Phoenix Network Forums

Well my experience shows the oposite.
Does anyone exist on this planet who actually likes micro$oft ?
This is something that takes getting used to ...

the reason why people like microsoft is because its more simpler and easier to use as countless people have said before. So yes there are people in the world that do like microsoft. For one Bill Gates

Would be funny though if someone found out bill uses some Linux distro though

It's funny that that happened.They are documents that the microsoft servers used or use linux distros .Well guess windows server 2003 is not secure enough

To the windows fanatics :
If something goes wrong ,it`s always the hardware ,always the fresh install cd ,always the pirated xp....yeah I know always everything but windows ,yes windows is the perfect os ,absolutely perfect to every single byte of the code ...at least that`s what YOU say ,an Mircro$oft.Then I have one question ... why doesn`t even Microsoft use windows for their servers?and don`t come to me saying these lines "it`s a lie" and "prove it" ,I`m not gonna prove anything ,just scan the windows servers ,and you`ll get results like an IIS fingerprint and a linux fingerprint from the same host ... ohhh yeahhh Micro$oft has a secret IIS that runs on linux ... nahh bulsh** ,Microsoft is tring to fool everyone that they use their own low quality product ,but tehy use the open source apache instead ,btw they make sure that Micro$oft products don`t run on any other os.

And if you tell me that your windows never crashes ,and you are actualy doing something with it ,then I`ll trow your same lines back at you "It`s a lie" ,prove it.

The evolution of windows:
All M$ did in vista is ,introduced more stability problems ,and didn`t even change the logo ,all it done is erased Xp and wrote Vista instead ,great improvements.

The evolution of linux:
Wich doesn`t exist today ,may exist tomorrow ,I`m not trying to convince any one that linux is the best operating system of all ,I just write the facts ,let`s face linux has for example multimedia issues ,but the linux comunity is aware of this ,and the changes for exmaple for a desktop envierment from one month to another ,are tremendeous not to mention the kernel.

What to use:linux for internet ,networking ,servers ,desktop etc. and windows for every windows specific thing like gaming.

P.S. not everyone likes pre oranized system configuration ,that runs good with windows ,because it`s expensive!

DjDarkman and darkwizzard, since you're such haters, I'm shocked you've never realized there's a difference between a desktop and a server OS. I'm appalled.

I don't give a shit about vista, I haven't tried it, and I have no intention of buying it once it comes out. I'm talking about XP, so whether MS changed the logo or completely renewed the whole system is absolutely none of my business.

As far as older versions of the Windows OS are concerned, sure I've had my share of problems with Win98, and, be sarcastic as much as you want, most of them were indeed caused by bad hardware - I know, because I checked and always managed to tweak my system and keep it as operational as possible. Another major reason for faulty operation of Windows is pirated software. No, this doesnt mean the OS is bad, it means that people who steal other people's software because they want it (and in most of the cases don't necessarily need it) are silly enough to get pissed at the manufacturer of their OS, rather than blaming their stupidity for installing a suspicious piece of software, downloaded from god-knows-where. While I feel sorry for people who suffer due to cheap malfunctioning hardware, I couldn't care less about morons who steal and then blame Windows for not working right. I'm kind of a hypocrite here, because I myself use pirated software, but I can honestly say that I too am a moron. If, however, my XP was to crash, I couldn't and wouldn't blame Microsoft - I would blame myself. So far, so good.

The reason so many people hate Microsoft is the enormous wealth they gained by developing the most useful and functional operating system. Yeah, I expect an avalanche of crap now, but my grandmother could neither handle linux, nor would she ever want to - especially if there is a GUI-fied user-friendly operating system available. My grandmother might just be an example, but there are millions of grandmothers, as well as millions of people who just don't give a shit about which OS they are using, as long as it works and serves them in their own basic needs - which just happen to be occasional surf and email.

What are my basic needs... PCs I've used with XP and Win2k were mostly either the web/mail combination.. A few were running audio/midi sequencers, and aside from the occasional CPU overload (caused by me, not Windows), I've never had a problem. No, I don't use IBM supercomputers. My current XP machines are the cheapest Dell machine (I don't know where you from or whether Dell is considered a fancy brand name where you are, but the low-end Dells are absolutely horrendous machines), and the cheapest E-machines computer. To make things even sillier, both are Celerons. One of them ran without a single problem for 3 years (not continuously, of course) untill it's power supply died. The other had some problems, and after I replaced the memory, everything works amazing. They are quite low-end machines really, but I can't complain. For a while I hated Dell for their computer's performance, untill I realized I was heavily riding the CPU, and then I started hating myself for not paying $50 extra for a better processor. Why is Linux useless for my needs? Because it doesn't support, nor will it ever support my sound card, or any of the sequencers and virtual instruments I use.

To conclude, I like Microsoft, because I have no reason not to like it. It is user friendly, as of Win2k, or let's say XP, very stable, reliable and dependable.
I don't have anything against Linux, I just refuse to accept it as superior in any way, at least based on my personal experience. Untill Linux is made as user-friendly, and as easy to install as Windows, it will never gain popularity. The main reason installing Linux is fucked up, again, the abundance of disgustingly cheap hardware, and the hardware manufacturers who release crap in order to increase their profit. Even though people often rely on "brand-name" hardware, they don't seem to realize that it's mostly all the same shit, packed in a different box.

I don't use Windows or Linux regularly anymore, I use MacOS X. And I'm not that big a fan of Microsoft either, I just like quarelling with people who hate Microsoft. I usually ask them why Linux is better, and most of them come up with usual crap that doesn't really do it for me. So yeah, this is fun ;]

I don't know how to prove my 'success', but I don't see the reason to prove anything. If I were a hater, I'd do my best to prove myself, especially if I were to show up on a forum and post a truly unique post about how bad Microsoft is. You can do better than that, can't you?

The off-the-shelf machines are so popular because they are cheaper, not more expensive. And their cheapness can also be observed in the machine's performance.

/Bow to zogo.

/ @ darkman who seems to be missing a part of his cerebrum.

zogo wrote:The reason so many people hate Microsoft is the enormous wealth they gained by developing the most useful and functional operating system. Yeah, I expect an avalanche of crap now, but my grandmother could neither handle linux, nor would she ever want to - especially if there is a GUI-fied user-friendly operating system available. My grandmother might just be an example, but there are millions of grandmothers, as well as millions of people who just don't give a s*** about which OS they are using, as long as it works and serves them in their own basic needs - which just happen to be occasional surf and email.

Well If Linux was so popular as Windows and if the majority of the world had used Linux for decades like they use Windows then your grandmother would use it with such ease as she uses Windows.
Who likes that so called "user friendlyness"? Microsoft considers the average computer user totally stupid. Most usefull and functional operating system??? Windows ?
Are we talking about the same Windows XP? I don't think so.Maybe its usefull if you are what microsoft considers you but it's certainly not functional. And it's everithing but not secure.And microsoft didn't gain the money from developing an OS.They had big money from the start from IBM They simply buyed everyone else or made sure that they don't have a place in the market.Well that is a fu**in fair thing to do. They made sure that Windows is the only OS on the market in the start.And even the GUI wasn't there idea.They stole it from the XEROX Parc project.And as for vista the big glass effects and everything else please take a look at the SUN Looking Glass project ...

I just feel sorry for the average computer users who fall for advertising.

As for the pireted windows the original is the same.I know.I used it ...

And as for you liking to quarrel with people who hate microsoft and having your fun in this I just say:No comment ...

Samppa wrote:/Bow to zogo.

/ @ darkman who seems to be missing a part of his cerebrum.

good think you're not missing yours ...

Yeah but does your gandmother have the money to buy the expensive windows xp ,an anti-virus program and a firewal?

About windowos being a gui-only os.
This is a big stupidity from microsoft ,because ,if someone asks me for help ,and doesn`t know how windows works ,it`s a hell helping him.Let`s take an example :

my friend doesn`t know ,if he has a program installed or not and I need to know it in order to help him

if he uses windows ,I need to go trough hell while telling him to click on the start button and click on the control panel ....and so on

if he uses linux all I need to tell him are a few simple shell command and all he needs is to read the output

so its way easier helping people using linux ,and they don`t have problems with all the viruses and worms ,and people using linux doesn`t have to be rich people ,because linux is free.

Pirated windows
Did you ever played a pirated game and actualy felt that it`s pirated?
Neighter do I
"Pirated Windows" is a copy of the original windows ,only difference : the serial number(cd key) is not a true one ,or maybe it has an activation crack two.
But there is another type of "Pirated Windows" that is highly modified by non-microsoft people ,these are the better ones ,these actualy have some stability and include all windows features.I know this because I use one next to my Kubuntu linux ,and believe me ,the pirated XP that is highly modified and it`s installer is only 150MB actualy works better ,this means you can`t blame the hardware for windows performance issues.

Well If Linux was so popular as Windows and if the majority of the world had used Linux for decades like they use Windows then your grandmother would use it with such ease as she uses Windows.

If it were so popular... but it's not, and it will never be. Besides, my grandmother is not using Windows because majority of the world is using it. She's using it because it's easy to use.

Who likes that so called "user friendlyness"? Microsoft considers the average computer user totally stupid. Most usefull and functional operating system??? Windows ?

You know why Microsoft considers the average user totally stupid? Because the average user is stupid. The average computer user is completely uninterested in the politics behind his operating system; the average computer user doesn't even use the words "operating system", because they don't need to use it - it's a platform that allows them to do their work, or have fun. The very, very small minority of computer users are actually bothering themselves with even thinking about operating systems; an even fewer minority also tries to convince others that thinking about OS is important for whatever reason. Face it, it's not.

Are we talking about the same Windows XP? I don't think so.Maybe its usefull if you are what microsoft considers you but it's certainly not functional. And it's everithing but not secure.And microsoft didn't gain the money from developing an OS.They had big money from the start from IBM They simply buyed everyone else or made sure that they don't have a place in the market.Well that is a fu**in fair thing to do. They made sure that Windows is the only OS on the market in the start.And even the GUI wasn't there idea.They stole it from the XEROX Parc project.And as for vista the big glass effects and everything else please take a look at the SUN Looking Glass project ...

If Windows were not functional, hundreds of millions of people would never use it. People who use Windows don't use it because they like the company that makes it; they use it because it's the only OS they know of, and the reason they only know of Windows is because, again, it's very functional and easy to use. A person who's aware that the majority of people in the world are using Windows and then claims it's not functional - can only be called dellusional.

I guess I should note it again: the average computer user doesnt give a shit about how and why their OS is made. They couldn't care less if it were stolen, or taken out of a hat, or made out of pixie dust, and there is absolutely no reason in the world they should spend a milisecond of their time thinking about it. Similarly, I couldn't care less - what I wanna see is the final product. If everyone in the world would get upset thinking about the whole fuckin history of every single thing they buy - we'd have a pretty stressed out planet. To put it in fewer words - I don't give a shit how MS is making their OS - as long as it's as easy to use, as easy to maintain, and as supported by the major hardware and software manufacturers, there's just no alternative.

And if you really think the reason the average computer user uses Windows because of advertising... you should try applyinig some reasoning and logic before writing here.

Yeah but does your gandmother have the money to buy the expensive windows xp ,an anti-virus program and a firewal?

Expensive? I gotta admit I bought her XP PRo with the educational discount, and it was cheaper than XP home. Even if I hadn't, for all the functionality and ease-of-use, I'd say Microsoft set a pretty decent price for their OS. if you come back with "but Linux is free", I'll ask you: "If it's free, and so fuckin good, how come it's only getting ~0.2% of the desktop market?" ;] My grandmother uses a free anti-virus, and has a router firewall - true, she doesn't visit porn or warez websites, and what do you know? Never a single glitch.

About windowos being a gui-only os.
This is a big stupidity from microsoft ,because ,if someone asks me for help ,and doesn`t know how windows works ,it`s a hell helping him.Let`s take an example :

my friend doesn`t know ,if he has a program installed or not and I need to know it in order to help him

if he uses windows ,I need to go trough hell while telling him to click on the start button and click on the control panel ....and so on

if he uses linux all I need to tell him are a few simple shell command and all he needs is to read the output

Are you serious? You can't blame an operating system for having a retard for a friend. A person who doesn't know if they have a program installed on their computer is just plain stupid.

No, I've never played a pirated game. I never played games at all.

Activation crack? I'm sorry I see a difference between an OS, and a pirated version of the same OS that requires an activation crack. Call me skeptical. As far as the modified versions, I've never heard of it. Seeing how Windows is a closed-source OS, the only way of doing something like modifying it would require some industrial espionage (getting a copy of the leaked source is just as illegal as stealing it), and it's really a pirated OS. Since I have no problems with XP's commercial release, I don't see a reason of potentially fucking up my system with a suspicious copy of a pirated operating system. Still, just to make you feel better, I'd like you to leave me a link or two, so I can see what you're talking about.

darkwizzard wrote:

Samppa wrote:/Bow to zogo.

/ @ darkman who seems to be missing a part of his cerebrum.

good think you're not missing yours ...

Sory dude, but if someone thinks he's going to make anyone change their minds about windows with unaccounted, biased and nonsensical views, while making a generalization of the 'typical' windows user, there must be something loose.

Looks more as if the guy resents windows for personal reasons.

Samppa wrote:Sory dude, but if someone thinks he's going to make anyone change their minds about windows with unaccounted, biased and nonsensical views, while making a generalization of the 'typical' windows user, there must be something loose.

Looks more as if the guy resents windows for personal reasons.

Who are you to judge people ?

Well if the users don't care about the big pricetag on Windows ,they don't care about that they need to buy BIG ram and BIG juicy hardware, if they don't care about windows being lame and Microsoft robbing people , if they don't care
about freezing and crashing , and if they don't care about it's ugliness and unpracticallness then they are stupid.

I dissagre on the topic of linux never being so widely spread like windows.That OS is making BIG progress unfortanetly we never seen anithing new from microsoft ...

And on windows being user friendly.Only one word I can say: bullsh*t!
People can't even install windows , as they can't install Linux.Like you said: they just don't care, they just learn where to click for doing there work or for having fun.The Linux interface (kde for example) is way easyer. They would just learn where to click to do the job in linux and they would get the work done without freezing many times or paying fortune.

And no matter how retarted one is are I supose that he can read and type and it's way much easier to say on the phone that write
sudo apt-get install kate
then to say click on the start menu , go to programs , select internet explorer, go to the folowing site , click on the download link , save it to the desktop, find it on the desktop, double click it, click next ,next ,I aggree, Finish ...
You must admit that it's way easyer.And what if the pretty gui drivven windows can't boot.You have to reinstall it.There is no way to recovery.Well except that useless recovery console on the install cd.

Again I say if you'r satisfied with windows use it but don't tell people illusions that it's superiour.

Who are you to call 90% of computer users stupid?

Whether Linux has made a big progress or not doesn't have much to do with the fact that it will never spread as widely as Windows. If you're honestly thinking it will, you're delusional. 90% of the Windows users have never heard of Linux, nor do they know what Linux is, and I doubt they care to find out.

I'm sorry, but whatever you say is not going to make me believe Linux is easier to use than Windows. I'll repeat - if it were that amazing and so much easier to use, and even free!, how come it has a menial portion of the market? Please don't tell me people are stupid. As far as clicking vs. typing, are you serious? People don't like typing! People like clicking! People even like talking into a microphone and let the computer transcribe it and use it. People use computers for work and as a hobby; people are practical and busy, some are lazy. And people, above all, don't care about the politics behind their OS. If it works, it's ok.

You seem to feel personally attacked when I say Windows works fine for me and most of the people I know. Relax. "Superior" might be a wrong word to use, I agree. But what's the bigger illusion - that Windows is a superior, or that Linux will become a widely spread desktop OS? ;]

You cannot consider yourself an average computer user, and you cannot just assume so many people will change their minds and start thinking about you - because they won't.

darkwizzard wrote:

Samppa wrote:Sory dude, but if someone thinks he's going to make anyone change their minds about windows with unaccounted, biased and nonsensical views, while making a generalization of the 'typical' windows user, there must be something loose.

Looks more as if the guy resents windows for personal reasons.

Who are you to judge people ?

lmao, straw man.
Where did I even judge anyone btw?