STOPPUM

[hm_murdock]

Whatcha gonna do?

They improved the quality of their software greatly. They improved Windows by leaps and bounds in usability and security.

Windows Developers still approach UI design with the same disdain that *nix devs did until around 2005. That's why no two fucking disc burning apps operate even remotely the same way.

They now provide free -  AND QUALITY - anti-malware software.

I mean... What the fuck. These can't be the same guys.

Whatcha gonna do to stop em?

Let's play Devil's Advocate here for a while. MS aren't the same dudes as when this place got put together. Now there's competition, so what the fux.

WHATCHA GONNA DO TO STOPPUM

[Refalm]

It's the work of just one guy.

Here he talks about it all:
http://videos.visitmix.com/MIX09/C26F

Although the GUI is improved, it's part of the same trick.

The new Windows has a different way of application design. The old Windows gets updated Windows applications that have the new Windows design (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Office). By doing this, old Windows looks outdated.

It's been done since Windows 95, with that Internet Explorer 4 junk, then having a Windows ME designed Windows Media Player on Windows 98, up to the Teletubbie look of Windows XP (really made the new Windows Messenger look futuristic on a Windows 98 desktop), and of course the complete UX turnaround of Vista and 7, that made Internet Explorer 7 look like the cool kid that smoked cigarettes amongst the toddlers that were the other Windows XP applications.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Do  we really need to Stop Microsoft?

Surely competition provided by alternatives has helped drive improvements to their software.

For example, there are Internet Explorer 6 with its featureless UI, shit security, inferior standards compliance and sluggish speed. Then along came Firefox which offered users more speed, UI enhancements such as tabbed browsing, improved security and the IE user-base shrunk overnight. MS had to do something, so they came up with IE 7 which although was still behind Firefox in many areas (security, speed and stability), it was a vast improvement and was actually better in some respects: for example it had full page zooming (like Opera) which could only be implemented on Firefox with an extension. Soon came IE 8 which solved even more security issues and improved standards compliance by passing the Acid 2 test. Now MS are working in IE 9 which should be even better.

If Firefox had not existed then IE would probably be still on version 6 or perhaps 6.5 and it wouln't be any better: non Windows users would be complaining more about websites not working and rogue ActiveX controls would be still be hijacking people's computers.

In short, we might not be able to actually stop Microsoft but we can influence them enough to improve the quality of their software and kick them in the right direction.

Also let's not forget that by criticising their software we're actually helping them to improve it. I'm pretty sure they read ant-Windows blogs and take on board some of the harsh criticism.

[piratePenguin]

Well fuck, is bad products the only reason any of us had for detesting Microsoft? (it isn't the main reason I used to detest them - I grew up on Windows and stumbled upon interesting free alternatives that it turned out suit me better - and it was in learning MS practices to stifle competition on desktop OS software, on the web, on office software (they should be punished for their attitude to OpenDocument and decade-old web standards))

Microsoft have indeed leap-frogged their products to compete, and they have a somewhat better attitude too, and all to be sure because millions of people were taking a look at MS software and jumping off. It was never so important to me that MS released shit software, but the audacity to re-release shit software and create a perpetual upgrading complex for hundreds of millions of people and businesses, that doesn't win my heart and mind. But they've "changed" - as doing so is now in their business interest, due to competitors that aren't just better quality but that are gaining momentum in hundreds of millions of users.

At the end of the day we will have to deal with the MS antics over the past few decades for as long as companies are motivated by profit. How can we really argue with them is the question?


Btw, IE9 is a pretty huge improvement, but as I've heard the big boys in the administration love to wreck things up, e.g. the team decides implement feature X is the way to go but are told not to, seemingly for the sake of not producing a top-quality browser (I'll look through my history for this). I guess IE10 will be part of another perpetual upgrading thing, but as I said, how can we argue?

[reactosguy]

WHATCHA GONNA DO TO STOPPUM

Not hard. If we pour hot water over their hairs for giving us low-quality (as in price and license) products, they're going to try to improve their products.

We can have them try to improve the code but not realize that price is a bad   point about them, that proprietary licenses limit software potential   and higher quality alternatives are available, with some able to be   modified without permission.

WE can tell them that we have many complaints about Windows, code-wise. But we can't spill the beans (tell them that we hate the price, license etc.) or they'll try to improve their other stuff which will improve their monopolistic position.

Do  we really need to Stop Microsoft?

Surely competition provided by alternatives has helped drive improvements to their software.

Yes, apparently, Microsoft is a copycat and will do anything to switch FF users to bloat-loaded IE. They'll make up the Get The Facts pages to encourage switching. Unfortunately Microsoft has always been loading FUD onto such pages to make sure users' switches are ensured and average people who think viruses erase data think that Microsoft is telling the truth.

Also, no matter what features are brought onto Microsoft's products, they will usually be bloated, requiring the user to get more RAM and a better hard drive to waste money.

 

In short, we might not be able to actually stop Microsoft but we can influence them enough to improve the quality of their software and kick them in the right direction.

Also let's not forget that by criticising their software we're actually helping them to improve it. I'm pretty sure they read ant-Windows blogs and take on board some of the harsh criticism.

I wonder why we're all in a forum. I think that Microsoft ignores most minor sites opposing them, but this one has a link to Microsuck, the most popular anti-Microsoft ever created, so we need to watch out on that.

We could just ban their IP address and redirect them to their page so they think we are gone for good and so that the best anti-MS site on the 'Net has crucial information safe from our nemesis, preventing them from improving their products and keeping them in hot water. This doesn't stop some Microsoft employee or fan from logging on to this site at home masquerading as an anti-MS person and sending info to them. We can just delete their account anyway and block their access as well. Because Microsoft's email server deletes spam, such messages by fans will never reach MS. MS employees will try to present proof but because access to here from MS HQ is banned, it will be shrugged off.

The point is, if MS never existed, this site wouldn't have existed as well. Our continuity depends on an existing Microsoft Corporation boiling in hot water without them stealing our criticism and improving products.

[hm_murdock]

Did Steve Ballmer kick your dog or something? Seriously, I don't think any of us were quite that vehement even in our heyday.

[reactosguy]

Did Steve Ballmer kick your dog or something? Seriously, I don't think any of us were quite that vehement even in our heyday.

Oh, why do you ask? Did your computer taunt you into a rage?

I don't think Steve Ballmer kicked my virtual dog physically. He could have inserted some code on my old Nintendogs cart, however, that makes your useless "pets" angry no matter what.

I think this forum is being taunted into a rage by some hypocrites.

[Refalm]

Did Steve Ballmer kick your dog or something? Seriously, I don't think any of us were quite that vehement even in our heyday.

Oh, why do you ask? Did your computer taunt you into a rage?

You just completely missed the whole point. Or did you purposely not read the second sentence because you're afraid of self-reflection?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Seriously what does everyone think of the Windows 7 GUI?

I've not used it before so I can't comment other than what I've seen from screen shots but it looks better than Vista.

How about the new MS Office ribbon interface?

My only experience of it is in Excel viewer and I think it's shit, though maybe it would grow on me, if I used it more?

The thing I don't like about MS is the way they prop up the hardware companies. The amount they charge for an upgrade or boxed versions of their software is extortionate compared to the OEM price, which is pretty reasonable. They should sell their boxed versions of their software for less, may be a bit more than OEM as it's better but not much. The hardware companies should also have to offer machines without an operating system installed or offer refunds for those who don't want Windows.

When I get a new PC, I'll probably admit it will have Windows on it but I'll try to make sure it doesn't come with anything else, especially if it's MS Works!

We may be able to push MS into creating better software but there's no way we'll be able to do anything about their business practices - only the government can do that.

[Refalm]

I regard Windows 7 as the successor of Windows 95 in terms of really listening to the consumer.

A lot of annoying balloons are gone, so is the "helpful" start up screen from XP and Vista, and texts at the installation that this particular Windows version the best ever. The dock clone is great, I think its even better than the one in Mac OS X, and AWN or Cairo in Linux. The snap and shake feature is a great idea, it adds something useful in contrast to the composing in Vista that was just to make it look cool amongst teenagers and idiots, while Compiz in Linux and Aqua in Mac OS X has actual useful features.

I suspect that after Windows 7, Microsoft will abandon the whole listening to the consumer idea, and fall into old patterns by adding stupid features that no sane person needs (and slows the computer down), markets MSN, Bing, Security Essentials, Hotmail, etc. aggressively on the desktop, and using usability reports as toilet paper.
I think we'll have to wait another 13 years for the next good desktop Windows to be released.

[piratePenguin]

We may be able to push MS into creating better software but there's no way we'll be able to do anything about their business practices - only the government can do that.

These governments are not elected?

Besides it isn't about getting the government to put pressure on MS was my point, it's about getting the government to change it's values, or working towards a government with different values. Otherwise you will see these attitudes crop up for as long as companies are motivated by maximizing profit. In fact MS practices are hardly to worry about compared to practices that occur in food industries, and other.

[hm_murdock]

IMO, the changes made in Windows 7 are simply there so that they can call it a new release. I'm not a fan of the new Taskbar at all. Something about it just feels amateurish I think the Dock still does a better job of keeping up with applications, with <i>one icon</i> and <i>on icon only<i> for each thing.

Also, while I use the Dock to store shortcuts, I believe it would take some time before I do the same thing with the Windows 7 taskbar for some reason. Something about the way it ends up working. The Dock is an obvious device: Icons float there. The Taskbar is a row of buttons for open windows. It'll just take me some time to get used to the paradigm shift in the Taskbar. It's for applications, not windows anymore. But if I could get used to the change from OS 9's switcher menu and Apple menu to the Dock, I think I can deal with that caarraaaaazy new Taskbar!

Its guts, though, I really hate to break it  to you, are nearly identical to Windows Vista. There are a few tweaks, but not really that many. It's more like Windows Vista SP3. Reason being:

<i>THERE WAS NEVER ACTUALLY ANYTHING WRONG WITH WINDOWS VISTA</i>.

Bloggers and the tech press blew up a shitstorm about it, when there actually wasn't anything wrong. It was known that it would break compatibility with many apps. That, ya know... Happens when an OS undergoes a major architectural change. We got used to it in the Apple world years ago.

System 7 broke some apps that relied on parts of Systems 4 through 6. Mac OS 8 made it hard for some programs with hard-coded UI to run because of the new Appearance Manager. OS 9 broke apps that didn't properly handle memory management. 9.2 broke even more. OS X? Well... Strangely enough OS 9 running in Classic is more compatible than 9.0 running straight out was because Mac OS 9's memory manager isn't active.

Is 7 a good release? Yep. I think it's the Windows 98 to Vista's 95. One provided a firm base upon which to build the future of the platform, and the point-one release nailed the features to a T.

Will I give up my Mac for it? Nope. I might run it on my second-hand HP lappy, though!! It's just that so far I'm still enjoying giving Ubuntu Lucid a whirl on there.

[Aloone_Jonez]

The one thing I don't like about Vista and onwards is not being able to use unsigned drivers. Whilst this might not sound like a bad idea security wise, I'm critical because I don't think it'll do as much good as people think and it will just increase costs to the developers.

Firstly how well do Microsoft actually certify the drivers don't contain any malware before signing them?
I doubt they analyse the source code in great detail (assuming they actually ask for it). I imagine it's more of a rubber stamping process.

Secondly, it isn't free for someone to get their driver signed, it's another example of a Microsoft tax which increases costs to developers.

Thirdly, there's a back door: there are several vulnerabilities which enable unsigned drivers to be installed and no it doesn't require safe mode, Google it.

And finally, it further breaks comparability with old hardware. It's still possible to use some drivers designed for earlier versions of NT-based Windows with XP but this is no longer possible with Vista onwards, it won't work with my old printer which only has a Windows 2000 driver.

What about all the alleged performance and stability issues with Vista? Is that a load of bollocks too? But I've never used it so I can't possibly comment.

[hm_murdock]

The performance and stability issues were in the minds of small people.

I ran Windows Vista on a rather marginal machine (3.0GHz Pentium-D with Radeon X200 graphics,) starting with the GM release up to SP2. I also ran the 7 Beta and RC. Both were rock solid and never gave me a BSOD save for when I had a DIMM go south on me. I used both x86 and x64 builds. I also run it on an HP lappy with an Athlon 64 as well as sometimes on an Asus Netbook which is balls slow even running DOS (no fucking joke.)

As far as performance, 7 and Vista SP2 were so close as to be indistinguishable. That may have changed in 7's GM if there were debugging code still running in the RC. I dunno. I think the big issue is that Windows people and the tech press in general go complacent. They were used to Windows XP, which in 2007 was a decade-old codebase (The first hauntings of Windows NT 5 were mid 1997, and the first beta arrived in late 1998.) So of course it flew like coursers on a dual-core Pentium 4. But Windows Vista brought things like a credible security subsystem, a modern graphics framework and a desktop shell that didn't suck ass.

See, on the Apple side of things, we did that in 2001 when Mac OS X showed up and we said, "Oh man it's slow compared to OS 9, but Jesus it never crashes and doesn't suck like 9." Now in 2010 I still use Mac OS X 10.4 on a G4 from 1999. So maybe I'm not the best person to ask about speed issues, because this is perfectly acceptable to me.

Suffice to say, after hearing the "Vista sux XP rox" drum being beat for a while and my own experiences being the exact opposite - Windows XP was like trying to hurd turtles uphill on a glacier covered with Death Monsters - I started to simply respond with that, "I don't give two shits what you think, it's obviously a lie" whenever someone would bring up liking XPee more.

Why?

XP SUX. I'd rather use fuckin'... Like... RISC OS.

[piratePenguin]

OSX SUX


!

and steve jobs sucks DICK