Crosswords2 mins ago
Anti Microsoft
14 Answers
I am an IT Professional and have been for many years. I come across this "anti-Microsoft" vibe from many people and when I ask them why, the vast majority of answers I get are based on the MS products being insecure, or to do with the way MS conducts its business (which I think it does as any other industry leader would do!).
Having read some questions in this forum, I find that many users bash MS. Why?
In my opinion the products that MS produce are often very good. Sure some have flaws (some major), but at least MS tries to rectify them. Also, when you take into consideration the scale of the programs made and the level of coding required, sure there are bound to be some errors - but again, at least they are addressed.
As for the security side of things, the main reason that Virus writers target MS is surely because MS covers 95% of the market. If you write a virus you want to affect as many people as possible (not that I know anything about it). So why waste your time with the 5% of the market when you can focus on hitting MS and get 95%?
You don't get to become one of the most powerful software developing organisation in the world without merit!
Not sure if others have an opinion on this? I just got frustrated with all the anti MS comments I was reading.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Tritan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm glad you posted this because i read this section and sit up high up on my smug Mac mountain and wonder why anyone bothers with PCs.
How many questions do you see in this section about frustrating problems with macs?
You only have to see read a few of the questions posted to see why people knock Windows. With mac you just turn it on and it works - simple as! Need to add something? Plug it in and it works - simple as!
No compatability problems - no weird error messages - no viruses - no problem!
How many questions do you see in this section about frustrating problems with macs?
You only have to see read a few of the questions posted to see why people knock Windows. With mac you just turn it on and it works - simple as! Need to add something? Plug it in and it works - simple as!
No compatability problems - no weird error messages - no viruses - no problem!
Hi Gary, But doesn't this come back to the fact that MS have such a large market share, and large customer base, that you are bound to hear more about MS issues?
I also happen to think that Mac users tend to be far more computer literate and know how to troubleshoot (at least at a basic level). I base this from my experience of speaking to/dealing with Mac users.
"How many questions do you see in this section about frustrating problems with macs? "
As Tritan says I think thats far more to do with market share than with Mac's in general. I agree the Mac just works but thats because it's a closely controlled technology base, the trade off is a very small software base in comparison. As a more high level user I've had plenty of Mac related problems.
This is also shown in stevee's answer (which I can't work out if it's sarcastic). I have a creative Zen, no support what so ever for Mac. You might think it's creatives fault but it's more to do with Apples, Microsoft like, monopoly they want to create for the iPod.
I agree with Tritan, I can't see the problem with Microsoft and think they get a very bad press. I have a Mac, XP and Linux box but to be honest there isn't any one much better than the other.
As Tritan says I think thats far more to do with market share than with Mac's in general. I agree the Mac just works but thats because it's a closely controlled technology base, the trade off is a very small software base in comparison. As a more high level user I've had plenty of Mac related problems.
This is also shown in stevee's answer (which I can't work out if it's sarcastic). I have a creative Zen, no support what so ever for Mac. You might think it's creatives fault but it's more to do with Apples, Microsoft like, monopoly they want to create for the iPod.
I agree with Tritan, I can't see the problem with Microsoft and think they get a very bad press. I have a Mac, XP and Linux box but to be honest there isn't any one much better than the other.
Here's one example of why I have little time for Microsoft's products:
Back in 1989 I was using a DTP program, called Pagestream, on an Atari ST. The software was effectively a clone of Quark (although some people state that Quark was actually a clone of Pagestream). It was user-friendly, flexible and intuitive. 16 years later, the best Microsoft can offer me is Publisher XP which is a vastly inferior product to Pagestream in terms of flexibility and ease of use. Quark remains the gold standard for DTP; if another manufacturer could match it 16 years ago, how is it that MIcrosoft can't come remotely close to it after years of development?
I could ramble on for hours about my gripes against Microsoft but I'll just finish by pointing out that every time they 'upgrade' their operating system they seem to make it harder to use. (My main PC developed a fault immediately before Christmas. I bought this one just to see me through the short period while I get the main PC fixed. The very first thing I did with this PC was to get rid of Windows XP and replace it with Me. I want an operating system which doesn't keep asking me questions about what I want to do. I hate the patronising style of XP. When I get my main PC back, I'll probably bite the bullet and go for a decent OS: Linux).
Chris
Back in 1989 I was using a DTP program, called Pagestream, on an Atari ST. The software was effectively a clone of Quark (although some people state that Quark was actually a clone of Pagestream). It was user-friendly, flexible and intuitive. 16 years later, the best Microsoft can offer me is Publisher XP which is a vastly inferior product to Pagestream in terms of flexibility and ease of use. Quark remains the gold standard for DTP; if another manufacturer could match it 16 years ago, how is it that MIcrosoft can't come remotely close to it after years of development?
I could ramble on for hours about my gripes against Microsoft but I'll just finish by pointing out that every time they 'upgrade' their operating system they seem to make it harder to use. (My main PC developed a fault immediately before Christmas. I bought this one just to see me through the short period while I get the main PC fixed. The very first thing I did with this PC was to get rid of Windows XP and replace it with Me. I want an operating system which doesn't keep asking me questions about what I want to do. I hate the patronising style of XP. When I get my main PC back, I'll probably bite the bullet and go for a decent OS: Linux).
Chris
When I was at Uni studying Design, I owned and swore by macs. Since leaving uni 5 years ago I have owned 2 pc's. I agree, macs are easier and more user friendly to use, unfortunately compatability is a major issue. That's why I will never own a mac again, pc all the way.
Again, the reason why there are hardly, if any, mac questions on here is that not many people own a mac, basically.
Stevee, if memory serves me correctly, apple macs have a software equivalent to Microsoft Office called Claris Works, this has spreadsheet, word etc etc.
I'm not a paid spokesman for Apple and believe me many things annoy me about them (the complete dismisal of all OS9 users once OSX came along for example) and i appreciate all the things you have all said about them but as an ex PC user i know i would never go back and when i do have to use a PC i find them very frustrating and very non-intuative.
You have to also remember that Windows was a rip off of the early Apple os (except apple get their OS right before releasing them unlike Microsoft) and lack of compatability is rarely Apple's fault - more likely the other manufacturers not playing ball ( i can open most things sent to me from PC's but i often have trouble sending things to PC's).
Hey kids- none of us wrong or right we just have different needs and for 'niche' users like me Macs are perfect (well almost!!)
You have to also remember that Windows was a rip off of the early Apple os (except apple get their OS right before releasing them unlike Microsoft) and lack of compatability is rarely Apple's fault - more likely the other manufacturers not playing ball ( i can open most things sent to me from PC's but i often have trouble sending things to PC's).
Hey kids- none of us wrong or right we just have different needs and for 'niche' users like me Macs are perfect (well almost!!)
Spaced: I believe ClarisWorks is an old app now, for OS9 and below on the mac. they now have iLife, iWork, etc.
Stevee: on a mac you can use microsoft office, or openoffice (latter is free). iPods work far more easily, as they are built to work easily with iTunes. others should work though, and given its unix base, its compatible with most file formats. you may have to hunt around and find a player for some obscure format though.
gary baldy: the reason macs "just work" is that they only work with a very limited set of hardware. if you want wireless internet, you need their hardware. so the programmers only need to cope with one system, so you wont get errors. windows comes with drivers to use many thousands of different pieces of hardware, and there is no way someone could test all the different combinations. so windows often has little errors and things, but its more often to do with bad driver support for random pieces of hardware.
the NT kernel running at the heart of winXP and win2000 is a great kernel, better than Linux. when the kernel for win95 was released, it did lots more that macs couldnt. and that still partly applies now. however, macs now use unix as their base kernel system, darwen, which is very good too.
tritan: a lot of the anti-M$ stuff is from many years ago, from the free software advocates, the followers of RMS and the GNU/Linux OS. M$ is still very much closed source. so is apple too, of course. but the base system apple now uses is actually open source anyway. and back in the old days, apple was a pretty friendly company. M$ has done some evil tricks in its time.
Stevee: on a mac you can use microsoft office, or openoffice (latter is free). iPods work far more easily, as they are built to work easily with iTunes. others should work though, and given its unix base, its compatible with most file formats. you may have to hunt around and find a player for some obscure format though.
gary baldy: the reason macs "just work" is that they only work with a very limited set of hardware. if you want wireless internet, you need their hardware. so the programmers only need to cope with one system, so you wont get errors. windows comes with drivers to use many thousands of different pieces of hardware, and there is no way someone could test all the different combinations. so windows often has little errors and things, but its more often to do with bad driver support for random pieces of hardware.
the NT kernel running at the heart of winXP and win2000 is a great kernel, better than Linux. when the kernel for win95 was released, it did lots more that macs couldnt. and that still partly applies now. however, macs now use unix as their base kernel system, darwen, which is very good too.
tritan: a lot of the anti-M$ stuff is from many years ago, from the free software advocates, the followers of RMS and the GNU/Linux OS. M$ is still very much closed source. so is apple too, of course. but the base system apple now uses is actually open source anyway. and back in the old days, apple was a pretty friendly company. M$ has done some evil tricks in its time.
Buenchico: you bring up an interesting point. M$ has some of the worlds best programmers, and employs more programmers than any other company in the world. yet, nothing ever gets done (this is more a problem of large companies, and mid-boss syndrome). windows XP is basically just the same thing as windows 95, but with some revisions and add-ons. its nothing majorly different. sure the kernel is different (and sure that is major), but the kernel is pretty much the same as in NT4, out in about 1996 or so.
oh, and the major distinction between macOS and windows: mac puts more effort into usability and interface design. with a mac, you tell it what to do, and it does it. then it gets out of your way. on windows, you have wizards, and popup paperclips.
oh, and the major distinction between macOS and windows: mac puts more effort into usability and interface design. with a mac, you tell it what to do, and it does it. then it gets out of your way. on windows, you have wizards, and popup paperclips.
oh and gary baldy: did you know that steve jobs paid a fortune to look round xerox park, a research centre? there he saw the first mouse (he grabbed that), and the first simple GUI.
then he formed the mac project, got in some interface experts like Jef Raskin, and never looked back.
it was only then that windows decided to go down the GUI route too. but im not sure thats copying, its just progress. at some point, no-one had glass windows. then someone introduced them, and now we all have them. we may have all copied, but its general progress towards something better.
however, the system where applications make a file with your personal data, what we now think of as the norm, is all mac. and the mac GUI is still better than the windows one, even though they did "copy".
then he formed the mac project, got in some interface experts like Jef Raskin, and never looked back.
it was only then that windows decided to go down the GUI route too. but im not sure thats copying, its just progress. at some point, no-one had glass windows. then someone introduced them, and now we all have them. we may have all copied, but its general progress towards something better.
however, the system where applications make a file with your personal data, what we now think of as the norm, is all mac. and the mac GUI is still better than the windows one, even though they did "copy".
-- answer removed --
zeb: i see your point.
but, that problem is not really only an Apple problem. that's the problem with changing from one operating system to another totally different one.
you won't have those sort of problems with windows 2000 and windows xp, as they aren't that different. but OS9 and OSX are vastly different.
but, that problem is not really only an Apple problem. that's the problem with changing from one operating system to another totally different one.
you won't have those sort of problems with windows 2000 and windows xp, as they aren't that different. but OS9 and OSX are vastly different.
I've just been reading this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/why-pros-use-mac.htm
Ken's articles on photography are almost always spot on. And I see this as no real exception. A good read.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/why-pros-use-mac.htm
Ken's articles on photography are almost always spot on. And I see this as no real exception. A good read.
1 to 14 of 14
