Thinking of converting............to Mac!

[cgraye]

Microsoft spent 8 years keeping an antiquated system alive, then released a horrible bug ridden system with incompatibility and greatly increased system requirements. People were forced to change and upgrade every single bit of hardware to do this.

What are you talking about?

File formats and other proprietary Microsoft stuff also changes, which forces users to use their "latest" software.

It doesn't force anyone to do anything.  And you can still choose to use older file formats for compatibility with older systems.  But the thing is, you just can't keep things alive forever.  There is a cost to maintaining old things, and at some point, it becomes more work than it's worth.

Really, all Microsoft does is keep their DOS and NT systems, and sell bug fixes to intentionally written bugs.

What intentionally written bugs?  Unless you have evidence for this, that is REALLY not a fair accusation to make.

[Rosarium]

Microsoft spent 8 years keeping an antiquated system alive, then released a horrible bug ridden system with incompatibility and greatly increased system requirements. People were forced to change and upgrade every single bit of hardware to do this.

What are you talking about?

XP. It was released late, and lacking promised features. Vista was released nearly a decade later, and not only lacked the features promised in XP and in Vista, it increased system requirements enormously. Windows 7 was released 2-3 years later, which essentially fixed the bugs they sold in Vista and still did not give the promised features of XP.

All the while, Microsoft restricts sale and use of XP and promotes its new product, which is quite expensive.

It doesn't force anyone to do anything.  And you can still choose to use older file formats for compatibility with older systems.  But the thing is, you just can't keep things alive forever.  There is a cost to maintaining old things, and at some point, it becomes more work than it's worth.

Well, force is a strong word. It allows them to lose their information if they want.

Yes, you are correct. Breaking compatibility is necessary, however, the issue is that the forms are proprietary and it is technically (often) illegal to break them or use them otherwise.

ODF exists and is superior. Microsoft can (and will) implement it. However, they constantly try to compete with it and lock people into their formats which others can't use. Remember OOXML? The new Microsoft document format, which was standardised? Microsoft's products do not follow the standard they published, so the "standard" is useless.

Really, all Microsoft does is keep their DOS and NT systems, and sell bug fixes to intentionally written bugs.

What intentionally written bugs?  Unless you have evidence for this, that is REALLY not a fair accusation to make.

When the code of Windows was leaked in part a while back, comments in the code were found that they intentionally kept bugs for various reasons.

However, I am referring to the general quality of Microsoft's software. They release garbage (ME, Vista) and then shortly (in their terms...long time for other systems) release a new one which "fixes" those problems. Having beta and alpha testers is fine, but people should not be tricked into it.

[StBrigid]

From a simple user who doesn't fix/play with the 'inards' of computers, I can say that I much prefer the Mac! I've worked with DOS (loved it) and on PCs (work and home). The additional security from viruses - yes, they do get them, but much, much less than PCs and they don't crash all the time as PCs do. Since I'm not in any way a computer tech. I really appreciate being able to use my computer practically all the time. I don't do graphics at all, but I just love it and were I in the market for another computer I would look only at a Mac, even tho' they are more expensive and I'm super cheap (and broke).

[Rosarium]

I really appreciate being able to use my computer practically all the time.

PCs don't crash that much at all. My iBook had the record for crashing. Lovely little pinwheel of death I had.

[cgraye]

XP. It was released late, and lacking promised features. Vista was released nearly a decade later, and not only lacked the features promised in XP and in Vista, it increased system requirements enormously. Windows 7 was released 2-3 years later, which essentially fixed the bugs they sold in Vista and still did not give the promised features of XP.

All the while, Microsoft restricts sale and use of XP and promotes its new product, which is quite expensive.

They are moving forward.  Software development does not always go according to plan, especially when you are dealing with something as big and with as many existing users as Windows.  It's easy to criticize, but I work in commercial software development, on a product that is as big and has been around as long as Windows, and I can tell you that given what Microsoft has to deal with, I am extremely impressed with them.  The problems are endless.  There are no good solutions sometimes.  Someone will always be unsatisfied.  It's just the nature of the beast.

Yes, you are correct. Breaking compatibility is necessary, however, the issue is that the forms are proprietary and it is technically (often) illegal to break them or use them otherwise.

Sounds like a smart business move to me.

ODF exists and is superior. Microsoft can (and will) implement it. However, they constantly try to compete with it and lock people into their formats which others can't use. Remember OOXML? The new Microsoft document format, which was standardised? Microsoft's products do not follow the standard they published, so the "standard" is useless.

No one actually follows standards anyway.  Every day I work with "open" standards and they are as poorly supported as Microsoft's own.  Everybody loves OpenGL, yeah?  Do you think your graphics card actually implements the complete standard?  I promise you it doesn't.

When the code of Windows was leaked in part a while back, comments in the code were found that they intentionally kept bugs for various reasons.

There are always non-nefarious reasons to keep bugs around.  I make these kinds of decisions literally every day.  It just has to be that way.

However, I am referring to the general quality of Microsoft's software. They release garbage (ME, Vista) and then shortly (in their terms...long time for other systems) release a new one which "fixes" those problems. Having beta and alpha testers is fine, but people should not be tricked into it.

That's not what they are doing.  When something is that huge, there are problems you are just not going to find until it hits the public.  Our software passes alpha and beta testing with flying colors and then when it hits the street, there are massive problems found that must be patched.  It's just the way it works.

Yes, ME and Vista were crap.  And yes, I have my own problems with some of the choices Microsoft makes.  But since I am in their shoes myself, I cannot criticize them too heavily, because I understand the position they are in, and it is a position where there are no easy answers.

[Rosarium]

They are moving forward.  Software development does not always go according to plan, especially when you are dealing with something as big and with as many existing users as Windows.  It's easy to criticize, but I work in commercial software development, on a product that is as big and has been around as long as Windows, and I can tell you that given what Microsoft has to deal with, I am extremely impressed with them.  The problems are endless.  There are no good solutions sometimes.  Someone will always be unsatisfied.  It's just the nature of the beast.

It is the nature of their business and software model, which is extremely counter-productive and flawed.

Sounds like a smart business move to me.

It would be smart to someone get it against the law to use other products too. Hey, they tried that already. The claimed someone stole their code and used it in a product, but they wouldn't say which code was stolen (because, you know, it was a secret).

No one actually follows standards anyway.  Every day I work with "open" standards and they are as poorly supported as Microsoft's own.  Everybody loves OpenGL, yeah?  Do you think your graphics card actually implements the complete standard?  I promise you it doesn't.

No, but they don't normally try to use standards against others. GNU, for example, will break standards for a reason (gcc has a compatibility mode for C, but there was no reason to stick with that only and many improvements are present), but Microsoft intentionally cripples standards for political reasons.

That's not what they are doing.  When something is that huge, there are problems you are just not going to find until it hits the public.  Our software passes alpha and beta testing with flying colors and then when it hits the street, there are massive problems found that must be patched.  It's just the way it works.

Sure, users can find bugs no QA team (and certainly not the programmer) will find. That is always true...but who pays to be a beta tester then pays for the solution? Microsoft tried to restrict (with some success) sales of previous products to force people to buy their "new" one. In fact, even today, one can only get a computer with XP if that computer has arbitrary alterations to it (like the inability for the hardware to use more than 2 GB of RAM...even if XP isn't used on it, to get a "license" for it, the hardware must be crippled).

Yes, ME and Vista were crap.  And yes, I have my own problems with some of the choices Microsoft makes.  But since I am in their shoes myself, I cannot criticize them too heavily, because I understand the position they are in, and it is a position where there are no easy answers.

There is an easy answer: change the business plan to "make quality software" from "being a monopoly".

Yes, their mission statement (or vision statement) is to be a monopoly.

[cgraye]

It is the nature of their business and software model, which is extremely counter-productive and flawed.

It's working for them.  And it's working for me.  So I don't see the problem.

No, but they don't normally try to use standards against others. GNU, for example, will break standards for a reason (gcc has a compatibility mode for C, but there was no reason to stick with that only and many improvements are present), but Microsoft intentionally cripples standards for political reasons.

For political reasons?

Sure, users can find bugs no QA team (and certainly not the programmer) will find. That is always true...but who pays to be a beta tester then pays for the solution?

No one is having to pay for the solution.  All versions of Windows have eventually been patched to be fine.

Microsoft tried to restrict (with some success) sales of previous products to force people to buy their "new" one. In fact, even today, one can only get a computer with XP if that computer has arbitrary alterations to it (like the inability for the hardware to use more than 2 GB of RAM...even if XP isn't used on it, to get a "license" for it, the hardware must be crippled).

Well, that's what happens when you come out with a new product.  You don't keep selling the old one, because then you have to keep supporting it, which is not reasonable or even possible at a certain point.

There is an easy answer: change the business plan to "make quality software" from "being a monopoly".

You can't just snap your fingers and make everything better when you have as huge a user base and as many previous things to support as Microsoft does.  If I could do this with the software I work on, believe me, I would.  We just can't, and it has nothing to do with not trying to make quality software or trying to be a monopoly.

[Rosarium]

It is the nature of their business and software model, which is extremely counter-productive and flawed.

It's working for them.  And it's working for me.  So I don't see the problem.

It is working against others unfairly. I guess it is easy to not see the problem when one is a part of it.

No one is having to pay for the solution.  All versions of Windows have eventually been patched to be fine.

The solution is the next version of Windows, not the patches. Those are just bandaids.

Well, that's what happens when you come out with a new product.  You don't keep selling the old one, because then you have to keep supporting it, which is not reasonable or even possible at a certain point.

The free market should be free. It isn't a matter of selling a disk, but licenses. They don't have to support it either. Someone else can do that.

You can't just snap your fingers and make everything better when you have as huge a user base and as many previous things to support as Microsoft does.  If I could do this with the software I work on, believe me, I would.  We just can't, and it has nothing to do with not trying to make quality software or trying to be a monopoly.

So...what is the point? I'm talking not just about Microsoft issues (I like their XBox for instance), but their adverse influence on others on matters not regarding software. They won't beat competitors with superior products or prices but by legal threats and other shady practices. Ever hear of vapourware? Microsoft sells it all the time, and they don't have to write a line of code.

[cgraye]

It is working against others unfairly. I guess it is easy to not see the problem when one is a part of it.

How is their software working against anyone unfairly?

The solution is the next version of Windows, not the patches. Those are just bandaids.

No.  There is not one version of Windows that does not work just fine when all service packs and updates are applied.  The next version of Windows is NEVER the solution, because there is a big chance it may be crap until they have the chance to work on it a little.  That's the risk you take when being an early adopter of anything, hardware or software.

The free market should be free. It isn't a matter of selling a disk, but licenses.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything.

They don't have to support it either. Someone else can do that.

You bet they have to support it.  I'm not buying anything as expensive as a piece of software if the company isn't going to support it.  How can someone else support it?

So...what is the point? I'm talking not just about Microsoft issues (I like their XBox for instance), but their adverse influence on others on matters not regarding software. They won't beat competitors with superior products or prices but by legal threats and other shady practices.

I'm not talking about their business practices, I'm talking about their software.  If you want to say they participate is shady business practices, then fair enough, I guess.

Ever hear of vapourware? Microsoft sells it all the time, and they don't have to write a line of code.

To whom are they selling it?

[ggreg]

I bought an IMac for £1000 and gave it to my wife.  I now use Windows 7 on my PC and find that easier.  I have familiarity with Windows and using PrevX 3.0 I have not had any viruses or trojans.

Screens on Macs are really nice.  They appear to me to be MUCH better for watching on line video.  But... applications like Skype are rubbish in comparrison with the PC version.  I use Skype a lot so it really matters for me.