Evil Microsoft

[AppleMatt]

In my typically tactless and controversial style, I'd like everyone to provide stories/links etc to evil things Microsoft have done in their time.

This is partly because I'm always reading tidbits and never seeing them again, and partly because a friend just emailed to say Microsoft were the lesser of two evils compared to Apple. So I want to bash him.

(before anyone bashes me for being a Mac zealot, I used PC's before Macs and own more Windows machines than Macs)

AppleMatt

[patrick0brien]

"Evil Microsoft"

-AppleMatt

Under redundant in the dictionary, it says "see redundant".

Sorry. Door- wiiiide.

:D

Ok. Point one. Motivations.

Apple's corporate spirit is founded around creating the best possible computing life experience possible.

Microsoft's corporate spirit is to sell as much software possible.

These are not compatible spirits.

So automatically you get the Quality vs. Quantity thing.

Where does this interface with the people of the companies? Apple employees can get excited about putting something into the computing experience that adds to life. Microsoft employees can get exited about a new plug-in that closes ports to security problems.

Neither is wrong or right. But it is illustrative of the focus of the products.

End result: Apple is incredibly customer focused, Microsoft is not.

[Powerbook G5]

Earlier this summer my sister had a big problem with XP. She had to reinstall a lot of stuff, including Word. Well, because of the registry key issue, if Windows detects that you attempted to install and use the same key a second time, it basically locks it out and refuses to let you use word at all. She was still in school and needed to use word to finish her papers for her finals in high school. What did I have to do? Spend 2 hours on the phone begging them to let us use a second key! They were basically like "Oh well, you can buy a new version of Word XP for only $199." What the heck kind of customer policy is that? You have to reinstall because *there* product was not stable and then force you to *repurchase* because of their mistakes. After a complete run-around for a couple of hours I told them what I thought of their customer service, of their business tactics, about how sick it is they will let my sister in the room crying her eyes our because she is going to fail her class, and have us beg them to let us use a program purchased by us. It took the combined compaining an begging by me an the threats of my dad to sue for bad business tactics before they finally gave us a new registry key to make it work again.

How does Apple deal with your use of their software? You pop in the CD, click install, and you can use it. As simple as that.

So who is the lesser of two evils?

I'm afraid when Bill dies, he might find a way to create a monopoly in hell and steal the power of evil from the Devil himself.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Earlier this summer my sister had a big problem with XP. She had to reinstall a lot of stuff, including Word. Well, because of the registry key issue, if Windows detects that you attempted to install and use the same key a second time, it basically locks it out and refuses to let you use word at all. She was still in school and needed to use word to finish her papers for her finals in high school. What did I have to do? Spend 2 hours on the phone begging them to let us use a second key! They were basically like "Oh well, you can buy a new version of Word XP for only $199." What the heck kind of customer policy is that? You have to reinstall because *there* product was not stable and then force you to *repurchase* because of their mistakes. After a complete run-around for a couple of hours I told them what I thought of their customer service, of their business tactics, about how sick it is they will let my sister in the room crying her eyes our because she is going to fail her class, and have us beg them to let us use a program purchased by us. It took the combined compaining an begging by me an the threats of my dad to sue for bad business tactics before they finally gave us a new registry key to make it work again.

How does Apple deal with your use of their software? You pop in the CD, click install, and you can use it. As simple as that.

So who is the lesser of two evils?

I'm afraid when Bill dies, he might find a way to create a monopoly in hell and steal the power of evil from the Devil himself.

I dont know what the heck you are talking about with the registry key locking you out. I have reinstalled windows several times, and each time I reinstalled word, i used the same registry key; no problems. Maybe your sister should have typed more carefully. :)

[cwedl]

Bill Gates is a good businessman

[Powerbook G5]

Well it was a student edition and apparently it conflicted with what Windows' registry was reading (it was purchased after the computer) so I have no clue, but it was logged as invalid use of multiple copies or whatever by the computer.

[crackpip]

If you want a good article about why microsoft is evil, checkout the website,
microsuck.com (http://microsuck.com). This is the site formally known as ****microsoft.com.

The article is entitled "What's so bad about Microsoft?" or some variant thereof.

crackpip

[xpormac]

Originally posted by cwedl
I wouldn't say Microsoft is Evil, when people go out ot buy their first time pc they go with Microsoft PCS because they are slightly cheaper. Microsoft Produces software that has to work on generic hardware, because of this their software is unstable. Businesses use Microsoft software because they like wasting their time on instablities and money on technical support, they like having their personal files leaked onto the internet by hackers.

Consumers like wasting their money on computers that have a life span of a hamster.


this post is nothing but trash, sorry. So is this thread<not trying to offend threadmaker> but dang, microsoft is a company. Companies want money. Same as Apple. Get over this "ooooh bad microsoft.....your software sucks......your company is the devil!" nonsense. Microsofts software is not unstable. People don't wast their money on a PC. They buy a product that they wanted. Thats not wasting their money. Also, they are not slightly cheeper. They are much cheeper. Businesses don't use microsoft software because they like wasting money. As for having their personal files leaked onto the internet by hackers....Thank you, I needed to laugh :rolleyes: . Hamsters can live 5 years. Thats a good enough timespan for any computer :D

[Powerbook G5]

Many things to say about that, but I'll be nice. Simply put, Microsoft software is not cheap. If you think PCs are that stable, then I guess the rest of the world has been living in an alternate reality. And if a few years is what you consider a decent lifespan for a computer, then I feel sorry for you. I've seen so many Macs that are going on 20 years old that are still working perfectly. Our last Gateway lasted about 2 1/2 years and not a single part in the computer was original (replaced 3 power supplies, 2 modems, 3 HDs, 2 logic boards, 4 CD burners...) As far as business tactics, at least Apple is customer friendly. Whenever I've had a problem, Apple has gone out of their way to repair, fix, or solve the problem for me. Microsoft's solution is basically "Buy another one and give us more money". If you don't like this thread, then by all means, don't read it, but a lot of these points are valid, if you excuse the sprinklings of our distain for Microsoft (which I have to say is pretty much justified).

[AppleMatt]

xpormac,
I wasn't offended by your post, but it's far from accurate (in places). Windows is stable? Product that they wanted? Usable life-span of a machine?

As for the personal files leaked, it happens. Pretending it doesn't won't help anyone! I guess that could also be applied/extended to the metadata in Word documents that most people are unaware of.

For the record, I don't want Microsoft to die or anything like that, as I said I have more Windows machines than Macs, if Microsoft went under I'd be in quite a bit of trouble.

Just harmless fun, as I indicated with "tactless and controversial style", it's nothing serious. Also remember it's usually better to say "I don't agree with this post/thread" instead of "This is trash", much less chance for offence ;).

AppleMatt

[xpormac]

Gateways are trash. Period.



Just harmless fun, as I indicated with "tactless and controversial style", it's nothing serious. Also remember it's usually better to say "I don't agree with this post/thread" instead of "This is trash", much less chance for offence .


Sorry, lol should have said that. Felt like getting people going. Classes just started back up and biology is already wanting to kick my ass hehe.

[Powerbook G5]

Bio is fine...it's calculus that is evil.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Bio is fine...it's calculus that is evil.


microsoft evil :D lol.

[Powerbook G5]

Perhaps Bill's middle name is Calculus...oh the evilness of it.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by cwedl
Consumers like wasting their money on computers that have a life span of a hamster.

Heeeeeeeeeeey!

;)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by xpormac
People don't wast their money on a PC. They buy a product that they wanted.

Or they don't know alternatives (Mac, Linux, etc.) exist and they think that Wintel is the only option. People buy whatever they see at the store.

They are much cheeper.

I don't see how the noises they make make them better. ;) PCs may be cheaper up-front (even that is arguable) but the long-term favors Macs by quite a margin.

Businesses don't use microsoft software because they like wasting money.

No, they use it because MS has a monopoly and their products have become a standard for office and productivity work. MS competes viciously to keep their hold on business licenses and cries bloody murder if a large contract (such as a country) opts for something else.

As for having their personal files leaked onto the internet by hackers....Thank you, I needed to laugh :rolleyes:

Yeah, MSBlast and Sobig have everyone rolling in the aisles as they clog up large networks like my university. :rolleyes:


At any rate, I think calling MS "evil" is quite a stretch. However, they are very competitive, but already have a strong hold on the market. They are constantly in court for stealing other people's work and for antitrust infringement - ample reason to dislike them.

[bobindashadows]

Actually, I have a feeling that the employees at Apple get excited about the new Operating System, and MS employees can rejoice over the fact that their paychecks are larger than Apple Employees. I don't have facts, but I wouldn't surprised at all if MS employees made more then Apple. Apparently Apple's employees are notoriously underpaid for their work compared to the same work at other companies (I forget where I read this, sorry)

[Powerbook G5]

I'd still rather work for Apple than work for Microsoft (unless I were an undercover Apple employee working for Microsoft and could collect on two paychecks while I slap Apple stickers on everything). :)

[coopdog]

Companies want money. Same as Apple. Get over this "ooooh bad microsoft.....your software sucks......your company is the devil!" nonsense.

All I have to say is... Oh my god hold on!

Bill get away from my dog!

He tried to steal the latest XP update!!

Bill, I thought they were free.

No, now if people want XP to work they must PAAAAYYYY!!! NOW HE MUST PAY!

He's a DOG BILL!

I DON'T CARE, HE MUST PAY!

Bill put the $%^&*#% shovel down!


STEVE Help me!!!

Bill sees Steve and runs away like a little girl.

Steve how did you get him to run away!??!!

I just showed him a pic of our G5. He's just running to his legal department to see what they can steal from our design. :p :p

Then Steve and I go on a bike ride and have a great time.

What ever I'm bored :rolleyes::

[RobVanDam]

Here's a question.

How many satisfied customers does each company have?

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has more.

[coopdog]

I use OS X on a 350 G4, pretty slow. I use XP pro on a 2.4 GHZ PC fast. I enjoy OS X MUCH BETTER.

[Horrortaxi]

I see no other goal for Microsoft than complete world domination. First off, you don't get 90% market share of ANYTHING unless you've lied, cheated, and stolen your way to it. Then, once you have the impossibly high market share of 90%, if you're not happy and want more and enter into new areas, then world domination must be your goal. We're about at the point where Gates/Hitler comparisons aren't inappropraite.

Somebody mentioned microsuck.com--read that. It pretty much sums it up.

[laukev7]

I am a member and frequent poster at Microsuck, and let me tell you that the article only barely scratches the surface. There are some interesting discussions in the forums, too. You could learn about many Microsoft stories that would make your skin crawl, believe me.

I should post here more often.

[Powerbook G5]

I should get my mom to read the site...the other day I saw her subscribing for a .NET passport and I told her about all the shadey things Microsoft does to its customers and all and she didn't believe me until I made her read through the full EULA, after a good while with that, she decided not to subscribe and now she's a bit bothered by using XP.

[cwedl]

QUOTE]Originally posted by xpormac
this post is nothing but trash, sorry. So is this thread<not trying to offend threadmaker> but dang, microsoft is a company. Companies want money. Same as Apple. Get over this "ooooh bad microsoft.....your software sucks......your company is the devil!" nonsense. Microsofts software is not unstable. People don't wast their money on a PC. They buy a product that they wanted. Thats not wasting their money. Also, they are not slightly cheeper. They are much cheeper. Businesses don't use microsoft software because they like wasting money. As for having their personal files leaked onto the internet by hackers....Thank you, I needed to laugh :rolleyes: . Hamsters can live 5 years. Thats a good enough timespan for any computer :D [/QUOTE]


xpormac - I may have go a bit out of hand, but when you work with customers who don't know anything about computing, when placed in front of an apple or a pc they agree that apples look better and that the operating system looks better but they don't buy one because of compatiblity when all they use it for is the internet, e-mails, music and photos; I get fed up of ignorant customers.

Secondly I also work for a company every other week sorting out their Microsoft computer systems, so many problems occur it really drives me crazy.

I don't own a mac, I will order a 12" powerbook soon.

I will always have a Microsoft pc well as an apple because each operating systems have their own advantages and disadvantages. I just don't like the fact that personal privacy means nothing to Microsoft, I don't break the law, and all my software is legal, so why does this bother me, well I just like to be trusted, Loads of people I know use pirated software, they ruin it for the rest of us.

No one I know privates apple software, they feel respect for Apple.

Sorry if you felt my last post was trash maybe I went to far lol :D

P.s. my Hamster lasted 2 years!!

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by cwedl
P.s. my Hamster lasted 2 years!!

Mine too. I was gutted when he died, although it was an adult when I got him.

:( Poor hammy (yes I called him hammy. I was young.)

AppleMatt

[applemacdude]

Ah...All this reminds me of a little thing that happened between me and microsuck. Back then in '97. My dad bought me a copy of encarta 97 through macwharehouse. So when i get the cd and pop it in install everything i open it. Encarta 97 was a two cd pack( ie you had to had to eject the cd snd pop in disc # 2 in to get to a ceretain part of the app) The disc # 1 was mac but the disc #2 was a windows disc. So my dad called microsuck and told them about our problem with the mix up. They said that couldnt give us a replacement because i opened the box. WTF is that? Of course I opened the box. How was i to ****en supposed to use it? My dad got pissed at them and we just returned the dics to macwharehouse and bought the groiler encyclopedia. :rolleyes:

[Daveman Deluxe]

This isn't specifically about Microsoft, but remember the flap when there were manufacturing flaws in the Pentium processors, maybe back in 1995 or so? That was pretty funny for me to watch.

Of course, the Classic Calculator DA told you that one minus one isn't zero...

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I'm afraid when Bill dies, he might find a way to create a monopoly in hell and steal the power of evil from the Devil himself.

That is going into my sig RIGHT NOW!

Hilarious Powerbook G5. Just plain hilarious.

[plinkoman]

businesses use windows because of IT departments, they don't all want to lose of their jobs, so they recommend the option which needs the most maintenence

consumers use windows because they don't know there are alternatives, and if they do know, they don't know how or why they are better and opt for the cheaper machine or the machine their used to

regarding the maintenence thing, a major factor for consumers, in windows, 95% of the programs you install create an entry in a file called 'msconfig' instructing windows to open that program in some form or another (tray, background etc...) on startup. the average joe who reads email and writes stuff on word, may not install much, but it does add up. many years ago, i had a 475MHz(not bad at the time) running windows 98, and about 6 or 7 months after buying it, startup time had slow from around a minute to 7 minutes, and the computers responsiveness was (not an exagguration) slightly less responsive then my previous computer (25MHz 486). calling any support line, either microsoft or compaq, i was told i needed to purchase more ram, so i raised it from 64MB(again, not bad for the time) to 256MB, and it helped, slightly, but it was still painfully slow. finnaly my uncle tells me about this msconfig program, i open it up, deselect everything, restarted the computer, and the speed tripled. now, its not that big of a deal having it set up to make all those entries in msconfig, but having it in no help manuals, or never mentioning it when calling for support, just because they want you to buy more hardware, which will indirectly give them more $$, is obserd. that may have been a long time ago, but i have a relativly new windows system laying around, running on xp pro, and that has not changed, it still makes useless entries in msconfig, and no help or support will tell you that.

[Horrortaxi]

Have you ever thought about how many jobs are needed, and how much money is generated, because Windows sucks? Utilities, anti-virus, RAM, big hard drives--all fairly expensive things that people buy to appease the insatiable Windows demon. Then there's the people who make/sell/market all that stuff--the companies that make money shipping it from here to there. A lot of people depend on Windows to suck in order to keep their jobs. It's really pretty scary.

[xpormac]

Utilities, anti-virus, RAM, big hard drives


wtf? mac has these things too.

[Horrortaxi]

Originally posted by xpormac
wtf? mac has these things too.

You can buy system utilities and anti-virus for the Mac, but most people don't do it because they don't need to. On the Windows side of the fence these are always top-sellers. Look at Amazon's (or anybody's) top 10 sellers and half of it is always versions of Windows and system utilities/anti-virus.

Obviously Macs also have RAM and hard drives. Windows requires you to upgrade both at a faster rate than the Mac. RAM is part of the "tweaking Windows voodoo." If your system slows down you just pop in more RAM. It probably won't help, but it's a standard reaction. I mentioned hard drives because each version of Windows is much bigger than the last and an OS "upgrade" might require a bigger hard drive. That's probably more true on older computers though where you'd have to upgrade from a 2GB to 5GB to make room for 98, then a much bigger one for XP.

[Rower_CPU]

I don't think the RAM and hard drive points hold much water, Horrortaxi.

OS X sees huge returns in performance the more RAM you feed it, and the base install is well over a gigabyte these days, with Panther nearing 2.

I agree that antivirus and system maintenance utilities are much more important on the PC side, though.

[Horrortaxi]

The hard drive issue is dated and throwing RAM at Windows is a very common way to try to make it run better--although the slowdown is from haystacking so it won't quite do what it's expected to do.

My point was just that there are a lot of people whose jobs rely on Windows sucking, and a lot of revenue is generated because Windows sucks.

[SiliconAddict]

Microsoft the lesser of two evils my ***. First and foremost the very nature of MS and its culture is based on arrogance personified in its executives. That doesn’t mean I don’t think Jobs isn’t an arrogant prick. I do. The big difference is that MS can flaunt it in the market place Apple cannot. (Jobs and Gates are 2 sides of the same quarter. I think it market share was reversed Jobs as be just as big of an *** as gates.) For MS to stay on top for the time being all they have to do is nothing. Truly. They don’t have to do a dang thing. For Apple to even stay alive they need to be better then the rest. They have no choice in the matter. Its either that or close up shop.

As to what is evil about MS…

Patches......to.....many....God $(*@&(........PATCHES!!

ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Honestly though. If I have to ever do the mass patch shuffle for the 164 machines we did week before last in this office I'm going to go on a cross country kill'n spree at every MS office around.

*looks up* Starting off with the folks on the 9th floor. We have a MS office 5 floors above me. My dream is that someday Billy Boy shows up and I end up in an elevator with him. I'd hock a luggey on the guy big time. I despise him and Ballmer with a passion. (It could be argued an unhealthy one at that.)
MS could be a good software company. I truly believe it. I’ve met more then a few cool MS employees with your occasional snotty a-wipe thrown in for good measure.
If the heads of MS were fired tomorrow and the creative juices of the people working there were really let loose I firmly believe something cool would be released by MS. As it stands once every few years MS squats and deposits crap like XP. (To be fair Win2K rocks if it weren’t for the blasted patches again!)
Windows. What can really be said about Windows? The experience ain’t that great. It’s passable as a operating system but really that’s all that can be said about it. Until 2K I loathed it. I firmly believe that the staunchest supporters of the Mac have to be people that are IT\IS based. We deal with the crap MS puts out on a day in\out basis. For me it’s a matter of I don’t want to deal with the same crap I deal with in the office when I get home.
Actually when I went to NT4 way back when I never touched 9x ever again. The developers of 9x should be charged with crimes against humanity. Check that I mean developers of ME, 98 is somewhat tolerable as a rash can be tolerated. I went NT, then 2K. My god a decent OS by MS. What a concept.
I looked forward to XP until the first shoe dropped. Product activation. Ummm I think NOT. I don’t need to be treated like a criminal when I haven’t even done anything.
Then I finally had the chance to use XP RC1-2 for a few months. It was OK but looking at the overall system usage. The GUI itself took anywhere from 5-20% of system resources when just sitting idle. WTH. The final shoe dropped when I discovered that XP home version is basically XP Pro with a crap load of items that the business users needs disabled. Its not as if there were separate tracks for XP home and XP Pro. They are nearly identical OS’s with simply key features disabled. So I blew away XP and went back to 2K and haven’t looked at it since. XP can be functional if you tweak the crap out of it. Otherwise just go 2K and you have XP without: fast user switching, fast startup, the fisher Price GUI which kinda grew on me but not at the sacrifice of 5-20% of my system resources, and system restore which if you think about it isn’t much more then what an ERD does in 2K and NT. The only thing about XP that did impress me was its software support. I had multiple DOS games that ran nearly flawless on XP. I have to admit I sat there with a crap eating grin on my face for at least 5 minutes as I played Wing Commander III. Well done MS.
XP is a lot of fluff. A .5 upgrade of 2K. And I resent MS for even squatting….I mean releasing such a product.
Again we get back to what is evil about MS. The only thing evil about them is their executives. Get rid of these guys: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bod/ And you have a chance at a good company. As it stands the only reason MS exists isn’t to make good software its to make as much money as possible. Software is secondary on the minds of these guys. They only release or update a product if it drives the bottom line.
Someone once told me Microsoft is a marketing company that just happens to make software. I laughed at the time. Now I truly believe it.

PS- Um sorry for the 2 page babbling. You get me started on MS I can go on for 4+ pages. I have one such example on ZDNET. I think it was about 5 pages long.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
I mentioned hard drives because each version of Windows is much bigger than the last and an OS "upgrade" might require a bigger hard drive. That's probably more true on older computers though where you'd have to upgrade from a 2GB to 5GB to make room for 98, then a much bigger one for XP.

The main reason each version of Windows is larger is because of the driver cache is expanding with each release of Windows. Yes there is some bloat going on there but for the most part it comes back to drivers. The ONLY thing going for MS is their hardware support. There isn't anything out there that rivals MS for the amount of hardware it supports out of the box. However this can be a blessing and a curse all at once. I've run into more then a few instances where MS uses its own drivers for a PCMCIA NIC and refuses to use the ones that are newer provided by the hardware manufacturer. I've had to "trick" windows into using it, which is always amusing.

Also there is something to be said that W2K install is somewhere in the 500MB range and WinXP is in the 800MB-1GB range. These systems typically require a 300Mhz CPU minimum to function decently. (However I've run 2K on a 166Mhz system before. Its not fun but doable.) Typically 300Mhz Intel based systems have at least a 4GB HD for a 300Mhz system. You can typically get a ballpark figure as to what size hard drive you are running by the CPU speed because drives are typically purchased at the time of the computer sale.
My point? Just that Windows won't really run well on anything less then a 300Mhz system which almost makes OS size a moot point.
If you are talking a system of less then 3 years of age its even less relevant with hard drive sizes ranging from 10GB to 120+GB in size.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Patches......to.....many....God $(*@&(........PATCHES!!
I wonder...if someone installed every single patch that MS offered, how much of the original code would be left?

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
I wonder...if someone installed every single patch that MS offered, how much of the original code would be left?

Small trivia note about MS. I don't know if Apple does this with their updates but MS service packs actually get code names. Windows 2000 SP1 was called Astroid. I don’t know off the top of my head what the other SP’s were called.
Maybe its just me but if you have to gave a service pack a code name that not a good thing. *shrugs*

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Small trivia note about MS. I don't know if Apple does this with their updates but MS service packs actually get code names. Windows 2000 SP1 was called Astroid. I don’t know off the top of my head what the other SP’s were called.
Maybe its just me but if you have to gave a service pack a code name that not a good thing. *shrugs*

-SiliconAddict

Well, MS departed the x.x.x numbering convention with '95. And therefore switched the marketing names of minor updates to "Service Pack", thought to be fair, a service pack is more analogous to a middle point (x.#.x) update, not exacly minor, but not a win2k to XP upgrade.

Yes, Apple has code names for it's updates (Service Packs). I'm going from memory here, but with Jaguar, there was "Blue", "Yellow", "Pink" I know I got the details wrong here, but they used colors to codename the 10.2.# updates.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
...there was "Blue", "Yellow", "Pink"...
JOE
Here are your names... Mr. Brown, Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Blue, Mr. Orange, and Mr. Pink.

MR. PINK
Why am I Mr. Pink?

JOE
Because[...]

MR. PINK
Why can't we pick our own colors?

JOE
No way, no way. Tried it once, it doesn't work. You get four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black. But they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way, I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow.

:cool: <--That's Mr. Yellow!

[patrick0brien]

-idea_hamster

Reservoir Dogs?

It's either that, or somebody'd better lay off mixing caffeine with Ibuprofen on an empty stomach :D

[Powerbook G5]

But that's how Apple motivates its software team to innovate :)

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
Obviously Macs also have RAM and hard drives. Windows requires you to upgrade both at a faster rate than the Mac. RAM is part of the "tweaking Windows voodoo." If your system slows down you just pop in more RAM. It probably won't help, but it's a standard reaction. I mentioned hard drives because each version of Windows is much bigger than the last and an OS "upgrade" might require a bigger hard drive. That's probably more true on older computers though where you'd have to upgrade from a 2GB to 5GB to make room for 98, then a much bigger one for XP.

Ok, if you started with 2gb of hard drive space, you're running something in the range of a Pentium 100-150. Thats like 1994 land, OS X or Windows 2k or XP will not run well on any computer from 1994. Nor should you expect them to. Thats 10 years ago.

Adding RAM is voodoo? How is adding ram voodoo? Any platform will benefit from more ram. I guess the Principal of Locality Reference doesn't apply to Macs.

Anyway, lets look at space requirements. From Apple's site for OS X: 3gb recommended.

Windows XP: 1.5 Gb Recommended.

Yep, those Windows updates keep getting bigger and bigger.

Please go check your facts before you start spreading misinformation around.

Microsoft is far from evil, they are a company, a very big one, they are out to make money, not to make the "best computing platform around" and neither is Apple. For all they say when it comes down to it, they want to make the most money using the least amount of expedeture. If they were in microsoft's position, with so many products in so many different fields, they would be the same way.

Can anybody name one large company in size range such as Microsoft that is nice?

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
Reservoir Dogs?
You got it!

I always love moments that show how it's life that imitates art rather than the other way around -- it keeps my faith in human innovation high. :)

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
But that's how Apple motivates its software team to innovate :)
You know, I've always heard tales of Steve's methods, as they said in the Great War, "pour encourager les autres" -- a euphamism for shooting deserters/cowards/Yosarian. This included that story about some Apple guy who left a Jaguar screen shot on his shareable files and it wound up on the 'net. Fired.

I suppose when you have a devoted following, you don't need to put up with mediocrity. I'm not sure I could really enjoy myself working at Apple knowing that I get "zero strikes" before I hit the bricks.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
I'm not sure I could really enjoy myself working at Apple knowing that I get "zero strikes" before I hit the bricks.

-idea_hamster

Well, that depends on how big the strike is.

At pretty much any corporate environment, if you punched your boss - or even a coworker - you'd be hitting the bricks pretty fast.

This screenshot incident would fall into violating company policy for trade secrets, not to mention violating an NDA. That's a pretty big double strike.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
This screenshot incident would fall into violating company policy for trade secrets, not to mention violating an NDA. That's a pretty big double strike.
You're right. I thought about it and you're right. It wasn't a small thing -- and I don't think that it was ever clear why this guy had screenshots on his home computer anyway.

Oh, and that punching my co-workers in the face? Don't tempt me, man -- sometimes people just beg for it!

"Oh...yeah...I remember that print job you asked for two weeks ago...it's odd how some of it didn't print out."

"And you didn't tell anyone? OK, for future reference, this is not called 'odd'. This is called 'AN EMERGENCY!'"

[Horrortaxi]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Please go check your facts before you start spreading misinformation around.


For crying out loud! My point was that a lot of people's jobs depend on Microsoft dropping the ball. Because Windows has so many problems a lot of people outside of Microsoft make a lot of money. It's just an interesting thing I realized. Nobody has given a rebuttal to that. I've conceded the hard drive thing already, but the RAM voodoo is valid. Sure a system will benefit from as much RAM as you can give it, but feeding it RAM when it starts to slow down doing the same things it's always done is voodoo and it's very common. It may work for a while, until the registry bloats up some more. I've done my research, unfortunately, as a Windows user from 3.1 to XP. I know what I'm talking about. This is all out of context now though.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
RAM is part of the "tweaking Windows voodoo." If your system slows down you just pop in more RAM. It probably won't help, but it's a standard reaction.


I've worked at an insurance brokerage for 5 years now. (Dang has it been that long. Geesh.) I've run almost the entire spectrum of Windows OS starting off with Win95, going to Win98, then to Win2000. Memory in the 9x world is nearly pointless above 256. The system doesn’t really take advantage of it. This is from in-house benchmarks. We have, check that HAD they are now citrix based, some massive apps that ate system resources like a hog. It was nasty. Win98, to be blunt, did NOT work for us. Didn’t matter if it was 128, 256 or 512 MB of RAM. The system didn’t take advantage of the RAM and consequently users were rebooting at least 3-5 times a day because their systems were hanging due to lack of resources. It wasn’t pretty. We moved to Windows 2000. Simply put night and day. Our first crop of boxes was Dell GX110’s with 550Mhz, 10GB, and 128MB of RAM. We have gone through 2 iterations of Dells now at the GX260 level with 1.7Ghz, 20GB, and still 128MB of RAM. Yes RAM does make a difference and generally your sweet spot for an NT based system for basic application use is 256-512MB of RAM. It’s when your system starts paging to your hard disk is when you run into problems. The Windows OS itself generally doesn’t take much more then 64MB of RAM. I say generally because you have all kinds of other services running in the background so your results may very. Windows slowdown really starts becoming noticeable when you start hitting your pagefile often and always. General rule of thumb if you are hitting your page file on bootup without having more then 1 or 2 apps open its time to get a RAM upgrade. Many times it is warranted. An older system may have a ton of TSR sitting in the background that have been loaded over the years. May have new, more memory intensive games that require more RAM. Also keep in mind that those $500 puters you see in Best Buy ads and on line are most likely packed with the bare minimum or, god help them, shared memory with the video card (HP and Compaq LOVED to pull this.) They give you the minimum so it looks like you are saving a bundle on that brand new computer purchase but surprise, surprise 6 months to a year later when you have massive amounts of apps loaded on your system and you are getting slowdown.
Not because the OS is the problem but because the OEM cut corners. When someone says get a RAM upgrade if a computer is a few years old or was lacking in the first place it very well could improve performance. It all depends on who’s giving the advice. A tech who knows his/her stuff or some fartknocker that wouldn’t know a CD-ROM from a CF card.



My point was just that there are a lot of people whose jobs rely on Windows sucking, and a lot of revenue is generated because Windows sucks.

I do agree with you about an industry being built up around windows defects and problems (Look at the Pocket PC and 3rd party software to fill in the gaps.) but to be honest I went back over my metrics for the last year for helpdesk calls this evening. We have them categorized by type here (Yah for paperwork.) and to be honest less then 20% of the problems were OS related. A good majority were from 3rd party software such as Lotus Notes (Don’t ask. I have no say in the e-mail that’s a corp decision.) and our faxing software with a scattering of server hardware problems in there and your occasional MS-patch-the-crap-out-of-everything-job. Windows 2000 really has been rock solid with a few exceptions. Bad hard drives in laptops and such.

Could it be better? Sure. My manager use to say the nature of IT was to put ourselves out of business by making the place run itself. Would Apple do this? No clue because I’ve never seen a large scale enterprise environment with nothing but Mac. Show me a business with several thousand systems, automated software distribution systems with remote desktop capabilities for support, a rigorous training program to get users up to speed on the Mac GUI and I will be a believer.

[5300cs]

Sit back, and have a read of this article (http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html), it will teach you some things. Also go here (http://www.****microsoft.com) and you'll find plenty to read. I'm not naming names here, I'm just aiming this at people who still think "Golly gee, M$ is just trying to run a business" or "What's wrong with M$?". Wake UP- There's a LOT wrong with them, just read about it. Business is business, but M$ does not and will not play fair.

I've used PCs since the PC first came out: the IBM PC XT. I've used every version of windows since 3.1, and I've had such a better eXPerience with MacOS (X and before.)

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by Horrortaxi
For crying out loud! My point was that a lot of people's jobs depend on Microsoft dropping the ball. Because Windows has so many problems a lot of people outside of Microsoft make a lot of money. It's just an interesting thing I realized. Nobody has given a rebuttal to that. I've conceded the hard drive thing already, but the RAM voodoo is valid. Sure a system will benefit from as much RAM as you can give it, but feeding it RAM when it starts to slow down doing the same things it's always done is voodoo and it's very common. It may work for a while, until the registry bloats up some more. I've done my research, unfortunately, as a Windows user from 3.1 to XP. I know what I'm talking about. This is all out of context now though.

Wow sorry, I didn't realize that Windows user since 3.1 = RAM Utilization expert. Silly me.

I've been using Windows since 3.0 when I got my 386 25Mhz from CompuADD. I'm a network admin in a school with computers ranging from Windows ME - XP and OS 9.2 - 10.2.6. So I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to getting the most performance boost while still fitting it in your budget.

More ram to a point always helps. There are limits to what an OS can utilize, 98 was around 512, OS 9 was 999mb per app.

There are reasons it works too, often as users use their computer more and more they begin multitasking. I've never seen anybody sit down for the first time at a computer and be working on 3 apps at a time. In fact I just sat with a teacher yesterday to introduce her to OS X and she was going nuts because she realized she could have Safari and Word open at the same time and switch back and forth. As they begin multitasking, they need more ram, thus their computer starts "slowing down". You add more ram, presto, it works faster.

Another reason that the registry gets bloated is because of all the crappy applications that a end user installs from the internet and the cd that comes in your box of cheerios. They are poorly written applications that either install uncleanly or uninstall uncleanly, leaving behind junk in the registry. I can tell you here at this school where only network admins can install anything on windows computers, we don't have this problem of things "slowing down" or the registry bloating. In fact I have computers in some classrooms that have been running 2k for 2+ years without having to be restored once. They haven't slowed down a bit.

I'll agree with SiliconAddict that most of our problems don't arise from OS things. They are from third party apps, if you take out all of the "How do I do this" calls, we don't have many problems. In fact the only time that I've had people complain the computers were slow is when we've upgraded the iMac 333s that we have to 10.2 when they were running 9.2 before that. But thats ok, hopefully we'll get the funding to get a G5 lab by the end of this school year :)

I find it insulting that people believe that IT people don't do their job to the best just so they can make more work for themselves. I find that once a servers/network stuff/disk images are setup and installed that most of the problems come from idiotic end users who don't know how to do something rather than problems with the software. These people then turn around and blame the IT people because they cannot use their equipment correctly. Ok this is kind of a rant but here is a quick story.

I had a teacher complain to everybody....I mean everybody that her computers weren't working. She managed to tell everybody except the IT people so we could fix it. So parents are coming in and are like "how come the computers don't work". All of us are like, what are you talking about? So we go look at these computers and we can't find anything wrong with them. What it comes down to is that her speakers weren't working. Why weren't they working? She had the headphones plugged in. Not a big deal, but the reputation of my department's quality of work has jumped down a few notches because of one stupid end user. Ok end rant.

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
I'll agree with SiliconAddict that most of our problems don't arise from OS things. They are from third party apps,

If you couple that with your registry comments, wouldn't you say that if you purchase a machine you should be able to use it?

As in, I don't really want to turn on my PC every day just to use Microsofts pre-installed applications. I want to see what's on that cheerios CD.

If applications can do that to a system, surely the system is at fault.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

So if I write some crappy application I should expect the system to make it work like it should then? I didn't know an operating system could rewrite code.

What I'm saying is that a lot of applications are badly written. They don't follow the OS design guidelines like they should. There are a few programs we use here which do not follow Apple's guidelines on how to be a MacManager friendly application. Or even how to be a good OS 9 application. They store their preferences or whatever in some file in some random folder rather than in the preferences folder where it can be managed. Should I blame Apple for that program being written incorrectly? No. If somebody makes a windows program that installs a whole bunch of stuff to the registry in random places under random names, and then when you uninstall it it doesn't remove any of that, should I blame Microsoft? No.

You can use your computer to do whatever you want, but if you install crappy things to it or do crazy things with it, don't blame the system if its getting slow when it is not it's fault.

[themadchemist]

A few years back, Microsoft released Windows 98. Sometime later, it released Windows 98 SE.

Those are two evil things right off the bat. I'll let you know if I think of more.

[AppleMatt]

ColdZero,

Not entirely what I was getting at. I was more talking about the fact that, as an example, Windows will allow applications to overwrite DLLs in the system folder.

I'm not saying that it's right they do, I'm saying that it fundamentally shouldn't be possible. Also there is no segregation between system and user within the registry.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

There is lots of segregation in the registry. It is all 1 registry, but there are different parts of it. There is HKEY_currentuser, HKEY_users, HKEY_local_machine etc etc. Each refers to different things, the names are pretty self explanitory.

Any operating system will allow you to rewrite DLLs or system files if you have the correct permissions. Its not something you can really take out of an OS, at some point you need to be able to write, delete or add to those files, in any OS. What you can do is create proper user permissions for everybody else that will be using the computer to prevent such things from happening.

[Horrortaxi]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Wow sorry, I didn't realize that Windows user since 3.1 = RAM Utilization expert. Silly me.

Who said I was a "ram utilization expert?" It sure wasn't me. I said I've seen people throw memory at their computer when it slows down, and I've seen that not work--a lot.

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
What you can do is create proper user permissions for everybody else that will be using the computer to prevent such things from happening.

I understand the registry, I've spent enough time fiddling around with it.

What does Windows not do...
Obviously system files have to be updated, with Windows regularly and Mac OS frequently. But allowing a user to delete/modify etc system files is very weak, as highlighted by the fake virus alerts that have people deleting system files. If they don't know any better, they're gonna follow the advice.

Windows XP comes a little closer to this in protecting around 1000 system files, but it's far from perfect. If you damage a key part of IE, you can make Explorer.exe unusable.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

This is true if you user an account with administrative access for day to day use. Any Linux person will tell you that once you have your system installed you create an account for yourself for day to day business that does not have administrative access. This way you can't accidentally delete or screw things up.

If I login to the admin account on my mac, I can go delete whatever I want and the system won't stop me. A few rm -rf and I would have a very messed up system. On the windows computers in my house, there is an admin account and a lower account for everybody in the house. The admin account doesn't get used unless it is needed, and things don't get slow or screw up.

Tell me how does OS X protect system files? Or linux or unix? I don't understand what you mean by protect system files. If you have the permissions to delete or modify the files, there is nothing the system will do to stop it because you are supposed to be able to do that.

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Tell me how does OS X protect system files? Or linux or unix? I don't understand what you mean by protect system files. If you have the permissions to delete or modify the files, there is nothing the system will do to stop it because you are supposed to be able to do that.

I never said OS X protects system files :confused:

Also I haven't said anything about Windows slowing down.

But you've said what I was trying to get at. You can destroy a Mac OS X system with the rm command (but thankfully not trash the entire root drive as in UNIX), but how many 'home' (average) users know that command? Now on Windows, take it the 'home' user gets an email saying "importantsystemfile.dll" is actually a virus, they don't check the Symantec website (what average user does), they delete the file and continue their work. Next restart, poof.

Eitherway, my original point was that, IMO, you should be able to use a computer if you buy it. I know about the Windows registry because I have to. I know about Mac OS X terminal commands because I want to. I have no qualms installing programs on my Macs (3), but on my Windows machines (7), I really think twice. I have been known to create an image of my HDD before an install because of previous experience.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Now on Windows, take it the 'home' user gets an email saying "importantsystemfile.dll" is actually a virus, they don't check the Symantec website (what average user does), they delete the file and continue their work. Next restart, poof.

Thats not the OS's fault, thats an uninformed user. If there was the same thing saying to a Mac user /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer contains a virus. I'm sure there are some Mac users who will realize its a gag, but then the "average home user" won't and would delete it as well. And seeing that when you register OS X, the account that is created has admin privledges, they would be able to delete it as well.

I never said OS X protects system files

I ment that as a question not as a remark. You said that Windows does not do this, I'd like you to tell me how other OS's do.

I have no problems installing good apps on either of my computers, but will think twice if its some freeware app, free cd, or some app that has been ported. Because often these things don't work correctly or work with limitations.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Thats not the OS's fault, thats an uninformed user. If there was the same thing saying to a Mac user /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer contains a virus. I'm sure there are some Mac users who will realize its a gag, but then the "average home user" won't and would delete it as well. And seeing that when you register OS X, the account that is created has admin privledges, they would be able to delete it as well.
...

Not through the Finder, you can't. Even admin level users only have read access to the System directory and its contents.

Only root-level access via CLI can delete those files, meaning an "average home user" is not very likely to delete them.

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
I ment that as a question not as a remark. You said that Windows does not do this, I'd like you to tell me how other OS's do.

On the contrary, I said Windows XP does it to an extent. However I see replacing something after it's broke not as (hard to find correct word) intelligent as preventing them deleting it in the first place.

As for other OS's, as I and Rower said, Mac OS X prevents it *to an extent*, but I'm not getting into a who-has-the-most-OS-knowledge/who-has-all-the-answers debate.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Not through the Finder, you can't. Even admin level users only have read access to the System directory and its contents.

Only root-level access via CLI can delete those files, meaning an "average home user" is not very likely to delete them.

When you install something and it asks you for your authrization, its using that password you enter to read and write to those directories.

So I go and write a little program that goes: Virus found (insert favorite path to critical file here) would you like to delete it? Yes. No. Click Yes, please enter your admin password. Done.

As for other OS's, as I and Rower said, Mac OS X prevents it *to an extent*, but I'm not getting into a who-has-the-most-OS-knowledge/who-has-all-the-answers debate.

Neither am I, but what I'm trying to point out is that most OSs to an extent work perfectly fine the way they are. Most vulnarabilities are because of user intervention. The vast majority of problems come from people not understanding something or not reading everything completly. Or like you said, not looking at the Symantec database.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
When you install something and it asks you for your authrization, its using that password you enter to read and write to those directories.

So I go and write a little program that goes: Virus found (insert favorite path to critical file here) would you like to delete it? Yes. No. Click Yes, please enter your admin password. Done.

True, but that's not the example you gave. If we're comparing Windows Explorer allowing a user to manually delete a file or Finder doing the same, Finder is more protective of the System files.

[ColdZero]

Ugh, fine, that was a response to the email example AppleMatt gave. Ok one for you. I have a regular user account in XP, I go to try and delete system files, it doesn't work. Why? Because the system privledges are setup correctly. Its all about permissions, its not about what Finder or Explorer does. The reason you can't delete things in finder is not because it protects them, its because apple has set the permissions on the file system level for those files to root r/w and readable by all. So in effect what apple has done is make your admin acount not really an admin account.

Edit:

Try this go change the permissions for those system directories from root r/w and all read to all r/w. Then go back to finder and try to delete them. Its not so protective now is it?

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Ugh, fine, that was a response to the email example AppleMatt gave. Ok one for you. I have a regular user account in XP, I go to try and delete system files, it doesn't work. Why? Because the system privledges are setup correctly. Its all about permissions, its not about what Finder or Explorer does. The reason you can't delete things in finder is not because it protects them, its because apple has set the permissions on the file system level for those files to root r/w and readable by all. So in effect what apple has done is make your admin acount not really an admin account.

My email example did not include a program, it was a direct example of the emails that spread a while back advising users to delete system files. No programs involved, just step-by-steps. Examples;

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/hoax.html

If we talk about Windows XP, it only protects (restores after alteration) around 1000 system files, but if we assume it protected all of them...it's still possible to obliterate usage by crippling IE (I say usage as in, once again our friend the average home user, who would not know how to restore functionality without a re-install).
If we're talking about previous versions of Windows, there's no protection.

The admin account in OS X is just that, an admin account. It requires authorisation to modify system files. So...

AppleMatt

edit: Just to clear up, I'm not refuting any comments about privileges.

[ColdZero]

Ok, now I'm all confused. By protect do you mean backup? Or do you mean prevent the user from modifying. Because you said restores the last 1000 or whatever, which implies a backup, not protecting. But then its said that you can't trash the files is protecting. Which one is it? Automatic backups of critical files? Protecting with permissions? Big Burley man going "don't even think about deleting that"? What?

And it requires authorization to modify system files in XP as well. On both OSs you need an admin account or password.

[AppleMatt]

Exactly. In Windows XP the protection isn't protection at all, it's restoring the file after it has been deleted/modified etc with a copy of the original. This is done (almost) silently.

As for;
Originally posted by ColdZero

By protect do you mean backup? Or do you mean prevent the user from modifying. Because you said restores the last 1000 or whatever, which implies a backup, not protecting. But then its said that you can't trash the files is protecting. Which one is it?"

it would be nice if you bothered to read my posts, I extend the same courtesy to you.

AppleMatt

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Exactly. In Windows XP the protection isn't protection at all, it's restoring the file after it has been deleted/modified etc with a copy of the original. This is done (almost) silently.

As for;


it would be nice if you bothered to read my posts, I extend the same courtesy to you.

AppleMatt

I've read your posts forwards and backwards trying to figure out what you are trying to say. I still can't figure it out. First your talking about protection, they resotrations, then protection again. Can you please in the next post just type out what you are talking about. You've made this so convoluted I don't even know what this damed thread is about anymore.

OS X does not protect files, Windows does not protect files. I've never said either does. They work on permissions models. If you have access to write a file, you can write it, its simple as that. If it is a system file, so be it.

Any percieved "protection" that you are getting from Finder or OS X or anything else is just that....percieved. OSs work on permissions when it comes to file access. Thats it.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
...
Try this go change the permissions for those system directories from root r/w and all read to all r/w. Then go back to finder and try to delete them. Its not so protective now is it?

Can you change those permissions through the Finder? ;)

[ColdZero]

Yep.... Bring up the information on an item. Then click ownership so it opens up, then change permissions as you want. If it is changing them on something you don't own, you need the admin password.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Yep.... Bring up the information on an item. Then click ownership so it opens up, then change permissions as you want. If it is changing them on something you don't own, you need the admin password.

OK, but you still need to authenticate.

I agree with what you said about permissions schemes and OS-level protection earlier. OS X's Unix-based scheme appears to be much more protective of system files. Finder is nothing more than a means of "finding" and using files on your hard drive. Luckily, it has the benefit of the permissions settings handed down to it.

[mim]

Originally posted by ColdZero

Can anybody name one large company in size range such as Microsoft that is nice?

That's the point.

You don't get to be a company the size of MS without being evil.

People often try to say to be that they're big because they have good products and they are savvy business people.

Well, no to both. In each case it has been shown in courts and proven beyond appeal that they have benifitted massivley from stolen technology, and that they activley persue strategies to shut down and lock out competition.

We don't all drive Fords because the roads were all built so that only Fords could be driven on them.....the computer (and OS) industry *should* be no different. And with a common stratgey of using OSS as a base to build from, there is no reason it can't be.

[AppleMatt]

ColdZero,

I quoted a comment from you about using applications on Windows, and the problems they can cause. My question was don't you think if you purchase a machine, you should be able to use it without worrying of the consequences.

My reasoning was, if on my Macs I can install applications and remove them at will, surely there is a fundamental problem in Windows if installing and removing apps can cripple the system (which I have done numerous times). I know there are bad programmers out there, of course there are, but that affects every platform.

So if I write a Mac application, it sticks a preference file in it's own folder. So what? There's a file taking up one block of HDD space on the hard-drive, sloppy? Yes, dangerous? No. However if I write a Windows program, which overwrites a system file during the install. It could be newer and create no issues, but at the same time it could well be older, and create problems. Also, what happens if my un-install removes that DLL file? (admittedly they usually just leave it there).

To which you said any OS allows you to write system files at some point, it has to, the possibility of which lays with permissions. I completely agree, of course it does, however on my Windows machines, I can happily delete/move a load of system files until I get bored. Should I receive an email telling me a system files is a virus, wahay I delete it. Now if I try and do that on my Macs, I get lots of errors telling me even with my admin account I don't have the correct permissions, it's owned by root etc etc. but...

...I didn't want it to look like I was completely bashing Windows, I use it every day and enjoy it. So I pointed out that XP protects 1000 of (what Microsoft considers) the most important system files. If an application/user over-writes or deletes them, it silently replaces them with the original. Your system keeps on going without a hitch. However it is only 1000 files, and as an example, you can delete parts of IE and make Explorer unusable. Also the protection in Windows is different to the protection in Mac. The Mac doesn't allow you to delete the file in the first place, Windows does, but it replaces it afterwards.

I am assuming of course, both machines were taken out of the box, ie, they both have admin accounts, and that these are 'regular home users'. Obviously no system is perfect, and obviously there are always ways around every system put in place to stop damage (or else how would we tweak our systems to get the most performance ;)). I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say, my original point being that we should be able to use systems that we buy.

AppleMatt

[solvs]

Is Microsoft itself (the company) evil? No.

Is it (meaning the people who run it) guilty of most, if not all, of the things it's been accused of? Yes.

It is a company that's owners and operators have been using monopolistic and unethical behavior to get ahead from the beginning. They lied, cheated, and stole to get to the top. You can't say they got to where they are today by being the better product. They are guilty of all of these things (and more), and yet it is just accepted as business as usual.

Smart? Yes. Good business? Not exactly. Immoral? You betcha. Greedy, power hungry? Oh yeah.

Is cheating being competitive? I don't think so.

Apple (and Jobs) have done some stupid things. Jobs definitely has his issues. But he's still a visionary (if not a perfectionist). Apple may not be as altruistic as it started out trying to be, but at least they seem to care more about innovation (even if it is out of necessity) than trying to gain marketshare (and get rid of the competition) by any means necessary.

Apple is definitely the lesser of 2 evils.