Why are so many people Anti-microsoft?

On the face of it this would seem to be a reasonable theory.
Unfortunately, it's not the case.
Windows is weak because security was not a priority for MS and now they're in the unfortunate position of retrofitting it in while trying to remain backward compatible with versions that were fundamentally less secure.
The other OSs you list are more secure because their designers priorities were different than MS's.

<_< MS products are not written with the best intererests of the consumer in mind but, rather, the best interests of industry.
The consumer is still responsible for paying for it though.

(warning! pet peave ahead!)
It's kind of like paying full price for a movie advertised to start at a certain time and having to sit through 20+ minutes of commercials prior to the start of the movie 20+ minutes later.
We, the consumers, don't want this, didn't offer to pay for it, and don't get a choice as to whether we want it. :angry:

 

Eh... it's questionable. In an age when it's entirely possible to build a PC for $100 or $200 in parts, having 50% or 33% of the cost come from a Windows license for software is becoming very silly...

And one area where this cost is a huge problem is in developing countries. Maytrix, did you read about the $100 laptop developed by MIT for the One Laptop per Child program? There's a good reason why they didn't go with Windows... because the license would cost significantly more than the price of the components... the OLPC program uses Red hat linux.

And moreover, you're making the security through obscurity argument, which is in part a logical fallacy. You're making a straw man by hypothesising a world where Mac OS X or Linux is 90% market share and then destroying it... the purpose to illustrate how Windows is the same as Mac OS X or Linux on security...

No one said that Mac OS X or Linux are invulnerable, but that Microsoft has made some well documented bad decisions that Mac OS X and Linux have not made...

The very fact that you need superuser priveleges that are not default on Linux or Mac OS X to do potentially dangerous stuff to the system is important.

 

I think that sums it up well nicely

 

Maytrix... have you had a chance to watch or listen to the Nerd TV interview I suggested?

 

Microsoft isn't necessarily pro-DRM... they are pro-"anything that can keep them relevant."

They have done a lot to fight off trends that have threatened to reduce them from relevance over the last decade... the web for example.

I would argue that their fear of the OS becoming less important has forced them to make some pretty shady decisions that has really hurt innovation.

 

I said that ignorance is a problem, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't responsible for how complicated and frustrating computing is for most people.

Most people don't have a full IT staff to set up a hardware firewall, enabled WPA2 on their wireless, configure all the software and make sure they are running a tight ship...

so most people are unprotected... that doesn't mean they were ASKING for their computer to turn into zombie, and for them to have their confidential information stolen, and etc etc...

We can't forget that the knowledgeable at computer security are the exception instead of the rule. Just because you or I know how to run a tight ship at our own networks doesn't mean that everything is fine and dandy and everyone should be able to...

I support a lot of my friends who aren't as literate as i am... most of them very intelligent and have college educations... but can't find their way around setting up a simple home network, or deal with Windows security... or wireless security...

It's hard for most people... and Microsoft could be doing a much better job.

Take wireless for example. Pre-XP SP2, the built in wireless utility in Windows was appalling. Microsoft did fix it, but I still have to support friends with Windows 2000 and they have to deal with a cryptic wireless configuration in that OS...

 

As opposed to my Mac, where I can install apps, remove apps, make config changes, and not have the system slow down inexplicably for registry crudding-upness...

I strongly believe that for the Mac at least, "properly configured and installed" is easier to achieve than on Windows... the lack of some central structure like a Registry helps a lot. A single point of failure like that is dangerous.

 

So Microsoft is now excused???

 

Yeah... my friends bug me... that's usually fairly inexpensive for them, but sometimes I ask for dinner.

Look, you and I are talking at different levels. I agree that the current realities is that users need to be more educated and saavy about such things, but the real issue is the bigger picture.

By the bigger picture, I mean that over the last 20 years, Microsoft, more than any other single entity, has had a hand in shaping the computing experience for consumers.

This has brought a lot of good, but a lot of bad too.

People know what the BSOD is... it's ingrained itself into our culture.

And what I'm talking about is more that.... people feel frustrated and at the mercy of their computers... at the mercy of people like you or I who have knowledge about this stuff... they treat us like Shaman because we know some kind of magic... i hate that idea, and I do not revel in that role...

and i'm convinced that this was either by design, or the result of negligence by those responsible for creating the system... and Microsoft is the biggest player there.

The ultimate goal for computing should be to make it so that you don't need to be an expert or have an expert around for the system to work.... I personally want to make my role of the computer shaman obsolete.

 

I guess I realy have two main reasons for disliking microsoft. One is passive, the other is active...

The passive part is what I just described... I believe that Microsoft makes pretty middling products... their OS is probably my biggest complaint... but this is passive beacuse most of the negative here comes from negligence instead of a concerted effort to make middling products. It's still rather important because like I said before, making middling products especially for stuff like their OS affects the consumer in profound ways...

The problem I have with microsoft that may be descirbed as "active" is their business model. The fact is, Microsoft has arranged it's business nearly the same way as a fuedal lord has... Innovation still occurs, but for Microsoft, innovation isn't the bottom line... the bottom line is the status quo, which means maintaining their own relevance. This does not lend well to the ecosystem of the software industry, where small players with good ideas are crushed under the weight of bigger parties, and those that survive that are NOT microsoft need to be very good at what they do and hunker down...

The problem still remains that one private entity controls the fundamental platform... and holds all the keys, and controls the barrier of entry. You say that $100 is reasonable for a windows license... but can you explain to me how this is any different from a tax on computer users everywhere by a feudal lord? What would be an "unreasonable" price for the OS? What recourse do you or I have if Microsoft raises prices at a whim?


Which is where open source is the key to a rich software industry again...

 

Well think about it from Bill's perspective... If you were at the helm of a company like MSFT, would you let all other "innovators" walk all over you? Heck no. MSFT is the very ideology of marketing domination. I would likely be no different if I had a product or service such as Windows.



h34r:

 

I understand why it's the way it is... which is why it's an unfortunate and sad situation. Sad for us, i mean... I certainly don't feel any sympathy for Bill Gates if he loses clout and doesn't get to make another $100 billion...

But for the good of consumers everywhere, and for developers as well, it needs to change. One private company owning the fundamental platform may make great business sense for Microsoft, and may be perfectly legal (anti-trust laws? who cares!) but isn't necessarily great for us.

Look... I agree that there needs to be a common platform, but a business owning it forever and milking old technologies like the OS forever (and in turn milking the consumers and developers who have to buy their stuff), I disagree with... the OS is infrastructure and is so important that it almost NEEDS to be open source before we can have a healthy software industry.

 

I can agree with that... Too bad we can't get our act together and have some sort of independent world-wide consortium come up with a "world-wide" platform outside the hands of ANY individual or company.


h34r: