We've all been there. Trying to install a program for Windows that should take a couple of minutes to install instead taking hours and then not even getting what you want. It happened to this user, too, so he wrote a harsh email to Microsoft developers basically asking why their stuff is so horrible. The only reason this email is wonderful is the sender of it: Bill Gates.
Yeah. It's full of clues that it's fake. I'm surprised none of the comments suggested as much. But I did like the suggestion that maybe Steve Jobs would give Bill a Mac.
I don't know. This isn't an email forward and it's posted on a reputable site (admittedly under a blog, however). It's also exactly what a good President and CEO should do: take people to task when they do something that reflects badly on the company. Say what you will about Gates, but this is exactly the type of thing that he does really well (based on things that I've read and heard over the years). The blog claims to have shown the email to Gates and he indicated it was genuine. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not talking about Gizmodo (which is also a reputable site), but about the original post at Seattle PI, a major news source in that area.
The email is supposedly part of the evidence in one of the US vs. Microsoft monopoly trials. I don't think its fake, although I haven't done a independent search to find it. Its supposed to be here, but don't ask me which one it is. Another interesting one:
I actually think this reflects very positively on Gates and MS. He's very honest about the shortcomings and has the mindset of, "what do we need to do to make ours competitive?" Look; no one is going to argue the fact that Apple has a fantastic UI; if Windows is looking to be more like Apple, I'm all for it. Geez. I'm really sounding like a Microsoft fanboy here, aren't I?
I think it reflects somewhat positively on Gates that he recognizes crap when he encounters it. I think it reflects negatively on Microsoft as an organization that they: a) released crap to the public in the first place and b) they need the CEO to tell them what they released is crap. I thought John Gruber's take on it was good: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/06/25/gates-usability
I don't see how that could be. The case was initially settled in 2001 (though wrangling about the settlement continues to this day) and the email is dated 2003.
You are right. All of those exhibits are entered in 1999. I saw a comment in another blog that said the original email was there. I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internets. :redface: I don't know if the email is real or fake, but I will stand by my comments about releasing crap.
I agree: releasing crap = bad However, I really don't think that a lot of MS stuff is crap. Some of their OS's are quite good. They made some bad decisions with Vista (i.e. the "Vista Capable" debacle), but XP is a pretty nice, solid operating system. Their web page is a nightmare to navigate (as Gates points out), but MS Office isn't half bad.
It's not the UI. You can hardly tell the difference in the two UIs. The X to close a window is on the other side and OS X uses the CMD key instead of thr Ctrl key. The difference is in the robustness of the OS itself and the security debacle that is Windows, requiring you to use, update, and pay for constantly, at least three different kinds of security programs. Then if you have a laptop you only use for travel, it takes half a day to update the security-flaw patches every time you get ready for a trip. Although OpenOffice and its cousin NeoOffice are just as good, and free, and open source.
The UI is more than just the way it looks from first impressions; it also has to do with how intuitive things are and how easy it is for people to figure out how things get done. Apple is the master of this. MS does some things well and other things very poorly. The security issue is largely due to the large user base, as opposed to anything else. Now, as a user, we probably don't really care why the problem exists; just that the problem exists at all. From that standpoint, Mac users should all really hate that OSX is getting more and more popular OpenOffice and NeoOffice are definitely getting there, but they just aren't as good yet. One problem that seems to infest the entire opensource movement is a lack of good UI. This is a major reason why most Linux distributions are not "ready for primetime" (as I type this on an Ubuntu box). It is also true that a number of corporations use MS Office and you really can't use OO or NO if you hope to do high-level collaborations within those companies. I use both OO and NO fairly frequently, but I often find myself returning to MS Office when, for example, I want to make a Powerpoint presentation that I'm confident will work well on someone else's computer.
I would argue that the security issue is largely due to the implementation of several questionable features of the browser/operating system such as: ActiveX, the registry and allowing the user to be a admistrator (or superuser) by default. The large user base just helps with the exposure, but the design is the root problem (pun intended). Best way I've found to run Windows (I run Win 2k, so it won't try to phone home) is on an Intel Mac using VMWare Fusion with network privileges turned off so the nasties can't get in. I also have Ubuntu installed under VMWare.
True. There are holes, badly implemented code, and bad policies in place (the user as superuser is a great example). Are there more or less of these holes in OSX? Linux? I would say that we can't really know because of their smaller user base.
Just like their hardware, Apple pays attention to software design. Could there be vulnerabilities? Yes, in fact, there is a unpatched vulnerability with Apple Remote Access right now, but it is trivial to protect yourself from it; don't download software from untrusted sources. The only legitimate attacks on OS X have been Trojan Horses.
Windows folks like to assert that it's the large user base, but how often do we hear that a security flaw is due to a buffer overrun? When I was first learning to program in C, the book said "Always check buffers for overflow." What part of this did Windows programmers not understand? There simply is NO EXCUSE for overflow bugs. Every buffer needs to have overflow checking, and an OS that allows buffers without this checking is unacceptable. Microsoft = sloppy programming. I agree that Linux is not yet ready for prime time. I tried it before buying my Mac, and I found it adequate for my travel laptop, but not for my home computer. But its shortcomings are in the difficulty of installation and the shortage of hardware support. I'd still far rather have Linux than Windows on any computer of mine, and indeed bought my Nokia N800 for travel use in part because it runs Linux.
Frankly, I got a warm fuzzy just knowing he has to buy his software just like the rest of us..... "I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there."
