Printable View
Contrary to others opinions, I have no problem with microsoft, I have always used a version of windows and don't want to move to another less supported platform.
I like their web browser, their email client and everything else.
Rebel against these persistant moaners and post your support below.
yea... no problems here.
And to add, my usual reply to these types of threads (no need to reply):
whats the point of this thread.
;)
the point is that I'm fed up with the constant *****ing and moaning about Microsoft. A company so big in a market so wide are bound to slip up here and there.Quote:
Originally posted by gSOLO_01
yea... no problems here.
And to add, my usual reply to these types of threads (no need to reply):
whats the point of this thread.
;)
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
the point is that I'm fed up with the constant *****ing and moaning about Microsoft. A company so big in a market so wide are bound to slip up here and there.
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)
common let's get those posts comming :D
the reason MS suck is not because they make mistakes but because they deliberately lead the market to their own standards while pretending to support oipen standards for web design and other industries. It's a pain in the ass.
Look at Apple's application for editing DV, iMovie, it's simple to use and exports in a variety of ways, to quicktime, to a dvd burner, back to your camcorder, etc. MS's moviemaker, apart from being an (poor quality) obvious rip of the apple app's interface only allows you to export to a stupid windows media format. You can't even export your edited movie back to your camcorder so you can record it to VHS for example.
MS are delibertely restricting the user's options, it's ridiculous to have a dv editing program that doesn't allow you to export your movie back to the camera, or even to a dvd recorder! There's no good reason for it, MS just aren't in the business of producing software for consumers, they take every opportunity to manipulate and spoof the unsuspecting user.
yes I know it's a business and they're trying to promote their own products blah blah blah. But where's the harm in allowing a DV movie to be exported to the camera it came from!?! MS are a monopoly and they're constantly abusing that position, trying to make every standard a microsoft standard, taking open source software and changing it so it's proprietary (ask Sun). IE is a very competent browser, but if MS had stuck to the W3c standards it would be compatible with netscape 6+. Instead netscape has the standards compliant browser but of course designers can't make use of those standards because IE needs different code, so every one says 'netscape sucks*' and bill gates rubs his hands with glee as the sheep go marching into the pen.
they suck
:crazy:
*there are other reasons to dislike the netscape browser though, it's bloated, so use mozilla : )
I agree with you bruce. I'm sick of all those moaning kids trying to be "different" by hating microsoft. Of course their software has bugs and glitches, but believe me you linux lovers - linux is king of glitches.
If it weren't for Microsoft the whole computer revolution wouldn't have set off. If it weren't for Microsoft the internet would still be in its roots. If it weren't for Microsoft lots of great software'd never be developed.
amen to that son.Quote:
Originally posted by wouter999
I agree with you bruce. I'm sick of all those moaning kids trying to be "different" by hating microsoft. Of course their software has bugs and glitches, but believe me you linux lovers - linux is king of glitches.
If it weren't for Microsoft the whole computer revolution wouldn't have set off. If it weren't for Microsoft the internet would still be in its roots. If it weren't for Microsoft lots of great software'd never be developed.
and all this call for open source, whats all that about? A business's aim is to make money, if Microsoft released their source code, a portion of their money making would vanish forever.
who said they should be open source?Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
and all this call for open source, whats all that about? A business's aim is to make money, if Microsoft released their source code, a portion of their money making would vanish forever.
a whole myriad of linux supporters
Of course people are going to moan about Microsoft, and I know you know that but it's to be expected.Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
the point is that I'm fed up with the constant *****ing and moaning about Microsoft. A company so big in a market so wide are bound to slip up here and there.
If one company builds 1 million robot dogs that can change their color, bark, personality, etc; and another company builds a company builds 100 robot dogs that arent all that personalizable you'll probably pay more, get a better product but your dog won't be able to play with the other dogs so it will get old and lonely. People in the 1 million group are going to complain more than the ones in the 100 group even if the 100 are having problems their voice won't be loud enough for anyone to care. And well, I was trying to be clever with that little senario but my juces just ran out...
So like I said, no problems here and I agree with what your saying but, whats the point of this thread. It's been done to death. ;)
Nevermind, that makes the whole thread worth it ;)Quote:
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)
asking MS to release the source code to their software is pretty dumb imho. They are a business, even if they act more like genghis khan.
Though they have might think about releasing it to their technology partners; their foray into mobile phones (probably the most important future market) was cut short when the phone makers working with them quit and used the rival OS instead because MS wouldn't allow the phone maker access to its code to test the phones.
bang, ouch, my foot.
:D
Actually all Linux supporters since the OS itself is open-source.Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
a whole myriad of linux supporters
Which brings me to another point - RedHat or SuSE. They do EXACTLY thesame as you say here aversion:
Quote:
[...]trying to make every standard a microsoft standard, taking open source software and changing it so it's proprietary (ask Sun). [...]
It's not just a Microsoft thing.
Always hear sb says that how suck MS is!But,never see sb can stand out and lead people to make a revolution!Why? cause we can not live withou MS! just like drug!
i totally agree with this, i hate it when all people can do is put down MS, i mean come on, their the ones in support of P2P and all that stuff right now...
Reason enough for me :DQuote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned
I thought it was a success -- SVP by Orange and Motorola (I think). The phone is powered by MS code.Quote:
Originally posted by aversion
asking MS to release the source code to their software is pretty dumb imho. They are a business, even if they act more like genghis khan.
Though they have might think about releasing it to their technology partners; their foray into mobile phones (probably the most important future market) was cut short when the phone makers working with them quit and used the rival OS instead because MS wouldn't allow the phone maker access to its code to test the phones.
bang, ouch, my foot.
:D
Whether I use Microballs or not is immaterial (I do, just for the record - XP hasn't crashed yet and IE6 is better/easier for development than the tempramental NS) - but I'm in, just for this!Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)
:D
You know we love you Nerdie. In a none-physical way, that is.
no, that's a different one, MS planned to produce a whole range of phones that used an OS designed for mobile phones from the ground up.Quote:
Originally posted by tonytryout
I thought it was a success -- SVP by Orange and Motorola (I think). The phone is powered by MS code.
microsoft are going to get creamed by mobile computing. It's predicted that within 10 years only 10-20% of the time people will use traditional desktops computers, the vast majority of use will be mobile. SYmbian is currently the market leader in this area and aside from that one orange phone MS has nothing, they shot themselves in the foot by refusing to cooperate with their technology partner.
symbian is, by the way, open source amongst its licencees.
edit - the manufacturer was sendo;
the orange SPV is now the only MS smartphone on the market or in development.Quote:
Sendo chief executive Hugh Brogan said one reason for the switch was that Sendo could get access to the source codes for Nokia software, and therefore customise products.
The move comes as a severe blow to Microsoft's Smartphone ambitions, which now rest on slender foundations.
This is hard to say!
cough...I..cough..like..MSN..cough...Messenger & W2K Pro!..cough
:eek:
Go on, make my day.Quote:
Originally posted by RazoRmedia
If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)
If Microsoft would start to play by the rules, start to turn out some quality software that's not a rip off of something else, if they would allow you to remove any piece of software from there OS, if they would remove there spyware from there OS, I wouldn't have a problem with them. But they won't, because some people (like you guys) just cannot live without Microsoft. You have software which is only for Windows, you will be stuck with a shotty OS for your life. You will never see that there are other, better, free (as in free speech) OSes out there that don't attempt to lock you into any software, licenses, or spyware.
If Netscape had never released there browsers source code, Microsoft's browser would of been the only browser used. Then Microsoft could of manipulated the HTML standards (which they still do in there browser) and the HTTP standards. Microsoft would have "owned" the Internet. But, thank God, Netscape released there source code and the world was saved once again from the evil-doer Microsoft.
Linux is the king of glitches? Haha, no. Sure, it has bugs, but not nearly as many as Windows and they do not make you a security risk like lots of Windows bugs. Linux doesn't attempt to hide it's bugs, the source code for the kernel is open. It's easy to debug compared to Windows. Where as Windows ships with tons of bugs lying in there closed code. You are paying a large amount of money for bugs.
There are so many reasons not to use Microsoft. Not including there crappy OS, there are tons of bad things they have done morally in the past. But, thanks to a group of rebel programmers, most of there plans were foiled. Yet Microsoft and Windows still remain popular. There are a few people out there that will never change, never see the better solutions, you will be Windows Weenies forever. If you were to start an anti-Microsoft thread, I bet you would get a lot more replies then this pro-Microsoft one.