"Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential." Call me a cynic all you want. But, that's got to be the biggest bunch of crap I've ever read in a press release.
Call me a realist, but Microsoft definitely is the worldwide leader in providing computer software no matter how much you don't want them to be. Not even the most hardcore of Linux fanboys can legitimately argue otherwise.
Sorry, but even though I'm almost certainly not a 'pro-Microsoft' person, it is true that our world today of technology would be extremely limited if it wasn't for Microsoft and many other companies whether they be partners or competitiors. I think most of us take technology for granted too often and we forget the people who actually made it happen. So what if they brag for the achievements they accomplished. Wouldn't you?
Ugh. Our technology would not be limited without Microsoft. What did they ever create? When have they innovated? Microsoft started by buying a product from someone else...and ever since, they've just taken ideas from others. The provide a decent marketing team, but that's about it.
Do you guys feel like better people for choining in the Microsoft hate train. Seriously you just say that shit because everyone else does. Microsoft has plenty of room for improvement but instead of making illinformed random bitch fests why don't use an Alternative, like linux?
@ Penguin Warlord. I use all the alternatives all the time. I use XP, OS X, and Ubuntu every day. I love competition just like everyone else. But, what MS has done is become a monopoly and stall the progress of innovation in every area. MS Word is a blatant rip off of Word Perfect, and so many other applications that Redmond had no problems ripping off. Also, if it wasn't for Netscape, Firefox, and other browsers, we'd still be stuck with an outdated and incompetent browser. A browser that, mind you, doesn't comply with standards. I know this because I'm a web developer and IE is a pain in the ass to design for. What works, and looks, great in every other browser, looks different in IE. Why is that? Well, you ask Billy Bob Gates since you seem to be so complacent with his control over everything digital. However, when it comes to free software, MS can't compete at all because people know better.
No, I don't hate MS as they've done what any other abusive and monopolistic corporation would've done. You put any company in the position MS is and they all become corrupt. Unfortunately, they're behavior is not surprising. Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.
@Rob: Monopolistic as in there's no choices? Maybe back in the old days, but there's ton of alternatives in the year 2007. Welcome.
MS Word is a blatant rip-off of Word Perfect? First of all, I never heard such a comparison, and what does Word Perfect have over Word 07'? As far as I can tell, Word 07' is the best word processor out there, and does a ton more than it's competition. And very well I might add.
And I remember hearing that before IE, you had to PAY to get and use the Netscape browser. IE came along and it was free. Which would you pick? And if you don't like IE, get a different browser. Why care? It's just a browser.
Personally, I like IE7 a lot more, because the only thing I don't like is that it's doesn't comply with other web standards, but with the amazing power of add-ons, it works with everything. And IE8 is suppose to finally support them all. Or else IE is dead. And if anyone says IE7 is insecure, they deserve a slap. IE7 is not IE6 with a new look. It's very secure, and nobody I know that uses it has any problems.
And Bill Gates doesn't have anything to do the least bit with IE, and he's a pretty generous person you know. And MS does not control any of my digital stuff. They offer products that do, like Media Center, Xbox, Zune, etc., and if people think they're good, they buy and use them. And if something is free and good, people take it. Microsoft does have a ton of free add-ons, mini-programs, and online services.
It's funny hearing how Microsoft is so monopolistic, that I can't use anything else to satisfy my needs. If you don't want it, don't use it. I usually don't stick up for MS like this, but I hate lies.
If you don't think that Microsoft has severely impacted innovation and stalled progress on many fronts, then you don't know your history. Throughout the history of computing there have been numerous instances of Microsoft holding back progress and innovation for its own gains. This is the very nature of Microsoft, it is their business model, it is how they profit.
The very nature of Microsoft is very simple. Whenever a new technology is developed, Microsoft develops a separate, incompatible version of the technology. Then, through its massive marketing capabilities and ties to the industry and deals, it pushes its own technology onto the market, forcing end users to choose and fragmenting the technology space. Some of you may think that this may promote competition is good, but what you have to realize is that the original technology is often an open source project that can be shared by all developers and promote innovation. However, whenever Microsoft introduces its own version, the market is boggled down by a proprietary, closed system that has very little responsibility to developers and worse yet, starts out as quite inferior to the open source alternative. But Microsoft has its methods, and all too often we see these sort of products gets pushed onto the market and gain market share due to Microsoft's tactics.
Worse still, sometimes Microsoft doesn't even develop it's separate, incompatible version. It would at times license the original technology, and then modify it and release it in an incompatible form. The best example of this is what happened to Java when Microsoft was allowed to license it.
If you look into Microsoft's history, you will find that many products and technologies of Microsoft are created this way. The reason that Microsoft is bad is because it fragments the market, preventing the adoption of open standards, and floods it with proprietary software that bears no developer responsibility, causing the creation of compatibility nightmares and issues, resulting in inferior products. All this effectively stalls progress and keeps the technological world from developing as fast as it could have. And all for Microsoft's gain.
Looking to the past, means little about the future and the present.
Things change. Times have changed. New things have popped up. Old things got pulled down.
You can keep on looking at the best, but that means very little about the future.
Before the Intel Macs, I would have never thought of purchasing a Mac. Well now, the new Intel Macs have a nice look, and work very well. Even though I'm not an OS X person, I like Mac hardware, and luckily, Microsoft allows it to work on Macs.
If I had looked at Apple's past, and say boohoo to anything Apple did, would great things happen? No.
Also, people do not choose a format if it's so 'bad' as you say. So everything Microsoft makes is always 'boggled' 'propietary' and 'closed'? You might as well yet again, say the same thing for Apple. In fact, sometimes I think Apple does it far worse, and is trying to make sure it can control the user experience as much as possible, leaving little room for 3rd parties.
I don't see that as the same for MS. Some of their stuff is pretty good, so people buy it, and are happy. Some aren't good, people don't buy it. That's it.
Back to HD-DVD vs. BluRay: Personally, I prefer HD-DVD. It's usually more cheaper, has just as good technical features as BluRay, and the thought of interactive movie content seems to be great to me.
Who says BluRay has to win? Oh, MS should just drop it, and let someone else win? That's silly. If you really go for BluRay so much, spend on it. Obviously, HD-DVD wouldn't be here if it was so bad, would it? So it's perfectly great to keep HD-DVD, or at least have alternatives than worry about who wins. It's just DVD's. Sheesh.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential." Call me a cynic all you want. But, that's got to be the biggest bunch of crap I've ever read in a press release.
Well i think its cuz microsoft is trying to keep the dvd war going when everyone wants it to end
Call me a realist, but Microsoft definitely is the worldwide leader in providing computer software no matter how much you don't want them to be. Not even the most hardcore of Linux fanboys can legitimately argue otherwise.
Cynic
Sorry, but even though I'm almost certainly not a 'pro-Microsoft' person, it is true that our world today of technology would be extremely limited if it wasn't for Microsoft and many other companies whether they be partners or competitiors. I think most of us take technology for granted too often and we forget the people who actually made it happen. So what if they brag for the achievements they accomplished. Wouldn't you?
Ugh. Our technology would not be limited without Microsoft. What did they ever create? When have they innovated? Microsoft started by buying a product from someone else...and ever since, they've just taken ideas from others. The provide a decent marketing team, but that's about it.
@ Rob and Urza
Do you guys feel like better people for choining in the Microsoft hate train. Seriously you just say that shit because everyone else does. Microsoft has plenty of room for improvement but instead of making illinformed random bitch fests why don't use an Alternative, like linux?
@ Penguin Warlord. I use all the alternatives all the time. I use XP, OS X, and Ubuntu every day. I love competition just like everyone else. But, what MS has done is become a monopoly and stall the progress of innovation in every area. MS Word is a blatant rip off of Word Perfect, and so many other applications that Redmond had no problems ripping off. Also, if it wasn't for Netscape, Firefox, and other browsers, we'd still be stuck with an outdated and incompetent browser. A browser that, mind you, doesn't comply with standards. I know this because I'm a web developer and IE is a pain in the ass to design for. What works, and looks, great in every other browser, looks different in IE. Why is that? Well, you ask Billy Bob Gates since you seem to be so complacent with his control over everything digital. However, when it comes to free software, MS can't compete at all because people know better.
No, I don't hate MS as they've done what any other abusive and monopolistic corporation would've done. You put any company in the position MS is and they all become corrupt. Unfortunately, they're behavior is not surprising. Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.
@Rob: Monopolistic as in there's no choices? Maybe back in the old days, but there's ton of alternatives in the year 2007. Welcome.
MS Word is a blatant rip-off of Word Perfect? First of all, I never heard such a comparison, and what does Word Perfect have over Word 07'? As far as I can tell, Word 07' is the best word processor out there, and does a ton more than it's competition. And very well I might add.
And I remember hearing that before IE, you had to PAY to get and use the Netscape browser. IE came along and it was free. Which would you pick? And if you don't like IE, get a different browser. Why care? It's just a browser.
Personally, I like IE7 a lot more, because the only thing I don't like is that it's doesn't comply with other web standards, but with the amazing power of add-ons, it works with everything. And IE8 is suppose to finally support them all. Or else IE is dead. And if anyone says IE7 is insecure, they deserve a slap. IE7 is not IE6 with a new look. It's very secure, and nobody I know that uses it has any problems.
And Bill Gates doesn't have anything to do the least bit with IE, and he's a pretty generous person you know. And MS does not control any of my digital stuff. They offer products that do, like Media Center, Xbox, Zune, etc., and if people think they're good, they buy and use them. And if something is free and good, people take it. Microsoft does have a ton of free add-ons, mini-programs, and online services.
It's funny hearing how Microsoft is so monopolistic, that I can't use anything else to satisfy my needs. If you don't want it, don't use it. I usually don't stick up for MS like this, but I hate lies.
If you don't think that Microsoft has severely impacted innovation and stalled progress on many fronts, then you don't know your history. Throughout the history of computing there have been numerous instances of Microsoft holding back progress and innovation for its own gains. This is the very nature of Microsoft, it is their business model, it is how they profit.
The very nature of Microsoft is very simple. Whenever a new technology is developed, Microsoft develops a separate, incompatible version of the technology. Then, through its massive marketing capabilities and ties to the industry and deals, it pushes its own technology onto the market, forcing end users to choose and fragmenting the technology space. Some of you may think that this may promote competition is good, but what you have to realize is that the original technology is often an open source project that can be shared by all developers and promote innovation. However, whenever Microsoft introduces its own version, the market is boggled down by a proprietary, closed system that has very little responsibility to developers and worse yet, starts out as quite inferior to the open source alternative. But Microsoft has its methods, and all too often we see these sort of products gets pushed onto the market and gain market share due to Microsoft's tactics.
Worse still, sometimes Microsoft doesn't even develop it's separate, incompatible version. It would at times license the original technology, and then modify it and release it in an incompatible form. The best example of this is what happened to Java when Microsoft was allowed to license it.
If you look into Microsoft's history, you will find that many products and technologies of Microsoft are created this way. The reason that Microsoft is bad is because it fragments the market, preventing the adoption of open standards, and floods it with proprietary software that bears no developer responsibility, causing the creation of compatibility nightmares and issues, resulting in inferior products. All this effectively stalls progress and keeps the technological world from developing as fast as it could have. And all for Microsoft's gain.
@Alex L:
Looking to the past, means little about the future and the present.
Things change. Times have changed. New things have popped up. Old things got pulled down.
You can keep on looking at the best, but that means very little about the future.
Before the Intel Macs, I would have never thought of purchasing a Mac. Well now, the new Intel Macs have a nice look, and work very well. Even though I'm not an OS X person, I like Mac hardware, and luckily, Microsoft allows it to work on Macs.
If I had looked at Apple's past, and say boohoo to anything Apple did, would great things happen? No.
Also, people do not choose a format if it's so 'bad' as you say. So everything Microsoft makes is always 'boggled' 'propietary' and 'closed'? You might as well yet again, say the same thing for Apple. In fact, sometimes I think Apple does it far worse, and is trying to make sure it can control the user experience as much as possible, leaving little room for 3rd parties.
I don't see that as the same for MS. Some of their stuff is pretty good, so people buy it, and are happy. Some aren't good, people don't buy it. That's it.
Back to HD-DVD vs. BluRay: Personally, I prefer HD-DVD. It's usually more cheaper, has just as good technical features as BluRay, and the thought of interactive movie content seems to be great to me.
Who says BluRay has to win? Oh, MS should just drop it, and let someone else win? That's silly. If you really go for BluRay so much, spend on it. Obviously, HD-DVD wouldn't be here if it was so bad, would it? So it's perfectly great to keep HD-DVD, or at least have alternatives than worry about who wins. It's just DVD's. Sheesh.