became the standard (although IBM was too top-heavy to be competitive).
IBM dropped the ball early on, thinking that the IBM name would bring them all the customers because of their brand name. Wrong again.
Had Apple and IBM done the right things, Microsoft would simply be a software supplier, like Corel and Symantec.
Do you think that Apple or IBM would be "kinder and gentler" if they had come out on top? Hell, no! They would have milked it for all that it's worth.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7856 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
Cfalk brings up the BIG historical point.
Bill Gates had the foresight to see that the money was in selling and licensing software. IBM believed it was in the hardware... Bill gets a sweet deal licensing MS-DOS to IBM, and later everyone else.
Steve Jobs, probably just as visionary as Bill, but in a different way, wanted to control everything. He needed to control the software and hardware. Lets say that in 1984 Jobs decided to license MacOS things would have been VERY different then. The PC market was still in its infancy and Apple was the dominant player in the market. But MacOS remains proprietary, Macs remain expensive for the next 10 years, Wintel based PCs take off.
Regardless of Bill Gate's and Microsoft's business practices... whether or not you could call them anti-competitive I don't know since I haven't followed the entire case, were a lot smarter. They had the ability to find new technologies and trends and successfully market them.
I personally don't hate Microsoft... I feel that some of the software could be better, like that annoying autoformat feature in Word. But I have also heard Microsoft might actually become a better company and make better software should they be broken up.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1541 times:
Why does everybody talk about Bill Gates and Microsoft and are we forgetting that, if I'm correct, Steve Ballmer is the one with the programming brains while Bill Gates is someone who knows how to sell it (okay je also knows a lot about programming)?
Anyway, the Appeals Court also concluded that MS tried illegally to maintain its position as a monopoloy. Thus Microsoft isn't that nice company they pretend to be.
: I am a Microsoft shareholder, so I am certainly bound to be biased in the DOJ case. However, even I have to admit that you can almost here the insects
: I've made a mistake in my previous post. Where i said Steve ballmer i should have said paul Allan of course. BTW does anybody know what paul Allan is
: AFAIK, he still works for MS. Now then, on to the topic at hand. I love what was said earlier. ANYONE who says MS makes great software clearly knows v
: Transactoid, if you say you are using computers more than most people, what line of work are you in? If you don't care to disclose that we cannot judg
: I don't work in any computer-related field. I am however, the local computer "guru" always being called on to fix peoples' problems. The vast majority