Re: Pirates of Silicon Valley

[!smentzer@ecom.net (Steve Mentzer)]

>
>Ahem... "quality" on Microsoft products is non existant. Microsoft software is
>poorly written and bug filled - so much so that it is has been seriously 
questioned
>whether or not the bugs were purposely put into their programs to keep people
>upgrading. 


 That's funny that you mention this. **EVERY DAY** I use office 97, a whole 
slew of microsoft programming tools (Visual C++ v6.0, Visual Basic 6.0, Visual 
J++), back-end application suites like Microsoft Transaction Server, SQL Server 
6.5, Microsoft Message Queue etc etc etc...

And while I do find an occasional quirk, the programs are far from being "bug 
filled". Well, they aren't any buggier than other application suites available.

As far as Microsoft "forcing upgrades". That is simply not true. If a major bug 
is found in any microsoft product, a patch or service pack is always released, 
and it is almost always free.



>The average person does not have a choice when it comes to an OS; 95% of
>all software is written for Windows - so if you or your company needs a 
>particular
>piece of software in most cases you have to buy Windows. 


Blame this one directly at me. I don't write software for the Mac, nor will I 
ever. Microsoft supports the developers and the developers write the software. 
Are you saying that microsoft is at fault for making my job as a developer 
easier????

Lets turn on the time-machine-looking-glass and take a gander at the 
differences between Microsoft and Apple.

	1 - 	Apple never introduced a viable developer program.
		(APDA DOES NOT COUNT)
		Their development tools were ridiculously expensive.
	2 -	Microsoft gave away SDK's, DDK's.
		(unlike apple, where you had to beg steve jobs for attention).
	3 - 	Borland (who never made a Mac compatible compiler)
		practically gave away compilers to students.
	4 -	Microsoft adapted an object oriented API for windows
		programming. They standardized it. It made C/C++ windows
		programming 100x easier (for standard gui apps).
	5 - 	Microsoft developed an easy to use, accessible language
		for the power programmer AND the average savvy joe.
		It is called Visual Basic. 
		Windows TOOK OFF when VB started gaining ground.
		Good or bad, 75% of my development today is in VB.


>Microsoft has even bought
>software companies to insure that the software would not be written for any 
>other
>platform.

	Really, like who?


>They have monopolized the software market - and you will end up the
>loser. Technological advancements are sacrificed for the sake of backwards
>compatibility and to keep Microsoft's hefty monopoly in place.  And 
incidentally,
>Microsoft has just now got around to putting features into their OS that Mac's 
>have
>had since the mid 80's.


And apple **just** put a feature in the MacOS that Microsoft Windows NT has had 
for years.... It's called "pre-emptive multitasking".

Don't even get me started on memory protection and address spaces...

Bottom line: The MacOS has lagged behind technically for YEARS. A good GUI 
doesn't make a better OS. If that was the case, then linux should be considered 
to be a big pile of donkey dung.


>Bundling Internet explorer with Win 98 is a prime example of how Microsoft is
>attempting to crush any competition and shove their software down your throat. 
>They
>are even putting that crap on Mac's now. Internet explorer comes already 
installed
>on most computers and if you try to run Netscape it causes it to crash in some
>instances - coincidence?  


What a load of crap. Nag messages, yes. Making IE the default browser 
automatically ... yes. But saying that IE can indiscriminately kill Netscape 
while running is absurd. 

Netscrape crashes fine all by itself... that is why I use IE.



>And removing Internet explorer is no easy task for novice
>users.
>


Seeing how the explorer and folder browsers contain instances of IE4, it seems 
stupid to remove it in the first place.



>That's the thing - there isn't any competition. Microsoft destroys or buys out 
>any
>company if there is even a hint that they might be a competitor. They don't 
>play
>"fair"; and by that I mean they break the law - as this current anti-monopoly
>lawsuit the Government has filed against them will show. Remember what 
>happened to
>Standard Oil and Rockefeller?
>

Names please.....

or are you just repeating the standard media hype....

I thought so...

smentzer@pacbell.net