Quote:
Originally posted by BladeRunner
Well normally I would refrain from replying to such a post, but a few points that were bought up I feel I should reply to.
Well normally I would laugh my *** off at you and go have another Coke, but this was just too funny.
Oh, and Mr. Gates-- You don't need to make up a catchy nickname... Bet if they checked their logs, your IP just happens to start with 207.46...
The fact is that Microsoft software is sadly lacking. It costs the American public millions, if not billions, each year in lost productivity.
No one is forcing us to use it? Bull! Call up Dell and ask them what OSs they offer on their PCs! Hmmm... Do you want Windows XP Home, or Pro? Neither? Sorry, that's not an option! Of course, people like you and I (wait, maybe not you since you seem to be averse to the idea of software that wasn't made by M$) can just slap together our own computer in twenty minutes and install any OS we want (I did), but the average user--can't. That's the fault (A) of the computer manufacturers, who want to please ( Microsoft, who in the past has threatened to pull Windows from companies for offering ( 8) gasp!) Linux on OEM PCs. So when Joe User wants a computer, he says, Hmmmm, what ads have I seen recently. "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell," and "The new iMac." Since the average user wants the cheapest possible PC, he calls up Dell (or Compaq, or Gateway) and orders a PC. The only choices presented to him (if any) are XP Home and XP Pro. So M$ is guaranteed an OS sale with virtually every single retail and direct PC sold in the world.
But Office... Office is good, right?
Office is OK in quality. But are we forced?
Hmmmm... Every company in the US has made it their "standard" = Guaranteed sale with every corporate PC--in fact, it's mandatory at Dell.
Plus, those employees all want it at home for "compatibility" = Guaranteed sale with 50% of home PCs ($$$), anyone else who wants it buys it at retail ($$$$$$$)
Everyone who doesn't have Office has "Works," which is usually mandatory on a home PC from any major manufacturer. = Guaranteed sale with those other 50% of PCs. ($$)
Yep, I think if you don't know how to build a PC, or know a guy or small computer shop that will do it for you, you have to pay for a copy of Windows, plus Office or Works.
Quote:
Firstly, all of my home PC's are running 100% legitimate software, I know this must be hard for you to believe but there are still some people in this world that believe one should pay for what they are using.
When I say legitimate I do indeed mean 100%, that includes my Win2k server machine.
ALl of the OS's are legal, that is retail upgrades and then not using the product I upgraded from.
Example, I upgraded from Win2k to WinXP with a retail upgrade, I can no longer use that copy of Win2k on anything as it is now part of my WinXP license.
My second WinXP machine was licensed with a second copy of WinXP (I didn't actually buy it as MS sent me a free copy for being part of the beta test team).
My main machine has Office XP on it, retail upgrade from Office 2000.
My second PC has Office 2000 SBE on, purchased as OEM with some hardware as I cannot use the Office 2000 I used to upgrade to Office XP.
This system follows all the way through, I have two fully licensed copies of WinZip for example as I use it on both PC's.
My PC's are all fully functioning and they are all legal, I do not believe in piracy at all, no matter what the cost I will stay legal.
I do not believe in Microsoft's business practices or [lack of] quality at all; no matter what the cost I will stay illegal.
Basically, I do not have a single licensed Microsoft product on my computer. I do own the full retail Win98SE, which I received as a gift with my first computer.
Note:
The fact that my Macromedia and Adobe software is not licensed either is only a result of the fact that as a student, I need to learn these programs, but as a student, I have very little money. It is in Macromedia and Adobe's best interests for me to use the ridiculously easy keygens available anywhere to give me access to Dreamweaver and Photoshop now, so that when I become able to buy them, I will. If they had perfect copy-protection, I'd just have to install the Gimp and hand-code my HTML. Future lost customer.
Adobe and Macromedia (like Apple) both produce software that is worth their asking price. That is why I will pay.
The bottom line is, since Microsoft effectively prevents, through the tactics described above, the feasability and availability to the average user to use alternative software, most of us are elbowed into their software. So fine--I'll use it. But since I did not choose it, I will not pay for it.
Try this analogy. I used to work in fast food. Someone might ask for a certain bacon cheeseburger without bacon. (Your PC is the burger. Bacon is Windows, no offense to Bacon.) If they were told we would not leave off the bacon for them even though it made them throw up, and as a result they were forced to pay for the bacon, ate the bacon, and then continually threw up (think Blue Screen Of Death here), the restaurant would be in the wrong. That customer should not have had to pay for that bacon, whether he eats it or not! We should not be forced to buy bacon we do not want!
You might have gotten me to eat the bacon, because I must have the hamburger so I don't go hungry. but I will not pay for the "bacon", because I hate it.
Quote:
MS's domination of the computer world is down to a few things.
1. Their products are good,
HA! I'm laughing so hard right now --Who says people worth billion don't have a sense of humor!!!
Quote:
people choose MS Office because it is a good package, they choose WinXP because it's good,
Ha ha!! Good one, Bill!
Quote:
they choose IE over Netscape because Netscape is terrible.
Already addressed before my post, but had to point out that Netscape only sucks under Windows, because AOL/NS has no support from Microsoft, where the Mac OS team or the Linux/open source community would work with them to give them information they need to make Netscape better.
Quote:
< snip >
3. MS are NOT physically stopping anybody releasing a competitive product to anything they produce.
It is not MS's fault that a lot of the so called "competitor" products pale to nothing when put up against MS products, blame all those people who have not written a better application that MS's.
Hmmmmm... first of all, when I hear "pale to nothing," some little voice in my head whispers "Windows Media Player" and "Windows Movie Maker..."
Second, someone could write a million apps better than Microsoft, and no one would ever know. What OEM is going to put "some other OS" on their PCs and lose Microsoft's support? That would be bad business!
Well, anyway, may the Force be with you, Bill.
P.S.: by the way, I want my money back from Win98. I was not satisfied with it either.
