dot.life

Vista may have sold more than XP, but isn't that all OEM licences and because more and more people are getting more computers, and several laptops per household?

Microsoft are a Jack of all trades, Master of none.

Quite clearly MS are masters of the PC OS and business software - that much is obvious from the proliferation of Windows and Office - however they have struggled outwith this environment.

MS need to focus direction on the markets they want to compete in and I think Steve Ballmer has taken good steps here by releasing Kevin Johnson, acknowledging that Apple do some things a lot better than they do and realising that they can't sit back and not defend their products as they could have perhaps in the past.

As for Vista, let's not mince words here: the launch was an unmitigated balls up and seriously damaged the product's reputation which is a shame because it's now a very, very nice OS. It's just a shame it took a year's worth of Beta testing on the public to get it to that stage.

180m Visat licenses sold, but according to Dell, over 60% of all new PCs are sold with XP installed, even though their are locensed fo Vista

Clients of mine have finally bitten the bullet and baked out Vista and gone back to XP, mostly because of its stability, but also because so much has changed in Vista, that simple tasks are now laborious or impossible

The problem with Vista is that there is no compelling reason to upgrade, apart maybe from getting bored with the old XP desktop.

On top of that, each new blockbuster release wants to eat more and more computer resources to no additional effect.

Perhaps part of the answer is cheap, regular, incremental upgrades that add obvious functionality.

I covered a similar topic in my blog earlier this month (https://www.scottmallinson.com/2008/07/05/the-future-of-microsoft/%29 unfortunately I didn't have access to any of the Microsoft representatives to quiz them directly.

With the recent donation to the Apache Software Foundation from Microsoft, it begs the question, "Are they trying to get friendly with the open-source community?"

The cynic in me thinks that it's just an alternative path to purchasing Yahoo. They have fallen far short of buying them outright, and if they can integrate better with open-source software, Yahoo being largely on open-source software itself, may see Microsoft's plight and change its mind.

#4 "simple tasks are now laborious or impossible"

Would you care to explain such a broad-ranging statement?

Try and start a business that doesn't have software capable of opening a .doc, .xls or .ppt file and see how far you get.

Paperclips aside, they do it, and they do it well. It's no wonder the likes of StarOffice are virtually MS Office clones.

Being at the beating heart of the world's businesses is not a bad thing to be. The trick is to keep ahead of the game and keep innovating with business software.

Microsoft is a monopoly supplier, and thus all four of your proposed companies.

It is also on record as saying that it expects to be the sole supplier of software to all the machines in the world - that will include air traffic systems, boiler controls, toys, cars, anything which has software in it, which nowadays means everything.

It also stands convicted of pursuing a host of illegal actions in pursuit of this gaol. After each of these convictions it has not changed it's business model, but simply paid the fines and resumed its illegal actions. It has never innovated internally, it simply waits until another company creates a successful product and then buys it or closes it down. It has recently been trying to close down Open Office by packing the ISO committee structure!


Good business model! Perhaps we should have more of these? Aha, I forgot - there can only be one....

When I running the EU, a mass migration away from Microsoft will done... for free.

Microsoft's real sin is that when they created Vista they didn't address the security model from the ground up, like Apple did. So what we have is another set of leaky patches in a ubiquitous malware distribution platform that's going to dog us for another 5 years. Plenty good work for the Virus software companies, I suppose, and plenty of spam for the rest of us.

Erm forgive me if I'm wrong (or being pedantic) but IIS is software isn't it, like other web server applications like Apache and Zeus, so wouldn't that fall under the category of software along with the OS and Office?

Microsoft made a mistake trying to Micromanage their clients.
Microsoft-knows-Best.
After Vista I felt it was good money down a rabbit hole chasing spyware, spamware, viruses, worms and other denizens of the deep.
I now run Linux with XP in a virtual box.
How ironic. Windows is best run in a box where it thinks it is king of the HDD.

Microsoft *did* address the security model, that's exactly what UAC is!

The whole point of the UAC effort was to make even admin accounts run processes with standard user rights to improve security.

With UAC switched on, IE even runs in a protected mode with rights even lower than a standard user, hardening it against attack. You really have to try hard to infect yourself with malware in Vista.

Of course, the first thing so-called "experts" do is go in and switch all the security goodness off.

I agree that monopolies are a bad thing, but blatantly ignoring the facts is another.

Microsoft's purpose in life is to be the technological equivalent of spoilt brats everywhere, that is to say: to be a total pain to everybody. Look: it took the combined efforts of a major world power bloc to fine them hundreds of millions and to suggest publicly that is was an unwise business decision to use their software before they even began to think about playing nicely. In a few words: They really are a metastasized viral cancer sucking money and skills - our life-blood - out of the rest of the world.

There aren't too many things left for Microsoft to steal, hence the end of "innovation". What's next? Joint ventures? Acquisitions? Hostile takeovers? It was very satisfying to see Yahoo sending those thieves down the road. If Microsoft is so full of talent why not develop their own gig. Yahoo did. So did Google. How about starting from scratch? Look at Cuil, for example. No, Microsoft showed the whole world their incompetence - Vista, the billion dollar joke. Every dog has his day!

[quote]You really have to try hard to infect yourself with malware in Vista.[/quote]

Complete rubbish.

It's just as easy to infect a Vista machine as it is to infect a XP machine. I should know, it took less than 10 minutes on a clean install to render it completely inoperable.

As an engineer, it's part of my job to break operating systems in order to find ways to fix them.

And thats the trouble with Vista. It's no harder than XP to break or infect, but (because of the ridiculous and over-bearing UAC) very difficult to fix without reinstalling.

It's basically down to the fact that it's still built much like XP, using the same registry hierachy that you find in it's older brother.

The UAC doesn't make it at all safer, just more long winded to get things done. I mean, is it such a risk to change a shortcut name? The UAC thinks so.

Clearly M$ was, and still is, completely out of touch with today's requirements for a secure platform.

It'll be interesting to see how they address these problems with their next iteration of Windows.

LokalHero, I think you miss the point - your job is to break machines and you can pretty much break any machine if you try.

I actually disabled UAC because I don't need it - I use free, non-resource hungry securityware as a safetynet but simply practice safe browsing habits. As such I haven't had any viral infection or malware installed on any of my PCs. On the other hand there are those who are perhaps a bit less savvy and for whom UAC is actually a very useful tool.

As for the comments on innovation, theft, etc, I cannot help note it's the same tired stuff we hear time and time again. Yes, MS aren't a very nice company but then I don't think any multinational can claim to be. To focus on the sins of one organisation whilst conveniently ignoring the trangressions of its competitors is more than a little naive.

For microsoft to say that Vista is outselling XP is a bit mis-leading. There is no mention that as others have said, many more households and businesses are buying new computers which Vista is pre-installed.

Many places do not offer the chance to say no to this and have XP put on it instead. Personally, I still use XP but both in my personal and business life, I totally survive without any windows software.

Openoffice2, Firefox 3 and Thunderbird work fine for me and no licence fees!

Just take a look down the page and spot the nice comment about Microsoft, there isn't one!

I personally used to use Internet Explorer but have moved on to the excellent Firefox which is just simply easier to use, faster and has functions IE just doesnt have, and also with Windows and office, I have moved on to Ubuntu Linux, which again is faster, takes up less processing power and memory, ohh and it's free

Microsoft is lagging behind technically, it is an old fashioned business in a fast moving virtual world and has been left behind, I personally don't think it can catch up again.

Does anyone know why Microsoft contributed to Apache? There must be some sort of financial incentive. OK, Apache knocks spots off IIS in every aspect, but does this mean that Microsoft might be withdrawing from the web server market to concentrate on other things. So perhaps they already realise that they're "spreading itself too thinly" as mentioned in the article.

Secondly, can someone tell me how the stats for different OSs are calculated? Is the "180m licenses for Vista" mentioned in the article above the number purchased regardless if they are used or not?
It might be interesting to see the split between OEM licenses and full Vista purchases.

As an example, I've just bought 5 PCs for our office which came with Vista pre-installed. I never even powered Vista on, but did the hardware tests using Knoppix Live CD then installed Debian GNU/Linux on all of them, with Vista being installed inside VMWare on only one. I'm assuming that Microsoft are going to count all 5 Vista licenses.

(That should mean 5:1 Linux to Windows ratio. Yet 5 Windows licenses were included in the purchase, while only 1 Debian download was made. Would I be right in assuming that the 'official' ratio would be 1:5 not 5:1?)

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to say what proportions of which OS is being used unless you've physical access to all the machines in question.

As an aside, does anyone know what I can legally do with the 4 spare Vista licenses? Can I sell them on or give them away?

I've been around the block a long time and have seen the evolution of Microsoft's operating system from the very beginning.

There are a number of points I'd like to comment on so lets start with the Vista bashing. Vista wasn't ready for public consumption plain and simple. For those of us a little older you may recall Novell 3.11 and 4.01 which was unusable until it was revised to 4.11. But why upgrade? 3.12 was a fantastic platform and yet the networking enhancements of 4.x opened up a wealth of opportunities for systems administrators.

Likewise Vista. If you are a gamer then the added security enhancements of Vista slowed your OS to the point that gameplay was seriously degraded. But again there is so much more to Vista than a shiny new desktop. The integrated search, indexing, browsing, multi-threaded operability and security make it a solid platform. In last years TechEd forum Microsoft admitted they made some poor assumptions as to how the OS woudl be used but this has been addressed and more since.

Vista uses up more resource? Well, yes it does but then again this has always been the case. Intel/AMD produce a faster chip capable of more and so developers who have had ideas and projects on the back burner which were unusable on older platforms can now release new funky things. I recall back in the 80's and early 90's the driver for computer hardware and software was games development. I had a bog standard 386 sx 25 which did everything I needed. Well, that is until i discovered computer games. Within 6 months I had upgraded the sound, graphics, memory (which back then was £80 for 1MB !!), hard disk and CDRom. All for Star Wars and Day of the Tentacle. The OS was a secondary consideration until Direct X came to life when games and the operating system came more into allignment. In a world of XBox360, PS3 and Wii the overhead is coming off the OS but the consumer is now demanding a signifficantly richer media experience which is driving the OS.

The difficult pill to swallow these days is the imbalance between the price of the hardware (£350 for a reasonable spec PC) and the software (£500 for Vista and Office). On the surface it seems hard to justify but again when compared to the games world where a PS3 is now less tan £300 but ten games won't leave much change out of £500.

Ballmer has it right that the future is Software+services, this will affect not only how we use software but how we charge/pay for it also.

As a final comment. The anti-trust law suits thrown at Microsoft over the past few years are nothing but sour grapes. I thought this was a fair world where the customer was allowed to choose? How can governments decide that microsoft isn't playing fair by making something popular that people want to use? "Oh but what choice is there?" I hear all you nay sayers cry. There's plenty of choice. Why do people download and install FireFox, Winamp, WinDVD, iTunes and Star office? why does Google have 5 times as many search customers as MSN Search? Why is YouTube so much more popular than SoapBox or DailyMotion? Consumers have the right to choose and they have. Ubuntu, Fedora and other free operating systems are simple to use and simple to install. But the consumer trusts Microsoft and thats the difference. So if the future has MS at the heart of everything then why not? Innovation is key, so other manufacturers, if you want a piece of the pie, bring your apron to the bake off and give it a go.

Well they should clearly stick to software, as their hardware (like the Xbox) is total rubbish..

Apache > IIS
Opera > Firefox > Internet Explorer
MacOS > Windows
PS3 > Xbox


Looks like they arn't really getting very much right these days..

"To focus on the sins of one organisation whilst conveniently ignoring the trangressions of its competitors is more than a little naive."

I'm all ears... care to show some examples of transgressions of its competitors? The only company I can think of that's a convicted monopolist is Microsoft.

I will never understand the pure Microsoft hatred that spews forth on forums. There is a simple choice for you the user - don't use it.

I run both Firefox and IE7 and find them both to have pros and cons.

I prefer my XBOX over PS3 because the list of games were better and XBOX Live is a much better service that Sony offered.

I use iTunes over Windows Media Player because I prefer it.

At work I would rather code in .NET than php because I like working with it and I draw with an Adobe product rather than a Microsoft one because it is better.

Microsoft are no more evil than any other business, they have enjoyed more success so have more of a stranglehold on the competition.
I am sure that Apple in the same position would have downscaled their enterprise and allow competition to flourish. No-one can imagine that Apple might fleece its customer by, say, tying them into a phone contract without the freedom to shop around just because they want an iPhone?? And I am sure that they would publish SDKs to allow developers to work with their products openly and without restriction to encourage competition. Wouldn't they?

https://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9895391-16.html

When Microsoft succeed they are evil, when the lose (Google v Live Search) they are inept. The only reason that Microsoft in the only convicted monopolist is because they are the only one's who have a business that is big enough to monopolise.

Relax - if you don't like them, don't use them, but don't be surprised if the company that takes their place at the top of the tree isn't just as unpalatable.

@twelveightyone

Monopoly, no. Transgressions, yes. Apple's legal and ethical record is hardly spotless is it?

"Apple's legal and ethical record is hardly spotless is it?"

Examples?

Examples?

OK!

Ethics? To quote Greenpeace on Apple:

"...why do Macs, iPods, iBooks and the rest of their product range contain hazardous substances that other companies have abandoned?"

Legal? You could also look at the exclusive compatibility between songs bought off iTunes and the iPod (antitrust lawsuits, abusing a dominant market position, etc...) - a monpoloy? No, because customers are free to shop elsewhere. Big fluffy business welcoming competition? I don't think so. And if iTunes does not lean toward a monopoly because of end user freedom choice then why is Microsoft a big lumbering evil corporation? Well actually it is, but then so are everyone else and don't let their shiny white products convince you otherwise...

@hairythomas,

https://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html

"Greenpeace claimed Apple "has a very poor environmental policy," but he facts are that Apple is recognized as a leader in environmental policy by the Sierra Club, and that Greenpeace was unable to find any lapses in Apple's products even after buying several in an attempt to have something to report.

After finding nothing of consequence, Greenpeace had to lie about their findings, and reported a negative spin about Apple that used clever word play, but was entirely deceiving.

The point: Greenpeace has no interest in presenting facts or reality in environmental issues. They spend a lot of money pushing reports that are not only inaccurate, but intentionally misleading."


The Music Labels are the ones who demand DRM on songs on the iTMS (not iTunes - iTunes is the software on the computer, which can import most open formats like AAC. The iTunes Music Store is the shop that sells music), and the Music Labels are the ones who you should be looking at to remove the DRM from the remaining songs on iTunes. By the way, you can buy DRM free music from iTunes Music Store, but only on songs that the Record Labels have deemed so. Look for "iTunes Plus" songs - DRM free, able to play on any player.

@hairythomas,

Just one more link for you:

https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-greenpeaces-green-electronics-guide-undermined-by-minimal-research-effort.html

It seems Greenpeace have been very sloppy with their research in the quest to ride on the back of successful companies like Apple. After all, they have to raise money to stay in business (you did know Greenpeace were a business, didn't you?)

Sorry - to give iTunes it's full title, yes the iTunes Music Store - and it is not wholly to do with the Music labels. How is it that when Apple do something they are merely abiding by the rules of the Big Labels - I am sure that Apple get nothing from this understanding and arrangement at all. By the way, I can download DRM music from other sites that I don't have to play on my iPod so why don't Apple offer that? Is it to propogate their sales by any chance? Business in "Wanting To Make Profit" shocker!

You can spin Greenpeace's spin all you want but it does not alter that they felt compelled to cite Apple for a reason and using another environmental agency to criticise an environmental agency doesn't really address the underlying fact. I was highlighting that if you want to find ethical concerns for any major company then you can. If you want to counter agrument then you can. Are Apple the worse environmentally? No (although they did feel compelled to retort and have a place on their site saying what they are going to do in the future). But are they cleaner and whiter than white? No.

My point is not to criticise Apple (you asked for examples) merely that I find it very odd that the public see them as some avuncular company that uses their profits for the greater good. They too have underhand business practices, like locking users into iPod / iTunes Music Store commitments, like bundling Safari with iTunes updates. They too come under scrutiny from antitrust laws.

@twelveightyone

roughlydrafted? Hardly a credible source.

However, taking aside Greenpeace how about the iPod battery settlement and the settlements paid to Apple Corps and Creative for patent infringement?

Which is besides the point - Apple has and is guilty of actions that are either legally or ethically questionable just as Microsoft are. Note that I do not claim that MS are innocent because that would indeed be foolish - and, to be honest, MS are worse than Apple in this respect- merely that the excreta of their competitors is also far from pleasingly fragrant.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend a multinational company making excellent profit margins by outsourcing product manufacture to low cost nations as a white knight when the facts show this is not the case. I'm araid no amount of apologetics is going to change that.

Actually I would say, "Zeus > IIS > Apache".

Open source is interesting, but the religious mass movement that is associated with it is irritating and causes a lot of misinformation to be propagated. Looking at OpenOffice and many recent Linux features, it seems like the OSS community copies ideas from commercial software while simultaneously vilifying it.

Like other experiments in collectivized production, it begs the question of whether it can really support an economy of entrepreneurs and provide incentives for innovation, if it became the only model of software production.

@twelveightyone

You did know that the Sierra Club is a business didn't you?

Again, to reiterate I am not defending Microsoft, but attacking the blinkered naivety applied to their competitors. Quite why people think that Microsoft are the only corrupt business in all of this I don't know. The bizarre perception that the guys behind Firefox are a couple of chaps working out of a shed and should championed against the might of Microsoft is laughable. Mozilla disclosed a 2006 revenue of US$66,840,850.

To get your product out into the marketplace and succeed takes a business and I do not believe for a second that any of Microsoft's competitors would act any differently to M$ if they were the market leaders.

Look at Google - all fluffy and nice until they got some cash and then you see the true company bowing to Chinese pressure over Human Rights, inflitrating my machine with task bars at the drop of the hat. And I like google and love my gmail account, but have to accept that they are not run by a couple of amiable lads who are only there to help you, the poor consumer.

hairythomas wrote:

"Microsoft are no more evil than any other business, they have enjoyed more success so have more of a stranglehold on the competition."

The problems with 'strangleholds' is that they quickly lead to a catch 22 situation. Europe is supposed to have laws to prevent this type of situation. The USA has a slightly different situation, where the government has the right to monitor telephone and electronic communication, so all the security backdoors and loopholes in Windows makes its job so much easier. In that situation a monoculture makes life so much simpler, so they're never going to push for a change. (And it brings income into the country)

It might be interesting to see what has happened to competitors in the past. For example Lotus Ami Pro was the word processor of choice in the mid and early 90's. Why did it vanish so completely? and so quickly?

Obviously competition in this area was not part of Microsoft's vision.

I think most people miss the point entirely about Microsoft. We were asked is is a application, operating system or service company? Answer none of these - Microsoft started as and is to a large extent still a company who specialise in tools for developers.

Consider this - why for example did first DOS and latterly the windows OS suceed? Well in my opinion because there were pretty much immedidatelly a wide range of applications to run on it. Why? Because of great compilers and developer tools.

Word, Excel and latterly the rest of the office suite suceeded because it was pretty easy to for example to cut and paste from one to the other. Embed an image in either? - easy. Mail merge from an excel spreadsheet to Word? - no problem. These and subsequent releases also had easy, consistent and soon to be everyday familiar UIs - menu bars, toolbars and so forth. How is this possible? Again developer tools. Technologies such as COM/DCOM/ATL/ActiveX and MFC may not sound the sexiest but to someone wishing to write an application targeting the windows platform they are gold dust.

Silmilarly with the server market. IIS suceeded not because it's the best web server but because of its intrinsic support for developer technologies like ASP. Rich developer support is built into SQL, Sharepoint, CRM and their ilk.

Microsoft's strategy latterly has been to encourage interoperability mainly through its .NET developer platform. Interoperability via web service and wcf is something that microsoft builds into many of it's software products. WSDL/SOAP/XML/WSE/SOA/AJAX - again alaphabet soup but primary technologies that will produce the next big explosion in "web 2.0" applications. None of these are owned or indeed driven by Microsoft. They just happen to love supporting them and giving developers new toys to play with to develop the next big thing.

Of course I have to conceed that much of this was built on top of the finest piece of good luck possibly ever i.e. IBMs decision to award the contract to develop the operating system for it's new PC the to this tiny developer tools company. Good luck indeed and without the platform I think Microsoft would still have been a success as a producer of great developer tools and compilers and not the glut of software/hardware/consoles it seems to branch into through sheer boredom at the fact that it pretty much dominates the software industry in all things it does.

I think I'd disagree with the comment on 'great compilers and developer tools'. One of the issues with Vista was the fact that many programmes won't run, which in some ways pleases the software houses as people are forced to upgrade, paying even more for their software and keeping the upgrade cycle rolling. If it was just a matter of compilers and developer tools then Linux would wipe all other OSs off the map.

Windows may have some good development tools, but it's their control over what will and won't run on their platform (over different releases) that keeps them in charge. At the end of the day it's about money.

I'm assuming that your comments refer to Windows to Windows interoperability, or even more specifically Microsoft to Microsoft, as other developers find it very difficult to integrate when the OS keeps changing through various patches or other changes made and controlled by one company, namely Microsoft. Just look at what happened to Lotus.

Their strategy to encourage heterogeneous interoperability is basically because they (by their own admission) are still quite a way behind J2EE in terms of market share. It looks like they are quite keen to fit in when others have the advantage, but if the rolls are reversed their non-compliance to agreed standards makes it very difficult for others to compete. Admittedly they are improving, partly because they don't seem to be getting their own way in Europe and the Far East, but their ability to change libraries in the OS at a moments notice (or at least when people apply the latest patches) means that network programmers have to aim for the lowest common denominator if we want it to work with Microsoft applications. The same can be said of IE's implementation of web standards and CSS support. Any distributed protocol is great and a step in the right direction, but only if everyone abides by the rules. So far, Microsoft haven't.

It seems to me that far too many people in IT have an allegiance one or another camp and feel obliged to stick up for their chosen 'team'. The fact is that Apple, MS, Google and the open source movement all produce some fantastic products.

I use Windows, .net, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Google Apps - I have reviewed the alternatives but these choices work best for me.

If you keep an open mind and judge each product or service on its merits then not only will you end up with the best product or service for you, but you'll also keep the companies under pressure to continue improving their offerings. Once you commit "I am Apple until I die" and such nonsense, you are simply telling them they no longer need to compete hard for your business. Apple fanboys are probably the worst in this respect, but there are plenty of similar people who are equally narrow minded about Windows.

For example, my company develops .net apps for IIS and MS SQL. But we love to see a powerful and vibrant competing open source platform because it has real benefits for us too. Would MS SQL Express (free) have come about were it not for the rise of MySQL and Firebird?

come on..its business...its money game!..
Commercial companies are out there to make money and not for charity. If you want to bash a company you can bash any company, irrespective of what they do. Till date i have not seen any software from open source community, which i can use safely for business. I love firefox, but its only a toy, not that critical as an operating system or Office suite. Microsoft has been good in providing me both these with agreeable standards and I am happy.
Most of the religious followers of the open source community is not following opensource for the spirit of opensource (I respect those who really follow them with the real spirit). But coz software is free there. come on guys..people will use those software even if its not opensource. Say AVG free or any other freeware for that matter.

People like to use good softwares. If its comes free well and good.

You have the irght to use what you want. You blame microsoft coz, its easy to blame and you have big crowd for that. Apple too dont let me choose the hardware of my choice for MAC. Should i put a anti-trust(i dont know what you call for that!!) suit against apple? Its their business model and they see more money through that..use it if you want else go for something else which meets your need.

You got to gain nothing by bashing a company and i got a gain nothing by trying to bash anybody.

Use it if you like it..Buy it if you want it.! you have so many options today. No body here is perfect to talk about perfection :)

Vista is the biggest computing disappointment I've encountered in a long time.

I run a home business and had an XP desktop and XP laptop running perfectly fine together.

The laptop went bang and I bought a new one, which had the Vista OS installed (I asked if I could get one with XP but couldn't).

Since then I've had the following problems:

- Wireless networking is a nightmare. The Vista machine can't see the XP machine and it sometimes takes me 50+ attempts to get a wireless connection to the router even with 'excellent' signal strengths.

- Vista crashes 3 or 4 times a week with a 'Bad Memory Pool' bluescreen error. I always report it but there's never a solution.

- Software that ran fine on XP doesn't on Vista (even in compatibility mode).

- Tasks that were simple one-click affairs now involve additional confirmation boxes supposedly in the name of security (unless one switches off UAC). Why? I'm logged on as Admin, making these things happen via the keyboard - I am already authorised.

The problem. I believe, is Microsoft's inattention to backwards compatibility, which is born out of an arrogance that they 'lead' and everyone else MUST follow.

Even after a number of months using Vista, my computer use is still harder and less rewarding than it was on XP.

I have gained nothing from Vista except a lot of headaches.

It's Apple for me next time. I'd dearly love to use some version of Linux but it just isn't there as a viable desktop at the moment in my opinion (although it's much closer than it was).

As a new fan of Apple products, I thought I'd join the debate about evil empires!

Apple are a for profit company and do make decisions based on this. They do make dumb decisions based on this. They are controlling and they are somewhat anal.

I have always had a slight dis-like for MS, some of it because of business practices and some of it because of the quality of their software.

So, do I chose MS or Apple, as I think they are both big businesses who really look after themselves.

I choose Apple, because for me, their OS is miles in front of Windows. I work in IT supporting Windows desktop / servers so I've used many different versions of the OS. OS X is far better than any version of Windows yet.

OK, so some people may want Windows to play games or because of the vast choice of hardware and software, and in that case, Windows wins hands down.

But what's the point of all that choice if the OS just doesn't behave?

For me, OS X just made me realise what I have been missing out on. If I go back a couple of years, there's no way on Earth I would have thought about using Apple, but with the Vista fiasco and after trying about 20 versions of Linux, I decided to try Apple.

And I'm loving it.

It doesn't make me a fan boy.

It doesn't make me blinkered to the fact that Jobs is a real pain sometimes and that Apples' products could be much better and open.

But, OS X is a better OS for me.

As for MS, I think they are in a mess, Balmer is an ass of the greatest size and a huge bully. If he makes MS in his mould, it will be even worse for the market.

Linux is getting better and better on the desktop and I hope that continues.

Knock MS as much as you like but having messed up more than one PC with so called open source operating systems,I will stick with MS thanks.
Please be aware that there are many pit falls with most open source systems,for example some do not support USB2.
I have Vista on three machines and they all work perfect,no problems now or in the past.
One or two older programs were not compatible but this was easily rectified by upgrading.
I feel MS is much maligned due to jealousy more than anything else.

I'm no fan of global monopolists and only use Windows at work, being mainly an Apple user, but I feel Microsoft is getting an unfair battering here.

We all seem to have forgotten the hammering Microsoft was getting a few years ago for keeping XP going for so long when others (e.g. Apple) had introduced "new" operating systems several times. Did anyone think this might be a positive testament to the original product? The truth is that Microsoft is a good job, proven by the vast number of XP computers in the world.

As for Vista being "beta tested" on the public, is this not true to an extent for all OS's? I could cite you some seriously underdeveloped examples in Mac OSX Leopard.

Then there is the issue of backward compatibility, which is no doubt causing many problems to Microsoft. Nobody expects Apple to support the older Power PC platform for much longer. Indeed there are already several applications that are Intel only.

We all have our preferences, but there has to be objective balance.

If you think Vista is bad - try installing Mac OS X 10 - 10.2 - they were a lot worse.
it took apple 3 revisions to get it as stable and as fast as OS9.

This post is like many on the net - full of inaccurate and biased opinions and its quite easy to spot the MS haters and whiners.

As chizling and hairythomas pointed out quite elegantly MS do not force you to buy any of their products. Most of us have the luxury of living in a democarcy and can make their own choices. MS are successful because jo public and corporates buy their software and services. So stop whining and bitching about MS just carry on with whatever you are running and get a life.

MS make mistakes and miss opportunities such as the importance of the net and browser and acknowledge this.

I do not work for MS but as an IT Consultant have worked with Unix, Linux, Apple and MS. By far the best support, documentation came from MS. In business applications I have great difficulty selling a customer a solution written by some people around the world who do it in their spare time or who have set up a business on the software only to find its poorly documented, has major bugs, poor support and maybe not around next year.

Oh yes regards bugs - anyone remember who's JVM was slow and poor on their own OS and MS was the best - try Apple. And when Sun launched the SPARC 10 it ran slower with two processors! not to mention Suns jumbo patches!

So stop whining about MS because real people who have to install business solutions that need to work and have real support arn't interested.

MS should stop being defensive about Linux and other OS's and meet them head on and compete and not be worried and guilty about it. Cant wait for Hyper V to be released as a standalone product at a low cost and have some real competition to VMware ESX ! go for it MS compete.

@wired4net,

Real people? Business Solutions? Get over yourself young man! I work for a Worldwide Marine Company, with 'real' staff working all over the globe (on land and at sea) on oil platforms in the Mexican Gulf, LNG Carriers in the Persian Gulf etc. etc. (real people, hahahaha) and we don't need M$, Java or 'IT Consultants' like you who put in the best system for your own needs (read ongoing support and monthly retainers). We use software from Apple, Adobe, Open Source, you name it we use it if it works well and gets the job done. We use anything but the rubbish from Micro$oft and their per-seat licence fees, viruses, adware, downtime, upside down backwards Operating Systems (click Start to Shut Down - how intuitive), I could go on all day! Use the money you save buying 'Licences' to train either yourself or someone who has a passion for learning and create your own solutions. Honestly, people who can't see past Microsoft's blinkered reality need their heads checking!

Real people! Don't make me laugh!

And as you brought it up, it's easy to see the Micro$oft apologists - things are not looking good for those guys, very defensive attitudes with little evidence to back up their IT decisions!

Real people, haha that's the funniest line I've seen on these boards!

Apple rules...

That is it and that is all that there is to it.

I have recently switched and it has not burnt out, got viruses, it operates like a dream, the software has not malfunctioned and updates have been installed seamessly.

The only reason why people continue to endure with Microsoft rubbish is that the people who pay the bills tend to wokr with a PC during the day.

Personal computers are supossed to promote your life, to enhance your well being through communication and media. Not ultimately frustrate you!

wired4net wrote:

[quote] This post is like many on the net - full of inaccurate and biased opinions and its quite easy to spot the MS haters and whiners.[/quote]


And then you go and post inaccurate and biased opinions?

MS do not force you to buy any of their products, however, they did force computer manufacturers to box Windows with their PC's so that they could dominate a market, they then also forced manufacturers to install / bundle certain software so that they could dominate other areas.

This of course changed the marketplace entirely and people bought PC's and got Windows. A great ply by MS, shame there business acumen is better than there technology!

A lot of people just use Windows, as they know little of alternatives, that's just the way it is. It's a shame though.

I wish MS could actually create an OS that was as good as it should be, I honestly don't know how with so many staff and so much money that they struggle to come up with a stable OS and much in the way of innovation.

Apple are not perfect, I'm sure they are as guilty as MS with regards to some business activities, however, they are able to make a much better OS.

I work in IT and not a day goes by without a host of problems and people wondering why Windows does certain things. Oh, apart from the marketing department, they use Mac's and hardly ever complain! (Although they do sometimes, Mac's aren't perfect and do crash etc. - just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was a Mac fan boy!)

We're actually discussing rolling out Linux so as to replace Windows, I don't know who you've approached regarding support as we have had some great talks with people and had some great applications to look at.

@jacko101,

"I honestly don't know how with so many staff and so much money that they struggle to come up with a stable OS and much in the way of innovation."

You should have a read of 'The Mythical Man Month' by Fred Brooks, an excellent book that explains why you can't just throw more manpower at a project to get it completed faster;

Group Intercommunication Formula: n(n - 1) / 2
Example: 50 developers -> 50(50 - 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication

Someone should give Steve Ballmer a copy of this book, it would open his eyes.

@twelveightyone

'Real people' consider what's the most appropriate solution for their organisation. In our case - a large financial organistaion employing 80,000 people - that's Microsoft.

Looking at the corporate usage trends this is the norm and I can assure you these decisions are made on sound principles subject to governance and oversight. We don't use MS because we're forced to, we use it because it offers us the best solution in terms of cost, support and functionality.

I welcome the day when other organistaions can offer similarly compelling solutions but for us and the rest of the world they're simply not there yet which is a shame because a near monopoly isn't healthy for anyone.

Please don't confuse this with apologetics because MS do provide the best solution for most - not all - large scale businesses on the grounds mentioned above. As for facts, a simple glance at OS share is fairly compelling in itself.

@Mark_MWFC, yeh businesses that look at the bottom line, cheapest price, don't look at the TCO of the equipment, buy M$ "because everyone else does", aren't interested in pushing the envelope and trying something new, boring beige offices full of people in suits.

M$ can keep their stuffy corporate stranglehold on "business". In my "business" we concentrate on producing quality products, using the best tools for the job, that will last, don't require hundreds of "IT Consultants" to keep the things running. We produce products that allow people to communicate effectively.

I think you'll find that the TCO of a Mac network is far, far cheaper than Windows. But as with most big business, they can't see it until it hits them in the face.

We've also had this argument before Mark, bigger is not always better. But I guess market share is everything, right? Wrong. Quality is what matters, and a fantastic user experience, something M$ haven't got.

80,000 people using Windows... I'd hate to see the support costs for that setup. I bet I could spec you a much cheaper Mac setup - just ask the guys over at Juniper networks.

You misunderstand. We looked at the options available - and that included Apple and Linux - before making the decision. Every company worth their salt does and doesn't 'bet' that something's will be cheaper based on a hunch.

Costs are made on TCO, not cheapest option which is why we run HP desktops and not, say, Acer because the service agreements are better. However, we run Lenovo laptops because they're better, more robust and better serviced than HP laptops. Like I said, it's a choice not a compulsion.

However, if you have evidence showing clearly why you believe a Mac network is cheaper for a large financial organisation then please provide it otherwise the rather carefully considered business cases that were put together will have to do. It may be fun to claim that businesses are hidebound, biased and boring, and indeed some are, but not enough to explain the fact that upwards of 90% of businesses use an MS based solution for desktops and laptops.

As for our office, it's been redesigned - natural lighting, pastel colours, breakout pods with TVs, massage chairs and aromatherapy not to mention the company gym. Not a beige wall in sight or, since we have a business casual dress policy, that many suits either. The benefits of not only considering one business option I guess, eh twelveightyone? :)

As mentioned, most large corporations use MS server/software solutions. This is true. Some of it is due to support contracts, as MS offers a detail where they MUST provide a hotfix for a problem in the software within a certain amount of time. Open Source alternatives like Redhat do not have sole control of all the bits of software compromising their solution, and can therefore not offer up the same guarantee. Besides this, it is interesting to hear that the fastest computer built todate, the IBM Roadrunner at Los Alamo Research Center, runs Redhat Enterprise Linux, same as the US Department of Defense.

Another problem with using Linux systems is that the price of personell qualified in the systems often costs a lot more than the persons qualified for MS, probably due to there being less people to choose from.

Personally I use Windows (XP thank the gods) at work and on my gaming machine, and linux on both servers and my laptop. Only trouble I've had is with running Windows software on my Linux laptop (through Wine) and with some hardware support for the wireless network card (had to compile and install the kernel modul myself.. i.e. about 10 commands on the console that I easily could have put in a script).

For those currently on windows machines wanting to try something different, download and run a Ubuntu live disc to have a look, it's free and doesn't mess with your current system.

I am a Microsoft hater and I have a right to hate them, I work on their systems and try to fix them and find workarounds... which is a regular thing.

To be honest, this world will be a better place without Microsoft, I truly mean that and no MS-fan will ever get close to making me change my mind.

@ Twelveightyone, your Post #50.

What on earth is the formula? You don't use stuff like that to cordinate work, if a company used such things then they deserve the very quick financial demise heading their way.

Which company uses that rubbish anyway?

Wow - is this argument still rumbling on??

I find comments like "I am a Microsoft hater" very strange. I too have worked on systems and I too have had to find workarounds and fix problems. I have had to do this on many windows based systems, but have also had to find workarounds on Progress databases sat on a Unix platform. I have had to overcome the limitations of mySQL and had the joy of unravelling the intricacies of Coldfusion, then a Macromedia now Adobe product. These also were on a Unix platform and all these systems never had one windows based component in them. All were annoying and all, when configured correctly and with sufficient support and maintenance, did and do a very good job for the company that I work for.

Technology, contrary to popular belief, regularly breaks down and requires the skill and knowledge of someone to fix it. It would be lovely if it never broke but, Mr Power Ranger, you would be out of a job.

Incidentally all you people eager to slate MS as the only one with ethical issues should read the article on this very site showing Google's rather liberal intepretation of privacy laws.

Microsoft are only there as no one else is big enough to stand up to them! They have muscled in on everything! Vista has to be the worst of all the operating systems I've put everything I have back on XP even if it was a new PC.

@Mighty Morfa Power Ranger,

The formula I presented is one line from a book containing many pages. I suggest you read all the pages of the book, then comment on the one line you read on a BBC blog (which was only posted to illustrate a point).

Surely you must know that you cannot just keep adding more and more workers to solve a problem? Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that...

I get a bit sick and tired of all the numpties whom are quick to down Microsoft, boohoo XP was better than Vista, boohoo '98' was better than XP (yes I remember the complaints, probably the same complainees!) and the best one yet...boohoo OSX is better than Windows!! Grow up!

I remember when DOS was the interface used and writing little batch files with 'edlin' was necessary. We had to navigate our files with 'CD' and create directories with 'MD'. Then in 1985 we were blessed with a GUI and Windows 1.01 was born....wow!!!.....revolutionary!!!

Lets face it, where would we be without Microsoft today? This far advanced in a pure online and multimedia utopia? I doubt it!

For once in your lives, take a step back, have a good old look and actually say 'thanks Microsoft. great job'! God only knows they deserve it!!!!

@JGalloway,

That is the funniest joke I've heard in a long time! Thanks Microsoft? More like thanks for stamping out any creativity in the IT sector!

The sooner M$ are a footnote in history, the better.

I have used Microsoft products for years from Windows 3.1. I have only ever upgraded operating systems when the "current one" failed to work with new hardware. I also upgraded computers to cope with new hardware and software so now have 1.5GB processor, 40GB disc, 500MB RAM. I realise that in this day and age this is almost in the dinosaur world but it suits me and my requirements for the moment. I currently use XP.

How can a company expect to be "loved" when a Service Pack to fix OS problems has been issued before the OS is on the market (both XP and I understand Vista). There are so many updates, upgrades, to XP which sometimes have to be taken off your PC again as they cause more problems that they fix. XP was so "greedy"when installed I was appalled. All that new processor speed, disc space and RAM was lost with just the OS. I understand Vista is even worse.

Are we really getting so much more with our OS or is it just all the "Good stuff" that Microsoft are always hyping up. I, personally, can do without

Office Assistant;
Little pictures every time I copy, paste, delete
Software that wants to index my system without me knowing
Software that wants to collect all my pictures together for me
Hints and tips appearing for everything, Hundreds of new mouse pointers
Folders that tile on your screen
IE
Media player
Real Player
Wizards to walk you through everything, Automatic Updates
Error reports being sent to Microsoft any time any problem happens
Little boxes asking me "Do you really want to do that"??????

Windows Firewall is a joke. I always install my preferred firewall so that I can personalise it properly.

I always install my preferred browser, music player, video player.

I would definitely not move to Vista as I know so many people who are really unhappy with it.

After all this moaning you are probably wondering why I have not moved away from Microsoft. Better the devil you know?????

Perhaps it is time to change and try Linux as I am getting really, really tired of Microsoft.

To all those (inc #62) who are finding the 'improvements' in Vista rather to much of a pain:

Why are you still using Vista (or indeed XP) when that are fully functioning easy to use alternatives such as (my favourite right now) Kubuntu (Linux), and Openoffice is in all practical ways just as functional as Office?

(PS the question is rhetorical....)

I don't understand the negative feedback about Vista, I really don't. When I bought a new PC early this year I was expecting a nightmare. In fact the experience has proven far superior to xp. Regarding the number of licences so far, that is about to grow exponentially as corporates adopt vista - certainly my organisation with 60,000+ users will be adopting it in December and I understand that many other organisations in my industry are planning adoption of vista late this year or early next.

I also have a laptop that run ubuntu linux. This was a mistake if thereever was one. Yes, linux is quicker to boot, cheaper etc. It's also about as user friendly as a Russian border guard.

I also know a number of people who have bought Macs because they look cool and work better with their Ipods etc, who have since ebayed the relevant macs because, while they look cool, ultimately they preferred the windows interface despite its problems.

We've known for 20 years that Microsoft needs to be 5 companies (Operating Systems and Applications need to be divorced).

They have done more damage to the state of personal computing through their monopolistic practices and manipulative software than is calculable.

And we've reached the end of the line. Personal computing cannot advance any farther until Microsoft is dealt with.

twelveightyone wrote:


I'm all ears... care to show some examples of transgressions of its competitors? The only company I can think of that's a convicted monopolist is Microsoft."

Am I allowed to install OSX on a PC - I think not. I'm only allowed to install it on Apple Hardware? Imagine if M$ tried that little trick!

@twelveightyone

Stop being a childish nerd and grow up. What's with the anti-microsoft? If you don't like the products, go elswhere. I don't hear you evangelising any company so you must be a compulsive moaner.

If you can answer 'yes' to any of these questions, I rest my case:-

1. I own a pair of novelty socks or tie
2. I love Star Trek
3. I have never been a gym in my life
4. I dont have a girlfriend
5. I do have a girlfriend but she works in a library.
6. I have at least one 'The Simpsons' novelty item at home.

Can I just say?

Betamax was better than VHS
The Spectrum was better than the C64
The Amiga was better than the Atari
The Playstation was better the Saturn
Minidisc was better DCC
SACD is better than DVDA
BluRay is better than HDDVD
The PSP is better than the DS
The PS3 is better than X-box
Picard is better than Kirk
Guiness is better than McGregor
Opera is better than Firefox
The Iphone is better than everything
My OS is better than your OS
My Da is bigger than your Da.

And of course I'm right as a website I looked for to confirm my "rightness" told me so.

Perhaps its time that Microsoft should give a second thought on opening a new Door rather than gazing through its all 4 old windows like software, hardware, web, server.

When I look at what I spend 95% of my time doing a computer now, its running the web browser full screen, accessing web content, video, email and online applications.

The OS that allows the browser to run is less important than ever. My criteria is one which gives me the least hassle as possible from constant security upgrades and intrusive anti-virus protection, and doesn't need this week's bleeding edge hardware to run at an acceptable speed on.

Suffice to say a Microsoft OS meets none of those requirements, and the machine I use most is a small note book running Firefox 3 on top of Linux.

Well, the BBC seems to be their publicist and biggest fan, since the top tier of BBC technology is ex-Microsoft executives or Microsoft fans.

As for what it's 'for', it's an uncreative monopoly, holding back the progress of the industry, supported by, amongst others, the BBC. Many people do not expect public money (which should used to create 'common' wealth, open source software, for example) to be siphoned straight in the purse of a foreign monopoly.

It hasn't 'sold' copies of Vista, they are just OEM installed as 'taxation' on new machines. Happily, I notice that companies such as ASUS have broken ranks. I'm looking forward to buying any brand of machine and -choosing- my OS and software.

You guys who are making sweeping statements about Microsoft obviously aren't 'power users'. It sounds like you dabble with a small number of Microsoft products. I have worked in technology over the past 20 years, using mainly Microsoft technology, and you will not get another company that can produce so many, highly complex, successful products, ranging from desktop, server and development tools; all integrated with each other, and for so many years.

JGalloway

If you wanted revolutionary back in 1985, maybe you should have tried an Amiga?

That OS was way more advanced than MS Windows 1 / 2 / 3! MS didn't even have multi-tasking in Windows 95! Come on boy, keep up!

People forget what other options were available and that MS weren't that great back then or now. They tied up some great business deals so PC's were bundled with Windows and that's where we are today.

MS also picked on the little guys (stacker comes to mind!) and then used their technology to try and make Windows better.

If Amiga had been handled better (or other companies for that matter) we may have seen a different landscape altogether.

I don't hate MS, it's just frustrating that they still can't get things right!

Microsoft is slowly turning into IBM.

Strangely enough wasn't it IBM that gave a fledgling Microsoft its first break?

Microsoft have served many people well over the years despite the shoddy quality of their products. They have become the devil we know and therefore people will stick with them through all their twists and turns. I don't care what they think they are and neither do most people who struggle to use their products.

However, having recently tried OSX on a Mac I find myself preferring it for its ease of use, user friendliness, reliability, stability, attention to detail and style and those are the qualities that Microsoft seem to lack by the bucket load. In future I will be using Apple products because they work and the whole thing is more stable and secure.

I have been in I.T for a long time, I currently manage a fair sized network most of it running Microsoft OS’s with some Solaris, UNIX/ Linux stuff thrown in.

I have to say that while Mac OS X Leopard is a stable OS it looks nice and so on; it is designed to work on Apple hardware. Meanwhile MS is looking at producing an OS’s that runs on any PC/ laptop with any number of hardware and software variations/ configurations. You can also say that Linux, Mac OS x and Solaris are better as they do not get infected with viruses and malware, but if I wanted to cause maximum disruption to a business or end users I would definitely not target Linux, Mac OS x and Solaris as I would cause three people problems around the world! Oh and one more thing MS (unlike most) do try, and do fairly well is backward compatibility. Making sure that you can still run that game you like and have had since Windows 98 and those Office documents done in WordPerfect still open.

This all adds to the clutter of producing new Apps and OS’s and come the new release of Windows you can kiss all this good bye! But most will start a whole load of new complaints about why your old stuff doesn’t work anymore. Forgetting this is what you been asking for, a slim line solid OS.

Now MS may bend the law and may shoehorn things in to the standards but no more than the likes of Cisco, HP, Intel, Sony and the likes, so instead of calling MS for it maybe you should take a step back look and try some of the other products, then ask why MS do so well and don’t be annoyed anymore.

@JGalloway,

Wow, I really have hit a raw nerve with you haven't I little guy!

Personally, anyone who cannot present a rational argument to a forum resorts to personal attacks. I was going to complain about your comment and have it removed, but I thought I'd rather leave it up there - it says a lot more about you than me!

Thanks for the laughs though! And no, I won't be answering any of the questions you asked, you childish nerd!!!! Haha!!!

I'm anti-microsoft because they are anti-competitive. My computer of choice? Apple. They make the best gear, best software, and you don't get people with an attitude like you using them, so I'll be using them for a long time to come.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Some here cannot understand my hate for Microsoft, it is simple.

They promise the world and deliver pap.

They try to force everyone to upgrade when they should simply concentrate on updating.

Speaking of updating, it should all work from Day 1 anyway!!!

Our PCs are getting more powerful, yet you will never see it because the newer MS OS's literally eat all the new power.

Example: Vista uses a full 1GB just run properly... that is lazy coding and very unprofessional!

Micosoft are quickly getting themselves into a quagmire, openoffice and the Ubuntu family of OS will possibly be on a par in terms of use in 10 years time.

Are you people who like Microsoft products going to spend:

£350 for Windows 7 with touchscreen?
£500 for touchscreen monitor?
£500 for horizontal monitor desk?
£800 for a PC capable of running it at mimimum spec

While microsoft looks at touchscreen for its next OS, I expect Linux to look at it from a "playstation eye" perspective... where simply moving your hands on the desk will give the same results and with less impact on the hardware that does the processing and saving alot of money as their will be very little need to buy new equipment!

Well.. There is an another area where big companies are ready to fight: Mobile OS/Software market.

Some of the contenders are:

Microsoft (Windows Mobile)
Apple (MacOS)
Google (Android)
Sun (JavaFX)
Nokia (Symbion)

So far, Windows Mobile is a disappointing product. I don't think Microsoft will prove their dominance in mobile market.

Of course, we have been met with the typical arguments that arise from mentioning Microsoft, most of which digress from the actual topic in discussion.

One needs to consider that people use different platforms for different purposes. The truth of it is that the majority of people and businesses use Microsoft Operating Systems. The reasons for this probably pertain to ease of access, in terms of programs, and a solid foundation that has been built on the Microsoft platform - it is a very easy to use system that allows for users of any skill level to do what is necessary; at work, writing letters, making spreadhseets. At home, surfing the internet and sending/receiving emails.

Of course, Microsoft are spreading themselves widely in terms of what they want to provide and sell, but they are a business, and that is what businesses do. Though being in trouble for monopolization, there are other products out there, that people are more than free to use. Of course, there are side effects, such as a potential lack of compatibility with the majority of other computer users, for example, the introduction of the .docx etc formats in Office 2007. Totally locking people in, but a BRILLIANT business decision.

Perhaps with their current wide spread approach to multiple markets, Microsoft should concentrate on what so many people rely on - Microsoft's operating systems, and with OEM distribution, that is surely their greatest earner.

Now, I am far from a Microsoft 'fanboy'... I do, in fact, hate them considerably, but this isn't a bash on Microsoft subject now is it?

I've used Microsoft since my first computer, which was running Windows 3.1 and up until about a year ago I was loyal. Why? Perhaps for reasons most of the 'normal' population share - I was ignorant to other options being available. My computers came with Windows, all the programs I had grown accustomed to needed Windows. I had no reason to look elsewhere.

However, one does become disgruntled at the need to pay for upgrades, and constant security updates (Updates that never tell you, from my experience, what they actually affect), which led to a search for other options.

Vista was a balls up, as someone else has already mentioned, but I hear only good things since SP1 has been released. And though I had problems with resource expenditure, Vista was a good OS. It's attractive, functional; and one thing, it is easy for a less computer literate person to use. My Dad is nearly seventy, and he found it infinitely easier to use than XP.

So, whilst there are bad points, there are good points as well. Prime example, for parents, the account management tool that logs all activity, including IM and email logs. Brilliant idea, considering the weirdos on the net nowadays.

My experience with Macs is minimal to none, but we all know that if you want to do work in graphics, you use a Mac. That is the major strong point a Mac possesses, from my limited knowledge of the platform.

Personally, I use Ubuntu Linux. Totally free, open source, and heavily community driven.

Moving from Vista to Ubuntu was a MASSIVE change; from an OS that used just about all my half gig memory just to run, to a Linux based OS... The performance improvement was near enough miraculous.

Rather, now, than having to search for programs online for x amount of time, I have a nice option that lists all the free, open source, software available for Ubuntu in a nice list, split nicely into categories, and two clicks of a button is all it takes to download and install the program without me having to do anything. Then, updates are on a regular basis, each update listed with changelogs and detailed descriptions. And the ability to choose which updates I want to install. It is a much better methodology.

Then, of course, you get OS upgrades once every six months, all free, to ensure the OS is as up to date as can be.

Aesthetically, Ubuntu is inept by default, but with a small amount of time and effort, you can get a desktop environment that puts Windows Vista to shame.

Then, and this is what I really love about Ubuntu, you have the community aspect. If I have a problem, or need help in completing a task, I can either go on the forums, or on the IRC channel, and ask the question. It is pretty much a guarantee that I will have at least one solution within five minutes. I haven't seen such support in any of my years using Microsoft.

Of course, the programs available are not quite so polished in Ubuntu as they are in Windows; but the functionality is the same as a Windows equivalent. Now, I am basing that on my own personal requirements - for which I have found perfectly ample alternatives to the programs I used in Windows, and they all work just as well if not better.

I cannot play the majority of games that are popular for gaming, as they require Windows; but then, if I was a gamer, I wouldn't be using Linux.

It is entirely up to the individual what is used, and each platform has its advantages and disadvantages. For most people, the Joe Bloggs of the world, Windows is far beyond sufficient, for simple ease of access and program availability; but then you are risking security issues and feeding a capitalistic, convicted monopoliser of the IT industry.

By using Macs, you are paying a ridiculously high price for something that, essentially, has the same sort of functions, and still succumbing to a corporate capitalist.

In using Open Source software you are stepping into the unknown, and are forsaking all your previous tools, meaning you need to find alternatives which may or may not do the job exactly as well as the previous.

Of course, Windows is still going to sell, just as is the Mac OSX. And open source is also going to continue growing as people grow frustrated with Windows and their whole over bearing presence; especially now that Dell has begin offering open source OEM options.

Arguing over which is better, and which is entirely the devil is a wholly pointless endeavour and a waste of time.

If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, still great, because you can choose whatever you want to use.

I have to comment on what idn435 said:

'Lotus Ami Pro was the word processor of choice in the mid and early 90's. Why did it vanish so completely? and so quickly?'

This is a bold statement. Ami Pro vanished because it tried to be a Word Processor AND a DTP package when there were separate applications that did a better job. This had nothing to do with Microsoft, just old fashioned competition.

To set the record straight, I don't work for Microsoft but have been watching their rise for years (since Dos 3.1) and what people forget is that Microsoft is a marketing company first, a legal company second and a software developer third. Anyone who doubts this just need to refer to the 'Stac' and ‘AARD code’ incidents.

Profit is not bad. Profit excluding all else is the insidious worm at the heart of the free market.

SaladinAkara wrote:

‘It is entirely up to the individual what is used’

Actually it’s not.

Experienced techies like us know the difference and can make informed choices, the non-IT literate can’t.

I agree that Vista is an OK operating system and that Microsoft messed up the launch (you should have seen the original USA based marketing intended for the UK), but there are no ‘must have’ elements in Vista to distinguish it from XP. I know this and ‘SaladinAkara’ clearly does, but most people don’t.

People make choices based on marketing and sales. As a freelance IT professional I have lost count of the number of very poor technical decisions made by the people with the cheque books who NEVER work in the IT department.

With notable exceptions, like Excel 2003, Microsoft products are not the best available, but millions of dollars of marketing can have a very real effect.

I wait to see if it can turn round the disaster that is Office 2007.

ubuntu

I think that you're confusing ecosystem and operating system during this piece. I might be able to accept ecosystem as a description of Live Mesh, but the OS is still the OS.

Always remember that MS has spent years playing catch-up with the rest of the Internet after Bill Gates underestimated the importance of the www.

Oh, and we spell it "licence" in this country ...

b

Yes, I do have some niggles about Office 2007, e.g. its handling of pictures, or rather inability to do certain things which previous editions could, but overall it seems to be quite a nice package.

Having said that, there are workarounds but why should there be workarounds to something that worked perfectly well in the first place. As the saying goes: If it ain't broke don't fix it.