Why I Hate Microsoft [A Formal look at the MS/Linux Wars]

EURONET.NL ^ | 06jan02 | frankvw

[chilepepper]

From the title of this paper you may have guessed that I am less than pleased with the guys in Redmond. One might even say that my dislike for Microsoft is a pet hate gone out of control in an almost quixotic fashion. Why is this?

Of course I have been accused of personal antipathy, of being jealous of Bill Gates and his billions, and of being prejudiced against all things Microsoft without any reason whatsoever. But none of this is true. I have nothing personal against Bill Gates. Why should I? I don't know the man, I've never met him. I agree with those who say he might be the most succesful salesman in history. And I've always thought that even one billion in almost any currency is more than I could reasonably spend.

No. It's rather his business practices, and that of his company, that I am opposed to, for a large and still growing number of reasons, most of which are plain, verifiable facts. Let me explain.

ABSTRACT

Microsoft controls the current software market and has a de facto monopoly on the desktop. This monopoly has not been achieved and is not being maintained by offering the user community better products than Microsoft's competitors can offer. On the contrary, Microsoft has earned a reputation for selling unreliable software.

Windows is a technically inferior operating system with a seriously flawed architecture, weak security model and sloppy code, while other Microsoft applications are equally kludgey. New Microsoft products offer no essential improvements over previous or competing products, and their Return On Investment is between small and zero, in spite of Microsoft's boasts about being innovative and customer-driven.

Instead of making better software, Microsoft has focused on using brilliant but doubtful marketing tactics to force their products upon the user community in order to establish and maintain their monopoly. These methods include a tight integration of applications into the operating system, the bundling of applications with Windows to force competing application vendors out of the market, the mandatory bundling of Windows with new computer equipment, deliberate limitations in the compatibility of their own software with competing products, contracts that prohibit third parties to do business with anyone but Microsoft, and retaliatory practices against non-cooperating vendors. In addition to this, third-party developers are induced, through cheap or free development kits and the sabotaging of alternatives, to develop applications that contain proprietary system calls, are virtually non-portable, and are therefore bound to the MS-Windows platform. These methods only serve to further inflate Microsoft's already obscene profit margins, at the price of the interests of the user community, the IT market and the field of computer technology as a whole.

[chilepepper]

This article presents very thorough and interesting historical/technical background on Microsoft's OS and its conflict with Linux...

[merak]

IBM came out with a very good 32-bit OS with a good 32-bit presentation manager in 92 and the first time Microsoft even had a competing product was with version 4 of Win NT in the summer of 96. Windows should have been buried and dead by that time. Instead, OS2 had been ignored to death by that time. Msoft had told every software developer in America that if they wrote code for OS2, they'd be out of the loop and never have the info necessary to write for 32-bit windows WHEN it came out, and they ALL caved. The problem as I see it is that the next time the United States has to wait four years for Bill Gates to catch up, it might be Japan Inc. or somebody else that catches up...

[Quix]

in an almost quixotic fashion

I resemble that remark!

Actually, I think this article puts it mildly.

Am beginning to think there's a special spot reserved in a very hot place for those upper leaders involved with a fraction of Redmond's infuriating fiendishness.

[Quix]

Perhaps the Chinese?

They certainly have plenty of antipathy toward Gates and his ways while enviously jealous of his money and admiring the his successful ruthlessness.

His ways are too much like their ways and they don't like being beaten at their own games.

Besides all that, their not about to sit still and be controlled by someone a Pacific away and still wet behind the ears.

It may take them time, but sooner or later, they'll maneuver out from under Gates' thumb. I think they are already well on the way with Linux.

[RogueIsland]

the mandatory bundling of Windows with new computer equipment

Funny, I can go online right now and order a computer sans operating system. This is an old axe he's grinding here, worn dull.

[RWG]

Mac OSX10.2 is remarkable. Have been running it for about 2 weeks and not one crash or freeze. It is so easy to work, so fast, and has so many nifty features I may never use my pc ever again.

[chilepepper]

Try to buy a DELL or Gateway or almost any NEW pre-built computer w/o an operating system (and try to get back the $75/$100 dollars to Microsoft dialed into the price)...

Getting an OS-free PC is a fairly new phenomena typically limited to REFURBISHED machines and you have to know where to look to find those...

Of course, since day one you could assemble your own computer from components and install whatever OS you wanted...

As for the article, it presents many new facts i wasn't aware of: in particular Windows XP is really not much more than NT... I thought it was a new code base (should have known better)

[xrp]

Well, duh...sure, buying from a major distributor you're going to get the Windows OS almost forced upon you. Look locally for a Mom&Pop shop that sells computers or check http://www.pricewatch.com/ for computers that can be ordered to suit your needs, without a Windows OS. Dell and Gateway are not the only sources on the planet for getting a new PC. Finding an alternative using the Internet takes about 5 minutes.

[Grut]

Instead, OS2 had been ignored to death by that time.

IIRC, IBM pretty much ignored it too; OS2 suffered from it's own maker's indifference as much as anything else.

[ClearCase_guy]

Businesses compete. Some businesses are more successful (profitable) than others. Some products take off. Some don't.

If Microsoft breaks the law, they should be prosecuted. I believe there was a trial ... but I do not recall too much wrong-doing being proven.

If the government passes legislation to benefit Microsoft, than that is un-American. I believe there was a trial ... in which the US government tried to punish Microsoft.

The way I see it, Microsoft competes, within the letter of the law, and trounces all opponents. But the opponents are still out there, so that all the Microsoft haters can use the opposing software, if they wish. Why cry about that?
I'm a UNIX guy. But people who hate Microsoft really irk me. Businesses which follow the law should be allowed to thrive if the marketplace delivers profits to the business.

That's capitalism. I'm a conservative. Do the math.

[chilepepper]

I have no problem with Microsoft except for its tactics and the quality of its products.

Microsoft AGAIN AND AGAIN uses its monopolistic power to try to stifle competition, as do all monopolies. Check

THIS article on what M$ did to the Sendo Phone Company.

You should read the entire article Why I Hate Microsoft. It is one thing to support the free market in theory, but by the same token the exchange of information regarding the ethics of a company is one of the factors which needs to be considered by a consumer in making their choice in order to assertain the VALUE of what they are buying:

or do you feel that Microsoft should have FREE REIN and the history & corporate philosophy & truth about their products should be suppressed?

[gaspar]

In 2000 Microsoft offered a two year introductory deal to msn.com which was very enticing, with free goodies from Radio Shack. For those interested in a good nationwide POP3 server it sounded great -- until Microsoft, without notice, got rid of the POP3 and forced everyone onto the rotten Hotmail service. Arguments that Microsoft had breached its contract were met by laughs, and "so sue us".

[The Duke]

Does anybody remember a month-or-so ago that Bill Gates announced that he (or was it Microsoft?) was donating hundreds of millions of dollars to India to fight AIDS - and then a couple of days later India announced that their government was standardizing on Linux?

Obvious political bribery going on there it seemed to me.

Given the fact that Linux won out on that one, I can't help but wonder of those hundreds of millions will ever materialize(?)

[DallasMike]

I'm a UNIX guy. But people who hate Microsoft really irk me.

Agreed. I write software for MS systems at work and at home use both Win2000 and Linux (just built a new machine last week and upgraded to Redhat 8.0). I like both OSs. But though the Linux OS is stable its apps crash much more often than the apps on my MS machines. Whoever says Linux apps are more stable than MS apps is just blowing smoke.

[xrp]

Remember, Bill Gates is married, he doesn't control his money anymore.

[logic101.net]

Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly! There is competition; it is just that few want to go the road less traveled and get an Apple product. If Apple and others properly advertised their products they just might become bigger players. Instead, Apple decided not to advertise much, but rather to lobby governments and schools to buy their products. Their marketing stratigy was sound in the begining when computers were too expensive for many homes. However, when the PC boom really hit, they didn't gear up for the new market. Is this Gate's fault?


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[xrp]

Exactly. There are plenty of alternatives to MS Windows for the desktop. Off the top of my head I can think of:

OpenBSD FreeBSD NetBSD The 1 BILLION flavours of Linux (some popular flavours are are Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSe and Slackware)
LindowsOS
Apple's MaC OS X
and that's just starters...

[chilepepper]

Technically you are correct, of course.

However, Microsoft does engage in monopolistic practises. If a monopoly did NOT engage in monopolistic practises, then i wouldn't have a beef over this. The practises are the bad part, not whether or not they are a monopoly...

[ClearCase_guy]

I have no problem with Microsoft except for its tactics and the quality of its products.

But this is the core of what I think is wrong with the Microsoft haters!

You don't like the tactics? Well, are they illegal? Doesn't seem so to me. Or the US government. The tactics displease you. Boo-frickin-Hoo! France displeases me. But it's not going anywhere.

You don't like the quality of its products? Don't buy the products! Businesses that have poor quality go out of business. Microsoft isn't going out of business. The company quite obviously provides something of benefit to its customers. Standardization is not a bad thing. I remember the alternative.

I believe that corporations should have free rein to do anything they want within the letter of the law. In general, I think we have too many laws that restrict economic success. But that's a side point. Given the laws today, I think Microsoft should do anything it can, and if it goes too far, then it will get sued and it can take take its lumps. I'm a capitalist. If you want more laws on the books to limit Microsoft, go lobby for more laws.

This bashing of corporations which are trying to generate profits and trying to employ greater numbers of Americans is something I expect from Gore supporters.

[BullDog108]

Remember, Bill Gates is married, he doesn't control his money anymore.

I have it on good authority that the pre-nuptial specified that Melinda wouldn't do windows...