Have you noticed a change in attitude?

I don't know, but it seems to me that a while back, people were like Windows Sucks, blah, blah, blah, but now I've noticed that people are not hesitant to say, "I like Windows" although they might not like their business tactis at times, but I've noticed a change in attitude. Maybe it's just the places I hang around, I don't know........hanging around I mean online.

I've also noticed this change of attitude. People like different types of Windows in some ways but they don't like the marketing tactics of Microsoft. I don't know what the real reason is, but some thoughts:

Though I must say that marketing tactics of Microsoft isn't as aggressive as it was in the past. I think that they don't need to anymore. They do have some established products which are quite stable, like the Microsoft Office package and certain kinds of Windows. Like Windows CE, which is quite stable and very popular. So they don't need to promote it as much as before.

Further, in the western world, many people, companies, schools etc. have a PC, usually dressed with some kind of Windows. So also their name is known and doesn't need to be promoted.

When looking at the Microsoft strategy through the years, it moved from the PC to the internet. From MS-DOS on the stand- alone PC to Windows on the internet-connected PC. They introduced a lot of internet-based services which currently are packed together in the .NET concept.

But I'm sure .NET is not the end. So maybe they are quiet now because they will come up with something really new, which will cost a lot of promotion. So they want to save money now.

Do you think that Microsoft has gained some respect from PC users, progrably refering more to programmers, after their WinXP realease? Or even Win2k. I mean people are like so Microsoft can develop a good Windows. Myself for example, I used to be really ........ed at Microsoft when I was using ME but now that I have XP I have truly gained a new respect for Microsoft.

I like windows and the games from microsoft, nothing else becuase frontpage screwd up the webpage i did for a project and I had to realign the tables, the flash objects and the images and delete all the crap it created in the site folder

This difference in attitude has largely existed since Microsoft Windows existed. The real difference is that the people you hang out with on-line might now be more mature or less prejudiced. Believe it or not, there is still a large group of young script kiddies who pass on the belief that anything Microsoft, Intel, or AOL is automatically inferior. They will continue to pass on GNU/Linux distributions or some flavor of BSD as being infinitely superior to Microsoft Windows when, quite possibly, they have used neither themselves.

The Microsoft Windows operating system itself is of good technical standing. It does not, from my experience, crash nearly as often as the nay-sayers claim. It is stable, supported, and still programmable as before. GNU/Linux and other flavors of Unix, on the other hand, can be more complicated to install, configure, and use, especially for the computer illiterate.

For programmers, the operating system to use (as the development target) is not the one you like best but, rather, the operating system your customers will use for your program. Because of Windows' large desktop marketshare, this operating system is often the default choice for many types of applications.

>Do you think that Microsoft has gained some respect from PC
>users, progrably refering more to programmers, after their
>WinXP realease? Or even Win2k.

Just a simple question: could there be Microsoft programmers on this board? Yes. They are also people who like programming, the only differnce with other programmers is that they work for Microsoft. I think many programmers are beginning to realise that Microsoft programmers are just the same people like they are. I can imagine there are Microsoft programmers programming for Linux or working on GCC. Why not?

I've always had respect for people who are able to design and implement complex pieces of software, which Windows is. From practice I know that there is very less commercial software which has no big bugs. The only software I know which is very reliable is medical software, defence software and software created by organisations like NASA and CERN. Ofcourse there are more, but I can't remember right now. But also those software is not bugfree, just think about the crash of the Ariane. Or take a look at the history overview of some products like GCC.

Software is made by people and people make mistakes. Compilers, codecheckers and formal code testers can get a lot of warnings and errors, but there will always be mistakes they can't get. Even code reviews by humans are not 100% effective.

>..there is still a large group of young script kiddies who pass on
>the belief that anything Microsoft, Intel, or AOL is automatically
>inferior.

Not just young coders who have just finished their first game. But also older people seem to belief that Microsoft stuff is inferior. Just ask them why, they can't explain.

>For programmers, the operating system to use (as the
>development target) is not the one you like best but, rather, the
>operating system your customers will use for your program.

Considering that also at Microsoft there are people creating applications for their OS'es, I think they sure look at how to improve their OS'es.

i doubt i have enough knowledge to complain about ms's programming ability (right now i can't even fathom how to write something like ms word). but, from the end user perspective i think i have a lot to complain about: ms has lied with impunity under oath, they've created an os that occludes from the average user any attempt to alter fundlemental operating functions, and they make it difficult to use non-ms software (anti-virus, browsing, word-processing, media players, isp's, and so on). they do all this in order to make money. imo, this is cheating and should be criminal, just like the 'bait-n-switch is: lying for money. whether you see me as a kiddie or not, this is enough to grant dislike.

i'm presently in the process of installing slackware, so my base of comparison is between windows 3.1/95 and xp. i wouldn't know, but maybe other os's are like this also; i'll find out soon enough.

>whether you see me as a kiddie or not, this is enough to grant dislike.

The things you mentioned are the bussiness tactics a lot of people don't like. I also don't like it, but it seems to be the way to do bussiness.

But the point was that some people think Microsoft's products are inferior just because they are from Microsoft.

well, i guess that's just the thing now is it not? you can't divorce the product from the business tactics anymore. again, i don't know a bunch about the nuts and bolts of windows, but how the user interacts with the system they are forced to give more money to ms. to me, any system that doesn't do that but still allows for valuable software _is_ better than windows, a priori.

>well, i guess that's just the thing now is it not? you can't divorce
>the product from the business tactics anymore.

You can. You can look at Windows as a programmer, or as a user, or as a bussiness man. That are three different views.

I don't see the problem with microsofts tactics, when you buy a car, parts made by the manufacturer of that car will work best with those cars, if you by a nissan part for a honda, you can expect it to work so well. or something.
I like windows,i have though about trying a non MS os, but they wouldn't run any of my software, and wounldn't support most of my hardware. This is why Windows is so great, it works well on all systems, and only crashes when you try and do complicated stuff on it (like try and play QIII at the same time a scanning something). Despite what i said above, it must be very frustrating for smaller developemant companies, trying to create software, but why should MS give out parts of the source code? When you by a specail food, they don't tell you what the secret ingredient is do they? An why should people think they have the right to decide anything, Windows is not public property isit?

>I don't see the problem with microsofts tactics,

Well, I don't bother very much. It is just how large companies work. But I can imagine for other companies it may be very frustrating, but I don't know very much about such. I'm just a technician, all those marketing strategies and bussiness tactics, to me it's the same as algorithms and datastructures for them.

>This is why Windows is so great, it works well on all systems,

It works on most PC's. The reason why other OS'es don't run your software is that those software isn't written for that OS. Just like software written for other OS'es may not run on Windows.

Hardware support, that depends on the available drivers for the other OS.

>but why should MS give out parts of the source code?

They don't need to. Most commercial companies don't. And I also wouldn't know why they would do it.

It is not the giving out of source code when ever a new company starts developing something really good then microsoft tries to buy them out and if they can't then they will create a product just like to (and most likely better) to kill the competition. If you can not see that then you are blind. They are a monopoly and it shows by the number of OS they release (especially recently). Take for instance when the first released 2000 server they said they would no longer accept the NT certifications. They say they will no longer support this or that and force you to buy the new product. On a side note take a look at the training program. Microsoft will certify you to teach in a single area, but if you move to another area you supposedly are no longer certified so you most repay & retake the same test you took before. So you tell me that you don't see the problem with microsoft tactics. If you don't you are truly blind.

>if they can't then they will create a product just like to (and
>most likely better) to kill the competition.

That's just what every large company would do. If a company feels it is in danger, it will kill the danger. And a monopolist will do everything that is possible to keep that position.

It's just the same as companies who make their prices as low as possible and give advantages to their customers just to make sure other companies can't compete.

>They say they will no longer support this or that and force you
>to buy the new product.

Ofcourse, they are a company and want to get money.

I don't say that I like and don't see the results of such practices, but I only want to say that it is not only Microsoft doing such practices. Just look at other large companies, they do exactly the same. But since Microsoft has a product which is more close to the customer, it is more known and in the news.

" there is still a large group of young script kiddies who pass on the belief that anything Microsoft, Intel, or AOL is automatically inferior... They will continue to pass on GNU/Linux distributions or some flavor of BSD as being infinitely superior to Microsoft Windows when, quite possibly, they have used neither themselves. "

I disagree. It tends to be the people who use Linux who prefer it to Windows, and, likewise, I'd say that the average Linux user is more knowledgible than the average windows user, if by nothing else, because of neccesity. Likewise, I don't think the majority of people who don't use windows think that the OS they use is infinetely better than windows, it simply has some favorable charateristics, whatever they may be.

"For programmers, the operating system to use (as the development target) is not the one you like best but, rather, the operating system your customers will use for your program. Because of Windows' large desktop marketshare, this operating system is often the default choice for many types of applications."

This, again, I disagree with. Perhaps that is the thinking that people who program for money follow, but money is not the only reason to program. Others program because they actually enjoy writing code.