Microsoft DESERVES TO DIE! (meaculpa)

[Liquorpuki]

We can argue this to death, and I would like to hear about the products he made and raked in billions for Microsoft because Office and Windows was there way before he was CEO.

Any, everyone seems to agree that Ballmer is a good riddance including tech journalists, Stock holders, and even Microsoft board members who seem like they are showing hime the exit. Seems like every one, except for you.

Both Xbox and MS's cloud computing services were done under his watch. Those cloud milestones are huge and MS basically created the second largest cloud infrastructure in the world in a short timeframe. They're currently offloading their IP onto it to counter the shrinking PC market and are integrating it into every other product space from Office to XBox. Besides the recent reorg, Ballmer's foray into the cloud will have the most impact long after he's retired.

Far as XBox, the way the videogame industry works is you release the hardware at break even or loss, then pull a crapload of profit through first party IP and game licensing. People talking about how XBox hardware in isolation is not profitable therefore is a failure don't seem to understand this.

With MSFT, look up MS's recent stock history. It rode up to a 5 year high in July under his watch. The RT flop made it drop a few points, then it entered a trading pattern, went back up with the retirement announcement, then dropped again slightly on the Nokia acquisition (because that's what happens to the acquiring company on an acquisition). Long term, the stock has been steadily rising since 09 when we were deep in a recession and doesn't reflect a company in trouble. You wanna see the stock of a company in trouble, go look up HTC. Or look at Blackberry at closing today.

The guy's far from the best CEO out there and has made a few high profile mistakes but he's not terrible.

 

[chrono1081]

LOL.. Are you serious?

Yes. Why are you surprised? I've used Windows since 3.1 and used it exclusively up until Vista. I've also supported Windows 98 environments and up. I'm very well aware of its capabilities.

 

[roadbloc]

Yes. Why are you surprised? I've used Windows since 3.1 and used it exclusively up until Vista. I've also supported Windows 98 environments and up. I'm very well aware of its capabilities.

Then why is Windows 8 'straight up garbage'? Its just Windows 7 with some ignorable tablet stuff tacked onto the front for touchscreens. In fact, it runs a lot faster and smoother than Windows 7 does.

 

[chrono1081]

Then why is Windows 8 'straight up garbage'? Its just Windows 7 with some ignorable tablet stuff tacked onto the front for touchscreens. In fact, it runs a lot faster and smoother than Windows 7 does.

Faster, yes. More efficient, only if you're using it for basic things like internet and email.

First, the UI is atrocious. Moving tiles? You have to sit there and try and figure out what application is what because the tiles constantly move, oh and don't forget the advertisements on the desktop as well. Why are those even there?

Trying to juggle multiple apps on Windows 8 is a pain. There are two different desktop types and you have to use both, very inconsistent. You also have to sign in to use the operating system which is silliness.

There's also the fact that Microsoft just doesn't get it. Look at the outrage over the start bar missing from the classic desktop. Microsoft claims they listened and are bringing the start menu back, but here's the catch: When you download that update and use the classic start menu takes you right back to the new desktop. How stupid was Microsoft that they didn't even listen to what their users actually wanted?

You can defend 8 all you want but most users, myself included consider it a complete waste of time.

 

[MacBH928]

Steve Ballmer, the genius behind Microsoft: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/08/23/steve-ballmer-microsoft-famous-moments/2693223/

 

[m98custom1212]

Faster, yes. More efficient, only if you're using it for basic things like internet and email.

First, the UI is atrocious. Moving tiles? You have to sit there and try and figure out what application is what because the tiles constantly move, oh and don't forget the advertisements on the desktop as well. Why are those even there?

Trying to juggle multiple apps on Windows 8 is a pain. There are two different desktop types and you have to use both, very inconsistent. You also have to sign in to use the operating system which is silliness.

There's also the fact that Microsoft just doesn't get it. Look at the outrage over the start bar missing from the classic desktop. Microsoft claims they listened and are bringing the start menu back, but here's the catch: When you download that update and use the classic start menu takes you right back to the new desktop. How stupid was Microsoft that they didn't even listen to what their users actually wanted?

You can defend 8 all you want but most users, myself included consider it a complete waste of time.

Just unpin all the apps you dont want...

Pin the ones you want easy fix.. I moved my programs into groups main crap.. chrome, desktop, file explorer, sky drive and my media drive.. then office, then engineering stuff easy..

You dont have use both interfaces..

Sounds like you dont how to use windows 8 and dont want to learn

 

[roadbloc]

Faster, yes. More efficient, only if you're using it for basic things like internet and email.

First, the UI is atrocious. Moving tiles? You have to sit there and try and figure out what application is what because the tiles constantly move, oh and don't forget the advertisements on the desktop as well. Why are those even there?

Trying to juggle multiple apps on Windows 8 is a pain. There are two different desktop types and you have to use both, very inconsistent. You also have to sign in to use the operating system which is silliness.

There's also the fact that Microsoft just doesn't get it. Look at the outrage over the start bar missing from the classic desktop. Microsoft claims they listened and are bringing the start menu back, but here's the catch: When you download that update and use the classic start menu takes you right back to the new desktop. How stupid was Microsoft that they didn't even listen to what their users actually wanted?

You can defend 8 all you want but most users, myself included consider it a complete waste of time.

It isn't hard. You just pin only the desktop apps on a PC and the metro apps on a tablet. The desktop app icons don't even have live tile support. Just treat it as a fullscreen start menu and you realise Windows 8 isn't that much different from 7. I've yet to see an advertisement in Windows 8. You can quite easily have an offline account on 8, you get given the option when you create a new account. And the improvements coming in 8.1 will certainly help it feel more at home on a PC.

But I guess it sounds like you've already made up your mind so... whatever.

 

[MJL]

I am an early adapter of functionality but retain the good things.

I hated moving from NT 3.51 to Windows 2000 but after I while could/would not go back again. I did not like having to move to XP - I postponed it but then had some functionality requirement that XP offered so moved (XP was already at SP2). I skipped Vista completely, perhaps spend two hours with it before downgrading to XP. Eventually migrated to Windows 7 and now would not want to go back to XP. Have one computer running 7 and one 8 (with classic start menu). My wife does not even know which one is running which OS version - they are that much alike.

For me, I do not care which one I use except I do not want this SkyDrive / iCloud storage to have forced down my throat which supposedly is coming in 8.1 but what the business world is up in arms about. Will see what it finally turns out to be and if it can be disabled / circumvented.

But the forementioned rants of it being garbage etc. do not compute in my book.

 

[MacBH928]

Nope, Windows never crashes...ever. Even if you are running all legitimate software, and use Windows like once every 6 months... its all rumors and media hate.

 

[roadbloc]

That's an application crashing, not Windows. And who on Earth uses McAfee nowadays? Get rid of that for a start and use MSE.

 

[MJL]

That's an application crashing, not Windows. And who on Earth uses McAfee nowadays? Get rid of that for a start and use MSE.

Yesterday I was asked to look at someone's PC. He was running McAfee, some other antivirus and a firewall, Windows defender and Avast. If one antivirus is a good thing then surely three have to be better eh? Similarly if one firewall misses something then the other firewall will catch it?

How do you reason with such logic - took me a while to hammer home to run only one item and that multiple will interfere with each other, at times even making large holes in the security..... By the way I rate Norton as the biggest heap of dung.

I replaced the lot with MS Essentials and everything is running a lot better.

PS Since I went to XP SP2 I have not had an OS crash

 

[MacBH928]

That's an application crashing, not Windows. And who on Earth uses McAfee nowadays? Get rid of that for a start and use MSE.

I didn't install it, its just how Windows work you install one software and they let 2 or 3 other software packages to install like toolbars and this anti-virus thing. I have MSE installed and removed McAfee , I am just tired of having to do so much instaling and uninstalling , then rebooting.

Yes its an application crash, but some how application tend to crash way more often on a Windows than on Mac OS X . I really can't remember an app crashing on OS X. It did happen but it was far and few in between that I can't remember.

 

[roadbloc]

I didn't install it, its just how Windows work you install one software and they let 2 or 3 other software packages to install like toolbars and this anti-virus thing. I have MSE installed and removed McAfee , I am just tired of having to do so much instaling and uninstalling , then rebooting.

Then don't install anything stupid. Read the installation screens and make sure no additional software comes bundled. If it does, uncheck the boxes. Its just common sense really.

Yes its an application crash, but some how application tend to crash way more often on a Windows than on Mac OS X . I really can't remember an app crashing on OS X. It did happen but it was far and few in between that I can't remember.

A perfectly healthy Windows system shouldn't have any more app crashes than a healthy OS X system. Yet to experience an app crash on my Mac or PC for a while now. Last time it happened I think it was Total War: Rome II being buggy and unresponsive on release.

If you're having problems with apps constantly crashing, I'd check to see if your hardware and drivers are set up correctly and that your PC is not strained for recourses. If that doesn't solve anything, take a good look into the software you are using. It could be a bug or a case of sloppy programming or two apps conflicting.

 

[SkyBell]

I didn't install it, its just how Windows work you install one software and they let 2 or 3 other software packages to install like toolbars and this anti-virus thing. I have MSE installed and removed McAfee , I am just tired of having to do so much instaling and uninstalling , then rebooting.

Yes its an application crash, but some how application tend to crash way more often on a Windows than on Mac OS X . I really can't remember an app crashing on OS X. It did happen but it was far and few in between that I can't remember.

Dunno about anyone else, but I have apps crash on OS X all the time; far more often than Windows.

 

[MJL]

Gave up on Microsoft Outlook under OS X - buggy as anything. Supposedly better now after the last update.

Do not blame Microsoft - they bought the firm who had written an Outlook clone for OS X (cannot remember what it was called) and it is not a port from Outlook in Windows.

 

[Mr. McMac]

Dunno about anyone else, but I have apps crash on OS X all the time; far more often than Windows.

I have more app crashes on my macs than I do on my PC's. That said, They don't happen too often. Also, I've never gotten the blue screen of death on my 2 and a half year old PC, but I've had a few kernel panics on both my macs.

 

[7709876]

Image

Nope, Windows never crashes...ever. Even if you are running all legitimate software, and use Windows like once every 6 months... its all rumors and media hate.

That is an application crashing not Windows.

I have more crashes in OSX than I do in Windows. I spend more time in OSX.

 

[Michael Goff]

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[MJL]

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

It just shows how little understanding there is for the complexity of computers under the younger generation.

Those are the same people who will accept any result from a computer as being the final answer - have had the necessary discussions with those who did "modeling" of a real time event and then if you tell them that the real life event has a different result then that cannot be possible true "because the computer says so". It are the same who'll grab a calculator to work out the change to give to you when you buy something in the shop.

Basic analytical skills have gone out the window and has been replaced by plagiarism and regurgitations.

 

[MacBH928]

It has been a very long time since i heard someone got the blue screen of death, but Application on Windows fail a lot of the time, not all the time. There is always some sort of error or something not working well including windows 7 itself that took 45min trying to download its own updates but got 0% done.

I have a hard time believing OS X apps crash more often than Windows, unless you run only Microsoft Office in Windows. I have been using OS X since Jaguar days (10.2-10.9 is about to be released now) , I have run every kind of software out there including pirated/OS 9/legal/console emulation/Windows emulation you name it. Apps crash very very rarely, and the only time OS X crashed was when I used to pull the USB plug out of my iMac back in 2002/3 . Running an app that will run Windows IN OS X won't crash but Windows itself will crash apps within itself.

I have no reason to hate on Windows, I am just telling it as I am experiencing it. Apps in iPhone which is based on OS X crash regularly, yes I agree to that but not on the desktop/laptop world.

 

[Michael Goff]

It has been a very long time since i heard someone got the blue screen of death, but Application on Windows fail a lot of the time, not all the time. There is always some sort of error or something not working well including windows 7 itself that took 45min trying to download its own updates but got 0% done.

I have a hard time believing OS X apps crash more often than Windows, unless you run only Microsoft Office in Windows. I have been using OS X since Jaguar days (10.2-10.9 is about to be released now) , I have run every kind of software out there including pirated/OS 9/legal/console emulation/Windows emulation you name it. Apps crash very very rarely, and the only time OS X crashed was when I used to pull the USB plug out of my iMac back in 2002/3 . Running an app that will run Windows IN OS X won't crash but Windows itself will crash apps within itself.

I have no reason to hate on Windows, I am just telling it as I am experiencing it. Apps in iPhone which is based on OS X crash regularly, yes I agree to that but not on the desktop/laptop world.

I guess we have different luck. The only thing I have had crash in the last three months is VLC on OS X. It crashes if I jump around a video too much.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I have a hard time believing OS X apps crash more often than Windows, unless you run only Microsoft Office in Windows.

While developing a website, I found a bit of html + javascript code that could make Safari crash, reliably. To the point where it would crash, I would reopen Safari, it would load the page, and crash. Rinse, repeat. I had to modify the code to make it stop.

If a program is buggy, a program is buggy - I'd argue that due to the numerous compatibility modes in Windows, Windows is able to handle bugged programs much better than OS X.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)

I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.

This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."

From http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

 

[gkarris]

XBOX RULES!

(starts another argument...)

 

[G51989]

Image

Nope, Windows never crashes...ever. Even if you are running all legitimate software, and use Windows like once every 6 months... its all rumors and media hate.

OSX Never fails! Ever...its Windows Fanboi lies!

Nope! Never.

What few understand is that OSX and Windows are programs made by people, neither are perfect.

----------

I have more app crashes on my macs than I do on my PC's. That said, They don't happen too often. Also, I've never gotten the blue screen of death on my 2 and a half year old PC, but I've had a few kernel panics on both my macs.

I don't think I've had any of my Windows Machine's crash on me since Windows XP, same with my Macs and OSX 10.4, more than a couple times each over a decade.

 

[DragonJade]

My MBP used to crash on me repeatedly, sometimes a dozen times a day. I managed to isolate it to a dodgy stick of RAM.