Q about Microsoft

[asif786]

Hey there,

I know this probably isn't the right forum for this, but I have a question, and I hope someone can give me a good answer ( )

Microsoft is a massive corporation. They are worth god-knows how many billions of dollars and employ hundreds of thousands of people. Why on earth is their software so bad?

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious. When you have so much money and so many people working on something, how does it still end up like a piece of crap? It defies logic. Why can Apple make good/better software with less people?

The reason I'm asking is because for the first time in a couple of weeks, I visited theregister (http://www.theregister.co.uk) and all I seem to be able to see is MS bugs and errors. Some examples:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/28/flying_car_all_at_sea/

This story is about how MS autoroute thinks people can drive through the sea...hmmm..guess I wont be using that to plan any roadtrips.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/28/tablet_pc_memory_geyser/

This story is about MS tablet PCs suffering a memory leak eventually causing a crash unless restarted at certain intervals..hmm- when was the last time I restarted my mac.. (ages ago // )

and lastly, this one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/29/bo_mailing_list_chaos/

This one's about how MS SMB Server 2003 screwed up and sent out 6million unwanted emails..well done M$

So, does anyone know why MS software is soo bad? surely there must be *some* good MS programmers out there? and if there are any, what projects are they working on?

 

[edesignuk]

Why can Apple make good/better software with less people?

For starters, Apple have complete control over the computing experience they deliver. MS don't have that luxury. They needs to make Windows operate on millions of different hardware configurations; no small task.

 

[robbieduncan]

For starters, Apple have complete control over the computing experience they deliver. MS don't have that luxury. They needs to make Windows operate on millions of different hardware configurations; no small task.

This is only true of Windows. The rest of their software runs on top of an OS (Windows or Mac OS). The OS isolates (or should) isolate the application from the hardware. It should not matter whether the user has an AMD or Intel CPU, who made the motherboard and so on, AutoRoute should give the same answer. When that answer is wrong you have to query why!

 

[stoid]

Part of MS's problem is that they create more products, and more varied products than Apple does, so they have more teams that still have to on some level collaborate.

A second major problem is that MS does not have direct control over the hardware it's software is used on. Apple directly controls it's hardware, and can make sure that they have exact parts with exact specs. Windows can be run on thousands of millions of different combinations of hardware, and that is not an easy task.

Now, why Internet Explorer is the biggest pile of horse ****, I don't know. For being such a dominant player, it sure would be nice from a developers standpoint if they would write a browser that is at least not an abomination.

 

[edesignuk]

This is only true of Windows. The rest of their software runs on top of an OS (Windows or Mac OS). The OS isolates (or should) isolate the application from the hardware. It should not matter whether the user has an AMD or Intel CPU, who made the motherboard and so on, AutoRoute should give the same answer. When that answer is wrong you have to query why!

Absolutely, but the OS does lie at the heart of any system, and when that system has to deal with such a broad range of configurations, you're just asking for trouble.

Anyway, not defending MS as such, just saying...

 

[PlaceofDis]

one of MS biggest problems is their scope, so much hardware etc as people have said

but i also think, that because they are now such a dominate player, that they have become lazy with their work, they are on top so they are sloppy and lazy because they dont have to fight for dominance over other OSes, for now at least....

 

[redAPPLE]

i personally do not use shareware nor freeware software. so i may be wrong on this...

apple encourages the open source community to create software for mac os x. and apple does not have a control over the software right?

m$ has (as well as apple) created guidelines how to make the software compatible to the os. but how come siht still happens by using m$ software?

 

[millar876]

just a thaught? If bill gates just donated around $780 million for child vaxinations, why cant he knock out a system that is resistant to viruses.
lol only kidding, WinXP is a grate and infalible system that can do no wrong.
...hmmm sarchasm dosnt come over very well in text dose it?

 

[Timelessblur]

You also have to remeber that MS is going to be a bigger target for virus, spyware and what not because it is the dominit OS out there.

For virus the virus writers want to go after "the man" and that is microsoft. 2nd they want to get there name out there and infected the most computers possible and again that is MS. as for them not going after linux. Linus is a big no no to attack and it is an unspoken rule is you dont mess with linux.

Also MS suffers from the fact that they just can not "start over" like apple did with OSX (changing the base code of and everything) they are forced to have backward capitbletly in there OS. They know they need to get read of the registy and it would be easy if they could start with a new base but they are limited by the fact that they have to say backward capitble though windows 2000. That is a draw back to having a huge user base. Apple could aford to start over with it having a such a small user base.

As said before they are also effect by hardware limitation and having to work with so many diffenct configuration.

 

[shake]

micro$oft sucks

 

[edesignuk]

micro$oft sucks

How insightful.

 

[CanadaRAM]

just a thaught? If bill gates just donated around $780 million for child vaxinations, why cant he knock out a system that is resistant to viruses.
lol only kidding, WinXP is a grate and infalible system that can do no wrong.
...hmmm sarchasm dosnt come over very well in text dose it?

Neither does spelling...

 

[asif786]

You also have to remeber that MS is going to be a bigger target for virus, spyware and what not because it is the dominit OS out there.

For virus the virus writers want to go after "the man" and that is microsoft. 2nd they want to get there name out there and infected the most computers possible and again that is MS. as for them not going after linux. Linus is a big no no to attack and it is an unspoken rule is you dont mess with linux.

Also MS suffers from the fact that they just can not "start over" like apple did with OSX (changing the base code of and everything) they are forced to have backward capitbletly in there OS. They know they need to get read of the registy and it would be easy if they could start with a new base but they are limited by the fact that they have to say backward capitble though windows 2000. That is a draw back to having a huge user base. Apple could aford to start over with it having a such a small user base.

As said before they are also effect by hardware limitation and having to work with so many diffenct configuration.

Sure, but with regards to your first point, I'm not saying MS is to blame for the virus problems.

I just mean the general software they make. I'm struggling to think of one MS piece of software I actually like. Their smartphone software is kinda nifty, but even that crashes every now and again.

Another thing is the software other developers make. I've downloaded around 30/40 mac apps these past couple of days, and most of them look great (acquisition, delicious library, ivideo etc). Heck, even the standard bit-torrent app is better on the mac..!

My point is that I cant recall the last piece of software I used on my PC that looks as good as any of these apps. We should be grateful of what we have

/asif

 

[killuminati]

to me it just seems as if Microsoft is lazy. They arent competing with anyone so whatever software they release people will buy. It doesnt have to be top notch. I believe if Apple or any other company become big competition for Microsoft, their software would improve.

 

[svalenti]

Stay under the radar

I only hope that Apple continues to have the smaller market share. This will ensure we don't infect the gene pool. The bigger the market share, the more crap you attract. My advice...Mac users stay under the radar and quietly laugh when you hear the news reports about the latest bugs, viruses and worms affecting the beast that is MS.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

I would argue that one possible answer is that Microsoft doesn't have to produce a decent product. It seems clear that regardless of how many flaws it has, people will still continue to buy what they offer, probably because (without trying to be derogatory) most people don't know any better. Add to that the nature of our consumeristic (is that even a word), bottom line-driven society, most people who are on a budget don't care about quality nearly as much as they do about price. It's the same logic behind why Wal-Mart is such a juggernaut.

 

[killuminati]

I only hope that Apple continues to have the smaller market share. This will ensure we don't infect the gene pool. The bigger the market share, the more crap you attract. My advice...Mac users stay under the radar and quietly laugh when you hear the news reports about the latest bugs, viruses and worms affecting the beast that is MS.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I completely agree with you.

 

[Fredstar]

I was thinking similarly the other day, they have such a basic and non-initiative approach to all of their designs of their applications, when you compare it to Apple app's the difference is so great.
One of the laziest app's designed and created by Microsoft has to be Internet Explorer. Initially it was obviously quite advanced but when was the last time it was majorly updated? It is so behind all of the competitors, it is ridiculous. Surely the number of staff at their application team could have come up with a few ideas.

 

[dejo]

You also have to remeber that MS is going to be a bigger target for virus, spyware and what not because it is the dominit OS out there.

For virus the virus writers want to go after "the man" and that is microsoft. 2nd they want to get there name out there and infected the most computers possible and again that is MS. as for them not going after linux. Linus is a big no no to attack and it is an unspoken rule is you dont mess with linux.

I don't think every single virus writer out there is doing it to infect the most computers possible. There has got to be at least one that is doing it for the notoriety. And imagine how famous they would become if they wrote a virus that infected a huge number of those "snobby" Mac users' computers. I think a big reason that Windows viruses are so wide-spread is not so much that Windows makes a bigger target but that they are easier to write. This whole "small-numbers" argument is bogus. 90+% of desktops might be running Windows but in the server market the numbers are quite different. Why aren't virus writers targeting there? (The damage would be much more extreme too). And how many Web servers out there are Apache? The majority. But they don't suffer nearly the same attacks as IIS.

 

[Timelessblur]

I don't think every single virus writer out there is doing it to infect the most computers possible. There has got to be at least one that is doing it for the notoriety. And imagine how famous they would become if they wrote a virus that infected a huge number of those "snobby" Mac users' computers. I think a big reason that Windows viruses are so wide-spread is not so much that Windows makes a bigger target but that they are easier to write. This whole "small-numbers" argument is bogus. 90+% of desktops might be running Windows but in the server market the numbers are quite different. Why aren't virus writers targeting there? (The damage would be much more extreme too). And how many Web servers out there are Apache? The majority. But they don't suffer nearly the same attacks as IIS.

Apache is linux. And there is a rule you dont F*** with linux. Making a virus for linux will get you attack web wise or other wise.

 

[dejo]

Apache is linux. And there is a rule you dont F*** with linux. Making a virus for linux will get you attack web wise or other wise.

Apache is not just Linux. It also runs on Windows, Mac OS X (it's built-in web server), etc.

 

[Timelessblur]

Apache is not just Linux. It also runs on Windows, Mac OS X (it's built-in web server), etc.

but it is still linux base so the rule applies.

 

[edesignuk]

Apache is not just Linux. It also runs on Windows, Mac OS X (it's built-in web server), etc.

Of course, but, Apache is associated with Linux more so than it is Windows (which is IIS), and OS X hardly counts in the grand scheme of this because it is such a small player.

 

[dejo]

Of course, but, Apache is associated with Linux more so than it is Windows (which is IIS), and OS X hardly counts in the grand scheme of this because it is such a small player.

So, the only reason there is no Mac OS X virus is solely because there aren't enough computers running this OS?

 

[Timelessblur]

So, the only reason there is no Mac OS X virus is solely because there aren't enough computers running this OS?

well first their is next to no intersted in writing them so that is a add security and it is more secure than windows. Also remeber that apple was able to complete "started over" with there OS somethign MS does not have the luxury of doing so it makes sercuty a little harder to do