What is your honest opinion on Microsoft as a company and not as a sotware vendor?

[monsterstack]

There are plenty of threads around here about the new Windows distro and people discussing their opinions about it, but I don't want to know about that. I would like to know your honest opinions about Microsoft as a company.

Do you hate Microsoft? do you grudgingly respect them? Perhaps you don't hate them; but you have your suspicions. Maybe you're completely ambivalent about their business practices and only ever think of Micrsoft as a software vendor. Maybe you think they're the bess knees. Maybe you think they've got a bad reputation that is unjustified. Maybe you think people should pour scorn over everything they do.

I'm really interested to know what people think about this. Thanks in advance.

[sgosnell]

While I do grudgingly admire their marketing skill, I don't like their business practices, and refuse to buy their products.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Its bad either form.
We are talking about a company that does not pay attention to its consumer base, its business practices are nothing less then criminal.

[SuperSonic4]

Criminals but they do make a few good products (such as Office 07)

[wgarider]

I would like to know your honest opinions about Microsoft as a company.

Do you hate Microsoft? Maybe you're completely ambivalent about their business practices and only ever think of Micrsoft as a software vendor.

I work with Microsoft system for a living-have for the last 12 years. I'm certified in most of their enterprise technologies, so I'm in pretty deep...... LOL
I don't hate them or think suspiciously of them; they're not all that different from many other vendors in terms of their business practices. Do they have a monopoly? You bet. Is there better/faster/cheaper solutions? You bet.

All that being said, I don't actually use all that much Microsoft at home....Linux is my choice there.. Professionally, I started out doing Mac support, moved through Novell, Solaris and now Microsoft -it pays the bills and I can live with that.....

[Hallvor]

Microsoft has two priorities in this order:

1. Crush all competition (to make as much money as possible). This they are very good at.
2. Make good products. They have mixed results in this category.

Microsoft has used a dominating position for many years to prevent competition, thus disadvantaging both consumers and innovation.

[benny bronx]

operating system=ok. Stocks if you bought them some years ago=priceless.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Criminals but they do make a few good products (such as Office 07)

The ribbon sucks, I hate that thing...

[Sand & Mercury]

I can honestly say my only beef with Microsoft is their business practices, which are oftentimes underhanded if not outright despotic. They make some solid products though.

[hatalar205]

Firstly, I hate windows. But, its leadership during the last 15 years cannot be discussable. If there wasn't a company like that, most of us wouldn't meet computers and internet. The most important thing without windows you can not understand the value of linux.
We would still try to do something on black screens without mouse and with floppies.
I think some of the developments are completely belong to them. They are trading. If you don't want, don't buy.
Without money you can not do most of the things you want in modern world. If there isn't a company like that, could linux world develop so rapidly.
After ten years windows experience, it is like a bad memory. But, I had it.

[pwnst*r]

they're awesome in a corportate environment.

[bashveank]

There are brilliant minds working there. Unfortunately the company is too big, and has too large an audience, for its own good.

[glotz]

Micro$oft is an evil monster.

[MaxIBoy]

What is your opinion on the hummer as a mechanical device and not as a means of transportation?

[zeex]

I liked windows. I 've been using both windows and linux for a long time. I really started to hate Microsoft when they pulled XP out of the market to make way for Vista. Everybody knows vista sucks but they don't care, do they? They invested in making a crappy OS and pulled the better one out of market. In simple terms they don't wanna give customer choice.

We have made a new OS and you 'll have to use it. They force people they way they want and i don't like that. I threw Window$ out of the window :P after that.

[pwnst*r]

What is your opinion on the hummer as a mechanical device and not as a means of transportation?

for the armed services, it's great. for civilians it's for people trying to compensate for something personal.

[Dngrsone]

They are corporate, with all the things that corporations have going for and against them.

Someone mentioned size, and that is a huge problem for MS-- in order to continue dominating the markets they own, they had to compartmentalize their divisions to the nth degree-- Office people do not talk to OS people nor to the hardware divisions. Look at the brouhaha that occurred when MS decided to integrate IE into the OS.

Previous and current Windows operating systems could have been built more efficiently, more powerful, and more cooperative with hardware and software add-ons, but not with the anti-trust restrictions, budgets, and deadlines they had to deal with.

Without the behemoth that was Microsoft, with all of its good, bad, and ugly, the machine that sits in front of you would not exist. Personal computers and their progeny would probably be several generations behind where they are now, if they ever broke out of niche.

Asking me or my opinion of Microsoft as a company is like asking me if I like Germany as a country-- sure, they were the bad guys in two world-wide conflicts which resulted in countless deaths and lives ruined, but the country was also the source of Albert Einstein and Ernst Mach, Mozart and Beethoven, Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen. They pushed the envelope in the realms of rocketry and encryption, drove the research that resulted in nuclear power and radar.

In both cases, there are things they do and have done in the past that I can't be happy about, and they have produced some awesome stuff, but regardless of my opinion one way or the other, they are integral parts of the world I grew up in and currently inhabit.

[Icehuck]

Microsoft as a company from the employee perspective is pretty darn good. If you work there chances are you will be happy but not as happy as you would be at Google(too many toys to pass up).

From a business stand point they are brutal towards the competition. They are very successful at expanding their markets. There stock value isn't very high, but it is stable. If you want to learn to do business successfully Microsoft(under Gates) is a great example.

[LightB]

Very rich company due to it's founder weaseling an entire market two decades ago. From that seed grew all their success, but their products are not technically competitive. That's their loserness in a nutshell and that of any shill under their control. Emotions are irrelevant. It's a faceless corporation just like many others. "Hate" is stupid. What's relevant is the damage they do with everything from their silly little PC tax to their hardware vendor enforcement. That is all.

[swoll1980]

This says it all!

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0014/1899/brand.jpg

[dragos240]

I can't say much about microsoft, but I can say a that bill is nice, he does donate a good amount of his money to charity.

[Bölvaður]

As a company they are quite evil actually.
Most companies behave in a similar fashion as Microsoft has done, but they are worse. Not even the tobacco companies try to shut down their competitors and try to crush home grown tobacco with help of the police.

So I guess Microsoft is like the tobacco companies but with a darker soul, bigger guns.. and actual smoke coming from the barrels.



But I guess I can draw a nicer picture of them. Imagine Drakula, with darker soul, bigger teeth and blood dripping of them....

[riza hylviu]

i don't hate microsoft specifically , but the corporate philosophy in general. They have created some excellent softwares indeed. It's just our times god --> GREED....

[nathang1392]

they are genius. most people who dont really know alot about computers think that their computer is made by microsoft. they dominate the marketshare. windows is ran on like 99.9 percent of the desktops in the world (not literally, exaggeration, but you get the point). bill gates = richest man because of microsoft. but i think they are a little criminal. they charge you 200 dollars for vista when they could sell it for 20 dollars and still make money just because of the number of people using it. they dont listen to consumers and it will take a wake up call for them to recognize competition, but imho no one will ever compete. windows has established too much of a marketshare for anyone to dominate as they do..even if they suck.

[calrogman]

This says it all!

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0014/1899/brand.jpg

Um...

Am I missing something here.

[Icehuck]

Um...

Am I missing something here.

It's a reference to megacorporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP) from the movie Robocop. They fund and operate the Detroit Police Department and took it under control. They manipulate crime, government, and other businesses to further the goals of destroying Detroit to make more money.

In all honesty it's a stupid movie that drops F-bombs instead of plot.

[dragos240]

I really don't get it either.

[albinootje]

I'm really interested to know what people think about this.

I'm using computers since 1993, starting with DOS. Somewhere in 1995 I discovered Linux, and since I use FidoNet and Internet I read about the not-so-well-known news about Microsoft, which doesn't get the headlines of all mainstream newspapers and news sites.

Here's an overview of 20 years of anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090421111327711

I strongly dislike Microsoft's attitude, and I don't trust them. I'm glad that their monopoly is finally tearing down a little bit, but I don't want them to be completely vanished, I'd rather see them turn into a hardware company, only selling mice and keyboards. :)

[LightB]

It's a reference to megacorporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP) from the movie Robocop. They fund and operate the Detroit Police Department and took it under control. They manipulate crime, government, and other businesses to further the goals of destroying Detroit to make more money.

In all honesty it's a stupid movie that drops F-bombs instead of plot.

Nonsense, the first one was good, the sequels were a joke.

[Icehuck]

Nonsense, the first one was good, the sequels were a joke.

It was great when I was 12 and I saw it on opening day at the theater. Now, not so much.

[gymophett]

I do not completely hate Microsoft. I do hate the way they could care less about Mac and Linux. So, I try not to buy too much of their things. They aren't.. nice enough? If I could put it that way. All they want is people to buy their OS. So they make all of their software and things as incompatible as possible. Although I do love the Microsoft wireless mouse I'm using and their Zune.

[AndyCooll]

While I do grudgingly admire their marketing skill, I don't like their business practices, and refuse to buy their products.
My view is similar to this.

While I can admire their marketing skills, respect some of the advancements they've aided in the past regarding the IT industry, and even appreciate some of their software, I don't like are their business practices. Which as has been mentioned already in this thread on occasions borders on the criminal.

:cool:

[issih]

They are a badly behaved pseudo monopoly that continually push the edge of what is legal in order to maintain their advantageous market position as a de facto standard.

Some of their software is decent, some of it is awful. Their business practices are almost universally deplorable, unless you are a shareholder.

[jonian_g]

I don't like microsoft because they have a monopoly and who has a monopoly does what he wants. If they were a european company they would have closed for the noumerous times they broke the laws about competition.

PS. Someone said that if it wasn't microsoft, we would still have computers with black screens. Desktop was invented by Xerox. So we would have desktop environments without microsoft. And we have internet thanks to Apache, an open source foundation.
In fact microsoft has held back technology, this happens with monopolies. If everything was open, technology would have advanced faster.


A monopoly is a company that is the sole producer or supplier of a product (i.e., a good or service), or one that is nearly so2. Among the various ways in which a monopoly can damage an economy and society are by (1) charging higher prices than would otherwise be charged, (2) producing products with quality inferior to what would otherwise be produced, (3) providing services associated with their products inferior to what would otherwise be provided, (4) corrupting the political system in order to perpetuate and extend its monopoly position and (5) slowing down the rate of technological advance.

How Monopolies Impede Technological Advance

Monopolies have less incentive to conduct research and development regarding new and improved technologies than do competitive firms because they already have the dominant market share and are usually highly profitable3. This is in spite of the fact that they generally have much greater funds available to support research and development. Rather, they often devote substantial amounts of their profits and managerial focus to efforts to maintaining and extending their monopoly powers.

Microsoft: fined by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million Euros for anti-competitive practices.

[monsterstack]

Thanks for all the responses. They are pretty much along the lines of what I expected.

@jonian_g: Agreed. Another thing with monopolies is that they are massive abusers of the patent system. Just for a second, try to imagine how worse off we'd be if Alan Turing had gone and patented the algorithms that make the use of operators such as if and or xor possible, and had guarded them jealously. Think what more than fifty years of advancement in computing has given us without the use of any patents on software. I'm worried that we'll see much more of this over the next few years, such as Micrsoft's recent tussle with tomtom.

[PacSci]

Microsoft is evil, and has to be evil to survive - because let's face it, if they had to compete fairly, Linux would beat them to death. Their business practices are savage, their working conditions are poor, and their president is a chair-throwing lunatic. There are a few different reasons for their success, but it essentially comes down to this: pure corporate aggression.

I consider myself a HUGE free marketeer, but I think that Microsoft isn't playing by the same rules as everyone else and should be shut down or restricted for that - using their power to do things like blacklist journalists and keep others out of the market sounds like something the mafia would do.

Oh, and I automatically hate monopolies due to their distortion of the natural market patterns by setting the price themselves instead of letting the market do it. That messes everything up.

[starcannon]

There are plenty of threads around here about the new Windows distro and people discussing their opinions about it, but I don't want to know about that. I would like to know your honest opinions about Microsoft as a company.

Do you hate Microsoft? do you grudgingly respect them? Perhaps you don't hate them; but you have your suspicions. Maybe you're completely ambivalent about their business practices and only ever think of Micrsoft as a software vendor. Maybe you think they're the bess knees. Maybe you think they've got a bad reputation that is unjustified. Maybe you think people should pour scorn over everything they do.

I'm really interested to know what people think about this. Thanks in advance.

I think they would really like to lock the world into their OS. All software critiquing aside, I really despise the monopolistic practices, the litigation, the attitude towards FOSS, and the treatment of its customer base. If you need sources for my disdain I can link you up with some reading.

[Zoowey]

I think if it weren't for Microsoft we'd probably be posting in these fourms in a terminal right now. Maybe Microsoft didn't invent everything and stole here and there but they sure pioneered and marketed software for the general public. The Linux you have right now is thanks to Microsoft.

[Alterax]

Not as a software vendor?

I hate saying it, but after actually looking up their business practices, their software is the most admirable part of Microsoft. This is pretty bad considering that anyone that knows me understands that I have a distaste for their products.

As a company on the other hand, my opinion moves from distaste to outright outrage. They hijack protocols and standards designed for interoperation, subvert them to remove compatibility, and call it progress. They put in millions of dollars to develop FUD campaigns that are sneaky, blatantly false, and designed to terrorize unwitting consumers into going with their substandard product. They patent things that they know full well that they did not create. They package whatever they please into their software as trade secrets, including software designed to cripple their product and to spy on the activities of the people that actually bought the software.

They pipe funds into third-world countries that are starting to develop viable infrastructures--not because it is right, but to prevent them from using a more cost-effective product that doesn't benefit Microsoft. Until such a time that their presence may be threatened, Microsoft ignores these countries.

They demand that our copyright laws be obeyed--if and only if it supports their activities, but will not follow the dictates of our own department of justice when it comes to remedying their own anticompetitive practices, refuse to follow the dictates of the European union of the same, but decide to distribute their own ideals of justice through things like DRM and Trusted Computing.

Finally, in a very bad financial recession, they put 3000 with the potential for an additional 2000 Americans out of work--at a time where these citizens are the least likely to find work.

That's what I can think of at this moment.

So in terms of their software, they are lackluster.

In terms of a business, I'd rather sign a contract with the devil himself than work with them.

[Alterax]

I think if it weren't for Microsoft we'd probably be posting in these fourms in a terminal right now. Maybe Microsoft didn't invent everything and stole here and there but they sure pioneered and marketed software for the general public. The Linux you have right now is thanks to Microsoft.

I'm doubtful here. The graphical user environment predates Windows by several years. If anything, I actually think MS and their practices have stunted technological growth over the past two decades.

[jonian_g]

I think if it weren't for Microsoft we'd probably be posting in these fourms in a terminal right now. Maybe Microsoft didn't invent everything and stole here and there but they sure pioneered and marketed software for the general public. The Linux you have right now is thanks to Microsoft.

First web browser was WWW (the Web) started in 1989 by the English physicist Sir Tim Berners-Lee. First graphical browser was Mosaic produced by NCSA and later renamed to Netscape Navigator. Desktop, as said before, was invented by Xerox. First OS was Multics, a cooperative project led by MIT along with General Electric and Bell Labs. First multitasking OS was Unics (renamed later to Unix).
So we would have an OS, a DE and a graphical Web Browser without microsoft.
No need to browse the forums with a terminal.

PS. I've noticed that there the same members always that say the best things about microsoft. What are you? Microsoft employees?

The only thing I have to thank microsoft for is for a dialer that got in my windows box 2 years ago and a 1300 euros phone bill.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I think if it weren't for Microsoft we'd probably be posting in these fourms in a terminal right now. Maybe Microsoft didn't invent everything and stole here and there but they sure pioneered and marketed software for the general public. The Linux you have right now is thanks to Microsoft.

I could certainly post this from terminal if I wanted to. (lynx, elinks, w3m, etc.)

Yes MS did buy or copy most everything
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html

They certainly knew how to market their proprietary wares.
However, considering things like Amiga and Apple, one wouldn't be stuck on a terminal without the paradigm of desktop and application window + mouse.

As for the corporate behavior, taking even brief looks at Comes v. Microsoft, I would say through squashing competition, they have essentially retarded computer software by decades.

It's NOT okay that most people expect software to be buggy, bloated, virus-prone and crash prone.

I feel this article is quote poignant in regard to MS Office 2007 SP2 adding buggy ODF support
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009050712493241
It has a small excerpt from Comes v MS, I'd suggest looking through it if one wants an inside look to MS tactics.

So in short, they are an excellent example of monopoly abuse, illegal behavior (not just skirting the letter of the law), use of tax haven (in Ireland), and lobbying for more h1b visas, ugh it could go on.

[Zoowey]

I'm doubtful here. The graphical user environment predates Windows by several years. If anything, I actually think MS and their practices have stunted technological growth over the past two decades.

I know that Microsoft didn't create the GUI. Actually Xerox created the first ever GUI, then Apple bought the GUI to implement it in their, I think Lisa brand of computers. Then Bill Gates formed a "partnership" with Apple where Apple shared their design ideas and code with Microsoft to hopefully create the ultimate PC, then Bill Gates screwed over Steve Jobs and when Windows was released the GUI was something new and exciting never before seen by the public. Microsoft helped make it popular basicly and considering every major and non-major OS uses some form of a GUI Microsoft has not failed in marketing the GUI.

[Zoowey]

I could certainly post this from terminal if I wanted to. (lynx, elinks, w3m, etc.)

Yes MS did buy or copy most everything
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html

They certainly knew how to market their proprietary wares.
However, considering things like Amiga and Apple, one wouldn't be stuck on a terminal without the paradigm of desktop and application window + mouse.

As for the corporate behavior, taking even brief looks at Microsoft vs Comes, I would say through squashing competition, they have essentially retarded computer software by decades.

It's NOT okay that most people expect software to be buggy, bloated, virus-prone and crash prone.

I feel this article is quote poignant in regard to MS Office 2007 SP2 adding buggy ODF support
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009050712493241
It has a small excerpt from MS vs Comes, I'd suggest looking through it if one wants an inside look to MS tactics.

So in short, they are an excellent example of monopoly abuse, illegal behavior (not just skirting the letter of the law), use of tax haven (in Ireland), and lobbying for more h1b visas, ugh it could go on.

I never doubted you could surf the internet in a terminal, but honestly that's far inferior to any GUI Web Browser.

[Zoowey]

First web browser was WWW (the Web) started in 1989 by the English physicist Sir Tim Berners-Lee. First graphical browser was Mosaic produced by NCSA and later renamed to Netscape Navigator. Desktop, as said before, was invented by Xerox. First OS was Multics, a cooperative project led by MIT along with General Electric and Bell Labs. First multitasking OS was Unics (renamed later to Unix).
So we would have an OS, a DE and a graphical Web Browser without microsoft.
No need to browse the forums with a terminal.

PS. I've noticed that there the same members always that say the best things about microsoft. What are you? Microsoft employees?

The only thing I have to thank microsoft for is for a dialer that got in my windows box 2 years ago and a 1300 euros phone bill.

I concluded that Microsoft wasn't the first to make many things but they were the first to truly market them to the general public. If it wasn't for Microsoft many of these modern technologies may have never gained momentum in the market. Think of it, the reason the electric car hasn't become popular is because no company has the balls to implement them with-in the fuel dominated market. Microsoft had the balls and strength to implement these, therefore they became known to the public that they actually exist and so a demand was created for them. Guns could exist but never be sold if they were never introduced to the market therefore they'd eventually die-off. The GUI and so many other things could have just died off weren't it for Microsoft.

[Dngrsone]

In fact microsoft has held back technology, this happens with monopolies. If everything was open, technology would have advanced faster.



I disagree. Without the standards imposed by Microsoft, we wouldn't have had the gaming push that has been behind the last twenty-five years of innovation:

With one standard GUI desktop (Windows) to cater to, the game manufacturers could concentrate more money and manpower on pushing the computational and graphical envelopes (rather than having to put those man-hours toward porting to other systems), which pushed the chip vendors to make faster processors and video card manufacturers had a niche to fill-- take as much overhead off the processor to speed things up even more. It was a positive-feedback loop that depended on the one standard OS, a standard platform and a small number of competing processors.

Had OS/2 and MacOS remained competitive, then I think things would have developed a little more slowly. If Intel had managed to completely block AMD and Cyrix, then they would have taken their time developing each generation of processor.

[Zoowey]

PS. I've noticed that there the same members always that say the best things about microsoft. What are you? Microsoft employees?

No, I'm not a Microsoft employee. The problem is just because you don't like a company's products doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate the contributions they have made to the computer world in general. I don't use any Microsoft products except for a Xbox 360 controller pluged into my computer for console emulators. I don't really like Microsoft products, but I do acknowledge their contributions.

[pwnst*r]

The only thing I have to thank microsoft for is for a dialer that got in my windows box 2 years ago and a 1300 euros phone bill.

yes, blame MS on your poor surfing habits.

[jonian_g]

I disagree. Without the standards imposed by Microsoft, we wouldn't have had the gaming push that has been behind the last twenty-five years of innovation:

With one standard GUI desktop (Windows) to cater to, the game manufacturers could concentrate more money and manpower on pushing the computational and graphical envelopes (rather than having to put those man-hours toward porting to other systems), which pushed the chip vendors to make faster processors and video card manufacturers had a niche to fill-- take as much overhead off the processor to speed things up even more. It was a positive-feedback loop that depended on the one standard OS, a standard platform and a small number of competing processors.

Had OS/2 and MacOS remained competitive, then I think things would have developed a little more slowly. If Intel had managed to completely block AMD and Cyrix, then they would have taken their time developing each generation of processor.

And if a politician murders all his opponents and become a president...
That's dictatorship and microsoft is a monopoly, same thing.

We would have had the same gaming push on the consoles (standard hardware, standard software).

[doas777]

ok, first off, i get paid to develop in .net and to support MS desktops (and a server or two) , so no, I don't "Hate" them in that regard. having those skills and qualifications is of value to me so I do rely on them to an extent. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE I've ever worked with. I don't take that lightly.

that said, I don't like MS as a company. to be honest, many of their policies (read trusted computing) make me think that they are jerks. they play the part of the evil empire with a scarily tyrannical flair.

one of my biggest problems with MS is that they are never satisfied with their size. they always need to be bigger and control more of the market. do they really need to be a search service and everything else? why not just do one thing well, and let the independent development houses take care of the rest of the eco-system.

as an OS vendor, I have no problem with them per se. I don't like microsoft products other than os's, both desktops and support servers. I won't buy a virus scanner or a zune, or an xbox, or subscribe to live services, or well, much of anything else they want me too.

[jonian_g]

yes, blame MS on your poor surfing habits.

I haven't changed my habits since then. I changed my OS.

[Icehuck]

PS. I've noticed that there the same members always that say the best things about microsoft. What are you? Microsoft employees?

I'm not an employee of Microsoft but I do realise a successful business model when I see it. Also, if people are going to just start 1000 negative threads and posts about Microsoft a week, I will put in some positive.



The only thing I have to thank microsoft for is for a dialer that got in my windows box 2 years ago and a 1300 euros phone bill.

Obviously you were one of the uninformed Windows users who did not know how to protect yourself. It's not your fault entirely since Windows makes you the admin by default. Malware has been making the news since at least 2002 so it's hard to believe you had no clue about it.

Firefox was available in '04 and previous to this was Mozilla (which was better then Firefox).

[jonian_g]

I'm not an employee of Microsoft but I do realise a successful business model when I see it. Also, if people are going to just start 1000 negative threads and posts about Microsoft a week, I will put in some positive.



Obviously you were one of the uninformed Windows users who did not know how to protect yourself. It's not your fault entirely since Windows makes you the admin by default. Malware has been making the news since at least 2002 so it's hard to believe you had no clue about it.

Firefox was available in '04 and previous to this was Mozilla (which was better then Firefox).

Of course I had a clue, that's why I had an Internet Security software(Kaspersky). By the way, it was my fathers computer that got the dialer. Blame a 50 year old man for not knowing how to protect himself from malware.

PS. I have a degree in Project Management. I don't see a successful business model. I didn't learn in any book that a monopoly is a successful business model.

[lykwydchykyn]

The GUI and so many other things could have just died off weren't it for Microsoft.

Um, what do you think the GUI would have died off in favor of? The command line?

In the late 80's:
- Apple had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Commodore had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Atari had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Not that it matters for personal/home computers, but Unix even had a GUI at this point, and several companies were selling GUI-based Unix workstations (SGI, NeXT)
- Microsoft had ... MS DOS. Which killed off or severely marginalized all of the above thanks to IBM. So after killing off the major GUI platforms, they introduce their own and everyone hails them for bringing GUI to the masses. Weird.

So, without microsoft, whose command-line based OS would have kept us in the stone age for years to come?

I'll grant MS this:
- they got us all using IBM hardware, which became an open standard so that hardware could become a commodity. Now if we can just do the same with the OS...
- they have good taste in acquisitions.

[Zoowey]

Firefox was available in '04 and previous to this was Mozilla (which was better then Firefox).

I know this is a Microsoft thread but I must add, Firefox was made to be a light-weight alternative to Mozilla Suite and now with every version it feels more and more bloated, and the more bloated the slower it feels. Basicly it's becoming the new Mozilla Suite, and for me at least, I hate that and think it's a bad idea.

[MikeTheC]

Microsoft's business practices right along have been deplorable, dishonorable, and self-centered. As pointed out numerous times up-thread, their actions over the years have bordered on (I would argue they've "crossed the line") criminal. Microsoft has achieved a magnitude of order more than the robber-barons of old, the tycoons and stock market players of pre-Depression times, IBM and even AT&T at their zenith in terms of global reach and the extent of their influence.

It's not that being a large company or a financially successful company or even an influential company are bad things, nor that collectively they're bad. It's the hows and whys of what they've become. I've been at this since 1986, so for those of you with a shorter history in the computer world, just take a look at the things they've tried to do to co-opt and corrupt the Internet, the attacks they've staged against Linux, and then realize that's just the tip of the iceberg for them.

People want to point to Bill Gates' charitable giving and try to make him out as being some good guy, some worthy and notable philanthropist who wants only to improve the world. To me, regardless of anything else, every dollar he gives out is blood money, and often times it's done as an advanced means of ensuring the future success and profitability of Microsoft. While I'm not denying people are being helped by his "generosity" I simply don't buy the image he's trying -- desperately -- to sell. There's nothing he can do which will ever earn him respect in my book, and nothing that will ever redeem himself in my eyes.

The only thing I think we can do is to help take down that ugly, awful monster in Redmond.

[Zoowey]

Um, what do you think the GUI would have died off in favor of? The command line?

In the late 80's:
- Apple had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Commodore had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Atari had a personal computer product with a GUI
- Not that it matters for personal/home computers, but Unix even had a GUI at this point, and several companies were selling GUI-based Unix workstations (SGI, NeXT)
- Microsoft had ... MS DOS. Which killed off or severely marginalized all of the above thanks to IBM. So after killing off the major GUI platforms, they introduce their own and everyone hails them for bringing GUI to the masses. Weird.

So, without microsoft, whose command-line based OS would have kept us in the stone age for years to come?

I'll grant MS this:
- they got us all using IBM hardware, which became an open standard so that hardware could become a commodity. Now if we can just do the same with the OS...
- they have good taste in acquisitions.

I agree with you. However, even though Microsoft's implementation of a GUI was late, when it was introduced, it was better then any other GUI at that time. A easier GUI made way to market adoption. Think of it, there were company's selling GUI OS's before Microsoft yet Microsoft's GUI OS gained more popularity, for a reason.

[jonian_g]

I know this is a Microsoft thread but I must add, Firefox was made to be a light-weight alternative to Mozilla Suite and now with every version it feels more and more bloated, and the more bloated the slower it feels. Basicly it's becoming the new Mozilla Suite, and for me at least, I hate that and think it's a bad idea.

Firefox is planning to use the same process handling model as Chrome, so it might be ligher in future versions. If not, I might switch to chrome or midori.

[sgosnell]

The idea that there would be no GUI without MS is bogus, and hilarious. If they hadn't done it, someone else would have. They didn't invent it, and they didn't even improve it, they just sold it. I admit, Gates' marketing skills are non pareil. But even without the aggressive MS marketing, the GUI desktop would have taken over, and not much later. It was an idea whose time had come, and it was going to replace the command line whether MS ever existed or not.

[Sinkingships7]

My biggest gripe with Microsoft is how they're so unoriginal. They're last to everything, and usually do it poorly.

[jonian_g]

I agree with you. However, even though Microsoft's implementation of a GUI was late, when it was introduced, it was better then any other GUI at that time. A easier GUI made way to market adoption. Think of it, there were company's selling GUI OS's before Microsoft yet Microsoft's GUI OS gained more popularity, for a reason.

No matter what everyone says, you insist on your opinion and you won't change your mind. So no need to repeat your self over and over.

He already told you that IBM helped them to promote their GUI OS.

[Zoowey]

My biggest gripe with Microsoft is how they're so unoriginal. They're last to everything, and usually do it poorly.

Take a look at Windows Vista Alpha (Codename Longhorn) and then look at Mac OS X and tell me who the unoriginal one is. As far as I'm concerned Vista Release was a BIG downgrade compared to Longhorn and so is 7. Only problem is Longhorn had so many bugs that the whole project was scraped in favour of the "modern" Vista we have now.

[Zoowey]

No matter what everyone says, you insist on your opinion and you won't change your mind. So no need to repeat your self over and over.

He already told you that IBM helped them to promote their GUI OS.

Look. Perhaps I am repeating things now. But let me tell you this, in the NFL there are many teams, these teams compete and as the game moves on the fewer teams there are. Microsoft was one of those teams and they won the Super Ball. At the end of the day any of the teams had the chance of success but there's those that stand higher in the crowd and that comes from hard work and thinking of the right way to win.

Think what you want of Microsoft but what they have achieved is a miracle. What they have become now is a different story...

[jonian_g]

Look. Perhaps I am repeating things now. But let me tell you this, in the NFL there are many teams, these teams compete and as the game moves on the fewer teams there are. Microsoft was one of those teams and they won the Super Ball. At the end of the day any of the teams had the chance of success but there's those that stand higher in the crowd and that comes from hard work and thinking of the right way to win.

Think what you want of Microsoft but what they have achieved is a miracle. What they have become now is a different story...


Main article: Criticism of Microsoft

Anti-competitive

Since the 1980s, Microsoft has been the focus of much controversy in the computer industry. The majority of criticism has been for its business tactics, often described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially embraces a competing standard or product, then extends it to produce their own version which is then incompatible with the standard, which in time extinguishes competition that does not or cannot use Microsoft's new version. These and other tactics have resulted in lawsuits brought by companies and governments, and billions of dollars in rulings against Microsoft. In January 2009, Opera Software ASA filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows-based personal computers is a violation of European competition laws.

So, microsoft was like this from it's beggining, didn't become.

What is NFL (I had to google it)? You better watch real football like UEFA Champions League (Final 27 March).

[Sinkingships7]

Take a look at Windows Vista Alpha (Codename Longhorn) and then look at Mac OS X and tell me who the unoriginal one is. As far as I'm concerned Vista Release was a BIG downgrade compared to Longhorn and so is 7. Only problem is Longhorn had so many bugs that the whole project was scraped in favour of the "modern" Vista we have now.


Look. Perhaps I am repeating things now. But let me tell you this, in the NFL there are many teams, these teams compete and as the game moves on the fewer teams there are. Microsoft was one of those teams and they won the Super Ball. At the end of the day any of the teams had the chance of success but there's those that stand higher in the crowd and that comes from hard work and thinking of the right way to win.

Think what you want of Microsoft but what they have achieved is a miracle. What they have become now is a different story...

I think you mean Super Bowl. Also, I don't understand your argument. Vista and Longhorn were the same thing. Linux and Mac beat them to the pretty interface. The definition of "unoriginal", when used in my context, is that they aren't good at coming up with their own ideas.

Your post has me thinking you're misunderstanding something...

[Zoowey]

So, microsoft was like this from it's beggining, didn't become.

What is NFL (I had to google it)? You better watch real football like UEFA Champions League (Final 27 March).

Basicly my point is Microsoft has shaped the computer industry as we know it. Good or bad they have revolutionized personal computing. Yes, I am repeating because no other company can claim that they were the first to truly introduce personal computers in general to the public. You don't have to like Microsoft to acknowledge that. Perhaps things like GUI's and such would have lived on without Microsoft but Microsoft just introduced computer's to the world, to a world afraid and practically laughing at computers because they saw no need for them.

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft has become what is has because it had to go through hell to get computer's on the market and make them popular. Do I think Microsoft's bushiness practices are good? No, I think their monsters that stole people's rightful art. But hadn't they done their evil I don't see how computers in general would have caught on so fast and so strongly.

[Zoowey]

I think you mean Super Bowl. Also, I don't understand your argument. Vista and Longhorn were the same thing. Linux and Mac beat them to the pretty interface. The definition of "unoriginal", when used in my context, is that they aren't good at coming up with their own ideas.

Your post has me thinking you're misunderstanding something...

Longhorn is not Vista. Longhorn had a different codebase and kernel. That's why "Vista" or "The New Windows" was delayed for so long. Longhorn had many of Mac OS X's new features when Mac OS X whatever was still on the drawing boards. I don't know if Microsoft stole from Linux, they probably did, but I know Apple stole from Longhorn. The confusion is that Longhorn in its last days adopted the name Vista but when the project was scraped Microsoft decided to keep the name Vista for their new OS. So the Windows list truly goes XP, Longhorn then Vista. Not XP then Vista, it's just that Longhorn never reached the market. "Vista"(Longhorn) was suppose to be released in late 2003.

[LightB]

It was great when I was 12 and I saw it on opening day at the theater. Now, not so much.

I saw it when I was 7 or 8. Not saying that it's the best movie ever made but at least for nostalgia it is great, and probably iconic, ultra violent. And I heard they're might revive it with another movie, if so I hope it's good.

[LightB]

Longhorn is not Vista. Longhorn had a different codebase and kernel. That's why "Vista" or "The New Windows" was delayed for so long. Longhorn had many of Mac OS X's new features when Mac OS X whatever was still on the drawing boards. I don't know if Microsoft stole from Linux, they probably did, but I know Apple stole from Longhorn. The confusion is that Longhorn in its last days adopted the name Vista but when the project was scraped Microsoft decided to keep the name Vista for their new OS. So the Windows list truly goes XP, Longhorn then Vista. Not XP then Vista, it's just that Longhorn never reached the market. "Vista"(Longhorn) was suppose to be released in late 2003.

Come on, guy.

That's all I can really say.

[LightB]

My biggest gripe with Microsoft is how they're so unoriginal. They're last to everything, and usually do it poorly.

They've always been that way. All the good products they're credited for were instant acquisitions of 3rd parties. Like I said, their quality is in being rich and buying everything.

[Anxious Nut]

Managed by a total loser

[dLeon]

another Microsoft war...Sigh... another Microsoft war...http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif

[johnb820]

Regardless of Windows or their other products, Microsoft is ignorant of the needs of the computer industry, their business practices are malevolent, and as a consumer believe they overcharge for their products. They singlehandedly built the desktop computer industry but they built it with the wrong philosophy in mind. They made the home computer an appliance when it never should have been. I also disagree with those that think that without Microsoft there would be no desktop computer industry. It was bound to happen with or without Microsoft.

[Zoowey]

Come on, guy.

That's all I can really say.

Come on what? Everything I said was true, look it up yourself.

[LightB]

Come on what? Everything I said was true, look it up yourself.

It's about as true as a Foxnews story.

[PacSci]

People want to point to Bill Gates' charitable giving and try to make him out as being some good guy, some worthy and notable philanthropist who wants only to improve the world. To me, regardless of anything else, every dollar he gives out is blood money, and often times it's done as an advanced means of ensuring the future success and profitability of Microsoft.

There's a high school in my area created as part of the New Schools Project. I want to try and get its entire school system to switch to F/OSS (specifically Edubuntu), and could get an audience before the school board if I wanted to. Problem is, the tuition and books for the school are funded in a considerable part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I'm afraid that if I go before the board and they seriously consider switching to F/OSS, Bill cuts off the funding and all the kids at the high school lose their education and have to start over pretty much from scratch at a traditional high school.

I'm trying to rationalize it by saying that if Bill does that, it will prove that his charitable giving is just another division of Microsoft, but since he's the richest man in the world and Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world, I doubt he really cares.

[tsali]

I admire the company and their products. I own their stock. They have served my interest well from all aspects.

[lykwydchykyn]

I agree with you. However, even though Microsoft's implementation of a GUI was late, when it was introduced, it was better then any other GUI at that time. A easier GUI made way to market adoption. Think of it, there were company's selling GUI OS's before Microsoft yet Microsoft's GUI OS gained more popularity, for a reason.

You missed an important point in my post. Windows did not displace these things. DOS did. We're talking late 80's here, Windows 3.1 was '92. By the time it released, (MS) DOS was pretty much the defacto standard. If anything, this was due to the fact that IBM allowed PC clones, which meant any mom&pop computer store could put a white box together cheaply, get a DOS license for it, and sell you a computer at a much higher profit margin than just reselling systems for Apple/Commodore/Atari.

So when win3.1 came along, as a graphical bolt-on for DOS, there was no competition. If you wanted to keep your DOS-compatible hardware and application investment, you went with Windows.

Sure, Microsoft has shaped the industry. And it's pure speculation on either side to say whether it would have been better or worse without them. But I can't seriously credit the home computer boom to Microsoft innovation; because the fact is they started conquering the desktop with a much less advanced OS than the competition. IMHO the two driving factors were hardware commoditization (for which we can thank IBM primarily, though I'll give Microsoft a share of the credit for remaining independent of IBM and allowing clone makers to use their OS), and the Internet -- both testaments to the power of open standards.

In any case, I hope I have demonstrated that this "Microsoft saved us from the command-line" business is nonsense.

[Zoowey]

It's about as true as a Foxnews story.

Well it's a bit hard to argue a point with misinformed people I guess...

[albinootje]

Well it's a bit hard to argue a point with misinformed people I guess...

Why don't you provide a link with evidence about what you wrote before ?

I remember all this promoting in mass-media about Longhorn years before it was finally out, it was the code name for the new product. But what I've read here, concerning the name and the source code, confuses me a bit :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

[Sand & Mercury]

It's a reference to megacorporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP) from the movie Robocop. They fund and operate the Detroit Police Department and took it under control. They manipulate crime, government, and other businesses to further the goals of destroying Detroit to make more money.

In all honesty it's a stupid movie that drops F-bombs instead of plot.
Clearly Robocop is the only one that can stop Microsoft now. Not Shuttleworth, not Jobs. It's all down to Robocop... or JC Denton, perhaps.

[michaeldt]

Basicly my point is Microsoft has shaped the computer industry as we know it. Good or bad they have revolutionized personal computing. Yes, I am repeating because no other company can claim that they were the first to truly introduce personal computers in general to the public. You don't have to like Microsoft to acknowledge that. Perhaps things like GUI's and such would have lived on without Microsoft but Microsoft just introduced computer's to the world, to a world afraid and practically laughing at computers because they saw no need for them.

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft has become what is has because it had to go through hell to get computer's on the market and make them popular. Do I think Microsoft's bushiness practices are good? No, I think their monsters that stole people's rightful art. But hadn't they done their evil I don't see how computers in general would have caught on so fast and so strongly.

I must respectfully disagree. Microsoft haven't revolutionised anything. Their progress on developing Windows has been painfully slow. Look at where Linux is today considering that it was built on people's charity. Look at what apple have, fantastic products. And both Linux and Mac OS X have lesser market share and thus far less funding available. I believe that Microsoft has held the computing world back! Once people were locked into windows, innovation stalled. Developers coudn't do half the things they wanted because the technology needed didn't exist in the commonplace OS i.e windows.

As an example, look an internet explorer. Version 6 released in 2001. Version 7 in 2006. 5 whole years between major releases. That's not innovation, that's stagnation. The biggest revolution this century has been the explosion of the internet, and during much of that time most of the world was using a substandard browser. Microsoft have been and still are holding everyone back as they desperately try to hold onto their monopolies.

More recently, look at their appalling implementation of ODF in Office. They funded a plugin as a stop gap which worked well. But when they introduced their native support it has completely failed. Incompetence or sabotage? Interoperability will not move forward with the developer of the most widely used office suite being so resistant to allow others into the market place.

The reason we're not light years ahead of our current situation is because all those people who have great ideas don't have the funding to turn them into a use-able product. And this is due to Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. As long as Microsoft is gaining the Lion's share of the income whilst providing almost nothing in the way of innovation, we'll continue to move forward at a snails pace.

To be honest, Google are our biggest hope when it comes to cutting Microsoft down to size. Because they have found a way to become one of the most influential businesses in IT despite Microsoft's dominance. And they did it through innovation.

[monsterstack]

@michaeldt: I am inclined to agree with you.

But let's have a look at the development of Linux over a similar time-frame. Have a look around at your pretty GUI desktops folks. Marvel at the wealth of software in your repositories. Enjoy the ease of use that Ubuntu has given you. Now compare all that to 2000-era Debian

http://www.tuxradar.com/files/LXF1.roundup.debian-1.png

I honestly believe that if we had have had such collaborative techniques for software development, and in science in general, available to us years ago, the world would be very different now.

Have a look at other distros of old here (http://www.tuxradar.com/content/archives-best-distros-2000). [tuxradar.com]

[albinootje]

As an example, look an internet explorer. Version 6 released in 2001. Version 7 in 2006. 5 whole years between major releases. That's not innovation, that's stagnation.

Absolutely, just like the stagnation in development of MS-DOS when DRDOS and other DOS companies had almost vanished from the DOS market.


The reason we're not light years ahead of our current situation is because all those people who have great ideas don't have the funding to turn them into a use-able product.

I don't agree with this completely. Big companies almost always started small (Think about Microsoft, Google etc.).
Especially now with the popularity of the internet, money for creating innovative software might be less important than you would expect.


To be honest, Google are our biggest hope when it comes to cutting Microsoft down to size.
There's not only Google, there's Apple, and there's the EU commission punishing MS, there's Groklaw who reports about SCO and MS etc., the netbook (Linux) market, and there's a lot more mechanisms which can make the giant Microsoft monopoly a little smaller.

[bakedbeans4life]

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Microsoft can do no wrong, ever.

Repeat after me.

Bill Gates is God and Ballmer is his prophet.

[Dr.Vista]

I respect Microsoft but lately I've seen to much of them around. :(

[lethalfang]

If Microsoft isn't careful, they could be the next AOL.

[Sealbhach]

Basicly my point is Microsoft has shaped the computer industry as we know it. Good or bad they have revolutionized personal computing. Yes, I am repeating because no other company can claim that they were the first to truly introduce personal computers in general to the public

I think Apple pushed the idea of the home computer more than anyone back then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtPPFZERXyg

"The home computer that's ready to work, play and grow with you" - September 1977 (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:6QCbTr4MWjEJ:www.1000bit.net/support/articoli/apple/apple2/r001a2ad.asp+%22The+home+computer+that%27s+ready+t o+work,+play+and+grow+with+you.%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

http://toastbucket.com/apple1984ad/ (see Bill Gates in the ad for Macinstosh)




As far as I'm concerned Microsoft has become what is has because it had to go through hell to get computer's on the market and make them popular.

No, I think back then the hardware was much more important than it is today, and the PC boom began when IBM-compatible PCs became the industry standard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible


.

[ranch hand]

A bunch of scum sucking bottom feeders.

[nolliecrooked]

they suck

[speedwell68]

I quite like some MS products, their mice and keyboards are second to none. The Xbox is pretty damn entertaining. Office has been a really well featured and solid product down the years. I couldn't really care about their business practices, there are plenty of monopolistic companies in this world. There OSes are all things to all men, it is just that Windows isn't for me. The computer industry and internet would be very different is they hadn't existed.

[Regenweald]

As a company, i find them shrewd and underhanded. I find the same of Apple. I do not blame them for chasing profits, i do not fall for the smoke they blow either.

[toupeiro]

They're salesmen, and they care more about the sale then they do about the satisfaction of their customers.

I once sat in a team room with 3 technical consultants from Microsoft, and listened to these jokers try to convince an entire room of technically skilled professionals and their management how 32-bit SQL server on Server 2003 would blow the doors off of 64-bit Oracle on 64-bit Linux. Somehow, one of them even managed to plug the zune as an example of Microsofts innovation....

I can't stand Microsoft as a company. I think they have some very good products, and I think they have some absolute junk that they oversell every chance they get. I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates. Steve Ballmer is a hypocrite who makes empty threats and he will drive Microsoft into the ground. Its a big ship, but it's still sinkable.

[gn2]

My grandmother always said if you can't say something nice about people, say nothing.

Nothing.

[shababhsiddique]

Firstly, I hate windows. But, its leadership during the last 15 years cannot be discussable. If there wasn't a company like that, most of us wouldn't meet computers and internet. The most important thing without windows you can not understand the value of linux.
We would still try to do something on black screens without mouse and with floppies. .

You are right 205. Maybe microsoft is not that flavour of trust for now but its still the legend to bring PC in our hands.

[Delever]

If there wasn't a company like that, most of us wouldn't meet computers and internet.

In my opinion, MS was "like that" because it was first.