| Yet another M$ pwnz article :P :D | |
|
_cmad_ - ex-Student  |
I must be named "funny M$ articles bringer guy" or something   I enjoy reading all those funny articles.M$ is popular cuz the other companies fail to compete post This can use a lot of discussion. I already typed my arse off in a forum where this link was brought and I don't feel like typing all that again. Umm okay maybe a lil' quote of what I said. But before that, here's the post from the guy bringin in the article: Quote: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html Quite an interesting article and one that does represent the sway of all anti-M$ sentiment. It's like getting two wrestlers side by side, one is an obese 200kg goliath and the other a 100kg trim, muscular bloke and then saying "Look at the big fella, the huge gut, panting for breath, the smaller fella is fitter and will take him down" yet the bigger wrestler just uses weight and reach advantage and knocks the smaller opponent out. One is clearly the winner. Does it matter how they won? Not really. Can Microsoft remain the 'winner' in the market place forever? In line with what is mentioned on the site I quoted here, it all comes down to whether YOU are going to sit in your corner and muckrake the big bloke or come out of the corner and defeat him with a better product. If you think there is a problem then be a part of the solution instead of crying about it. and now my post in reply to his Quote: I got one thing to say about the one who wrote that article: wintroll. M$ is really big and popular, NO-ONE can deny this. Do you think it's so easy to beat a company like that? A company whose influence in everything is above average? Do you think that people will just migrate from Windows to some other decent OS just like that? No they won't. Nothing of that will happen anytime soon; none of the above will happen quickly. You can't just beat M$ in one day with one product. Many people believe in M$, are M$ addicts; they don't know that there are people NOT using M$ products. That's because of M$'s influence and ads. No Java can't just beat M$ by itself. People can't just migrate from one language to the other, from one OS to the other. It's not Sun's fault. But it's also not M$'s fault. It the public's fault. They fail to seek alternatives. They think that windows is the sole OS out there. Some of them don't KNOW what an OS is. People like them can't migrate and never will. They can stay to M$. And about C#. The article writer is exagerating; way more than normal. C# isn't so popular. I'd advise you guys (and the article writer) to go on some newsgroups and see C# criticisms. It's not just me saying it... I believe the article writer only goes to windows newsgroups (if he goes anyway). Of COURSE he'll see a big part of the people using that newsgroup being C# fans. But no... Even though people programming for windows are indeed more than the people programming for other OSs, the number of people programming in C# is small. It's the stats saying it. Yeah you might say "C# is new" and stuff, but that's a silly argument. If something is *GOOD* it becomes popular, not dominant though, within the month it's released. M$ was the company to first release a GUI. That's why it's so popular. But was it the first company to think of making a GUI for their OS? No... M$ stole the idea from Apple, which delayed the release date of their OS which resulted in Windows becoming the dominant OS. Apple itself stole the idea from Xerox. So does the fact that Windows was the first published OS with a GUI, mean that Windows is the best one? No. M$ hurried to release Windows which resulted in bugs and errors in their OS. But they got what they wanted. Now M$ has achieved a monopoly in the PC market, which IS hard to break. In reply to: One is clearly the winner. Does it matter how they won? Not really. Can Microsoft remain the 'winner' in the market place forever? In line with what is mentioned on the site I quoted here, it all comes down to whether YOU are going to sit in your corner and muckrake the big bloke or come out of the corner and defeat him with a better product. Despite you, it's also up to the public. No M$ will not remain the winner forever. Everything has a beginning, but everything has an end as well. That end, however, is quite some time from now. People change, habits change, likes and dislikes change. None of that changes fast enough though. In reply to: If you think there is a problem then be a part of the solution instead of crying about it. This is indeed one of the best quotes ever. No sarcasm is meant. And be sure that no-one just sits and cries about M$ being the ruler. They all do what they can. And as I said some times above, things will change; not soon though. PS. I could say a lot more things but I could not remember all of them while writing my other thoughts. I think I have stated my opinion. _______________ Your friends of today, are your enemies of tomorrow. |
| Login and add your comment! |
| Comments |
|
tarpman - The Tarped Avenger 
|
Canada rules. _______________ Saving the world, one kilobyte at a time. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Quote: That's a bit difficult to happen now though eh? Umm I'd love to see M$ on court cuz of their monopoly How exactly would it be difficult for that to happen now? You're making the exact same argument the government made about IBM back in the 70s. It was wrong then and it was wrong now. Why exactly should MS go to court because most people have been buy their products? That's like saying Michael Jordan should be fined for playing basketball better than anyone else. No, I'm not saying MS's software is better, or even good, just that people voluntarily choose to buy it. The real support for lawsuits against Gates comes from simple envy. What people who support these lawsuits won't acknowledge is that they're saying government should prevent people from making our own decisions. Some people choose Winblows, God help them. But our national nannies say, "Oh! That's the wrong choice! You need the government to prevent you from making that choice!" Or at least to make it more expensive to make that choice. The idea is that a bunch of government flunkies can make economic decisions for us better than we can make decisions for ourselves. The Soviet Union tried that one, and tens of millions of people starved to death. When government bureaucrats, rather than consumers, decide what consumers are and are not allowed to buy, guess what products we get told to buy? The products of the companies who give the most to the politicians, not the products that are the best value. The Senator who pushed for the original antitrust suit against MS, for example, did so because Oracle was in his home state. Do you think he'd push for a similar suit against Oracle? Oracle has a greater share of the DB market than MS ever had of its own market, but MS doesn't have a Senator in its pocket. Suppose that the nanny-state had been deciding what OS we should have right from the beginning. Know what system we'd all be using then? Winblows. Only instead of being told that it's evil because consumers chose it, we'd be told that it's good because the government chose it for us, like the post office. God help us. For my part, I prefer to make my own decisions, not have the nanny state decide for me. I'll make some bad decisions, yes, but I'll make fewer bad decisions than the government. What's more, I have obvious motivation to make good decisions for myself. I suffer the consequences of my own decisions. A government bureaucrat gets paid the same no matter how little thought he puts into deciding for me and suffers no consequences if his decision on my behalf is bad. What's more, a government bureacrat making a decision on my behalf is likely to make that decision on the basis of who gives him the best kickback (like the Senator in Oracle's home state), not on the basis of what's best for me. Government control of people's decisions? No thanks. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
_cmad_ - Ex-Student 
|
Quote: "No Java can't just beat M$ by itself. People can't just migrate from one language to the other, from one OS to the other. It's not Sun's fault. But it's also not M$'s fault. It the public's fault. They fail to seek alternatives." In economics, there's a principle called the cost of information. The value of choice B might be X dollars greater than the value of choice A, but it may cost five times more than X dollars to find that out. A decision-maker needs at least enough information to suggest that the risk-reward ratio is good enough to bother with going to the trouble of finding out. (This is where advertising comes in handy--it can drastically lower the cost of information for consumers). gah my brother studied economics. Yeah economics is like that. And yeah your statements (or maybe economics') ARE logical. Quote: For the record, a lot of major businesses are going to Linux and Mac, and guess where a lot of first-time users learned Winblows back in the early 90s? At work. For a big employer it's well worth the cost of researching whether Windows or Linux or Mac or system-you-never-heard-of is best for its operation, and when the company pays the cost of information, this has the side benefit of getting the information out to all of its employees, many of whom also use computers at home. Watch for lots of AutoZone employees, for example, to become Linux users at home. Yeah but not everyone spends the time to do some research  They buy Winblows cuz it's popular. I hate it when they do that cuz of ignorance.Quote: I'm with you on it not being MS's "fault" that people don't look at other OSes. I don't like MS, but I think most of the accusations of "monopoly" leveled against them are preposterous. The government built a similar case against IBM in the 70s, claimed that IBM's market dominance made it "impossible" for other companies to grab market share, but before the case got to court IBM lost significant market share to competitors without any government intervention at all, something the government said was impossible. ;p That's a bit difficult to happen now though eh? Umm I'd love to see M$ on court cuz of their monopoly But it would be lame to become popular because a third guy made the other guy less popular. I want M$ to be defeated fair and square  Quote: My all-time favorite complaint against MS came from Netscape. Netscape, we may recall, achieved nearly total dominance of the browser market by giving away its software for free. Then along came MS and began --*gasp*-- giving away Internet Explorer for free! How dare they! Netscape was outraged. LOL, haha yeah _______________ Your friends of today, are your enemies of tomorrow. |
|
JavaGuy - Student
|
"No Java can't just beat M$ by itself. People can't just migrate from one language to the other, from one OS to the other. It's not Sun's fault. But it's also not M$'s fault. It the public's fault. They fail to seek alternatives." In economics, there's a principle called the cost of information. The value of choice B might be X dollars greater than the value of choice A, but it may cost five times more than X dollars to find that out. A decision-maker needs at least enough information to suggest that the risk-reward ratio is good enough to bother with going to the trouble of finding out. (This is where advertising comes in handy--it can drastically lower the cost of information for consumers). For the record, a lot of major businesses are going to Linux and Mac, and guess where a lot of first-time users learned Winblows back in the early 90s? At work. For a big employer it's well worth the cost of researching whether Windows or Linux or Mac or system-you-never-heard-of is best for its operation, and when the company pays the cost of information, this has the side benefit of getting the information out to all of its employees, many of whom also use computers at home. Watch for lots of AutoZone employees, for example, to become Linux users at home. I'm with you on it not being MS's "fault" that people don't look at other OSes. I don't like MS, but I think most of the accusations of "monopoly" leveled against them are preposterous. The government built a similar case against IBM in the 70s, claimed that IBM's market dominance made it "impossible" for other companies to grab market share, but before the case got to court IBM lost significant market share to competitors without any government intervention at all, something the government said was impossible. ;p My all-time favorite complaint against MS came from Netscape. Netscape, we may recall, achieved nearly total dominance of the browser market by giving away its software for free. Then along came MS and began --*gasp*-- giving away Internet Explorer for free! How dare they! Netscape was outraged. LOL, _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
| Login and add your comment! |