Microsoft vs. UNIX

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,505
1,786
Per this CNet article... Microsoft and Unisys are launching a multimillion dollar ad campaign to undermine Unix.

The campaign, called "We have the way out," describes Unix as an expensive trap. "No wonder Unix makes you feel boxed in. It ties you to an inflexible system. It requires you to pay for expensive experts. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex than ever," one ad reads.

The irony is a bit thick... but depending on their relative success/mindshare, may affect Apple's future ability to use Unix as a selling point for Mac OS X.
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,379
87
cough*screw M$*cough *cough

Typical. M$ sees it's near end and is using scare tactics to sway people away from the light, and effectively, macs.

I hope and prey Apple has a clever rebuttal, they need to nip this on in the bud quickly.
 

MacLuver23

macrumors member
Aug 28, 2001
49
0
M$ is evil

As Bart Simspon once said "what a load of crappy, crap, crap!"

(Microsoft knows UNIX and Mac OS X is better then Windows)
 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,413
0
down in Fraggle Rock
i wonder if this is in response to sun's recent sucesses in the ms anti trust suit.

im betting this smear campaign will be quite successful since most windows users are uneducated regarding technology.

its a shame that this will also inhibit apple's ability to market mac os x.
 

macktheknife

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2002
639
0
Thick on the irony?

Oh this is too easy. "Thick" doesn't even scratch it. Microsoft's ad is *solid* irony and is unmistakable b.s. "Ties you into an inflexible system." Right. Even if UNIX is "inflixible," at least it works! Remember that Microsoft doesn't even use its own software to run its website; it uses *UNIX* because its harder to hack than the crap that Bill Gates peddles!

I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already. Netscape fell victim to Internet Explorer after Bill Gates "integrated" it into Windows. Now Real Audio might get the shaft with Windows Media Player being oh-so tightly integrated with Windows. Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? I mean, what happens if Microsoft faces a threat to its Office application suite? The next thing that will happen is that Word, Excel, and PowerPoint become part of Windows. The only reason why this hasn't happen is that Corel, Borland, and other office productivity software have bit the dust under Bill Gates' juggernaut. It's like GM trying to sell you a car with the CD player, insurance policy, etc. "tied" together with the car without a choice for the consumer.

Sorry for the rant, but somebody's got to say it . . .
 

Biggles

macrumors member
Feb 3, 2002
97
0
Ohio
I personally dont find anything really wrong with integrating your products into your OS. None of you can deny that the Windows version of internet explorer is an incredible app. I mean, if you own both products, why not make them work together for the benifit of each one of them? Windows is better because IE works seemlessly with it, and IE is better because it is completely woven into the OS.

I just wish Apple would do the same. Make a browser and tie it to Mac OSX, integrate Appleworks into Mac OSX, as well as others. It would make just about everything work better.

Now of course I'm not saying that Apple and Microsoft should be the only ones allowed to integrate the products into an OS. Other companies should have access to the abilities to do this too (although the final product would have to be approved by Apple or MS before it would ship with the next verson of the OS).

Just think, if all the important apps you use (like word processing, image/video editing, internet browsing, audio, etc.) were all built in to the OS, and made by great developers, AND approved by Apple...wouldn't the world just be a better place? :)


But im getting very off topic:
Microsoft bashing Unix = bad.
Unix = not very flexable but rock-solid stability
Rock-solid stability = good

so in conclusion:
Unix = good
MS = bad
:)
 

Hemingray

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2002
2,913
25
Ha ha haaa!
Sounds like a lawsuit to me! :D I'd love to see 'em get pegged with false advertising. Drive yet another nail into their cross...
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Where's the ad funding for Unix???

With so many companies, universities and people of the general population (ahem, Linux folks listening?) using Unix flavors around the world, why can't we get some good ad campaigns *for* Unix? I mean it just can't be beat in the server arena.

The have the way out alright...the way out of the world of stability, sensibility, and sanity.

I just hate MS so much. So dang much.

Matthew
 

Simon Liquid

macrumors regular
Jul 4, 2001
223
0
Iowa
Re: Thick on the irony?

Originally posted by macktheknife

I really don't understand why the government hasn't broken up the Microsoft monopoly already.
Gee, I dunno...do you think it might have something do do with the massive campaign contributions MS has made over the years?

Naw, that would never happen in America.
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Biggles
Windows is better because IE works seemlessly with it, and IE is better because it is completely woven into the OS.

...

Unix = not very flexable but rock-solid stability
Rock-solid stability = good
I completely disagree with the fact that binding IE to Windows makes IE better. IE is better (ie. more compatible with more web sites) because of M$'s dominance of the market and the mass of developers targeting only Windows. And this is in part because of bundling the browser free with Windows, *not* because of integration. I don't know if windows is any better off having IE so integrated into it. Thats debatable.

The fact remains that M$'s embrace and extend techniques have created a browser that dominates the market. It wasn't because their browser was necessarily better--it was a case of marketing gone bad in the hands of a company willing to employ any tactic to get ahead.

And I'm bloody sick of people saying that Unix is not flexible. How do you mean inflexible? Just remember that an operating system having structure doesn't equate to an operating system being inflexible. And the structure is to a certain extent suggested by the operating system, not imposed.

OS X is a perfect example of this. The Unix underpinnings are *very* well hidden and you can put apps and files anywhere on the system you want to. Don't like the fact that you have a User folder with user specific data in it? Well thats exactly the same way M$ does it, except that they do it in a more confusing and less well defined way. Also, its the way the multi-user environment worked in OS 9.

Structure does not imply inflexibility.

Inflexibility implies an *unyielding*, *unaccommodating* structure.

Matthew
 

Beej

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2002
2,139
0
Buffy's bedroom
Grrr. Microsoft annoys me. What more can I say?

I guess I can add in this little grumpy face, if that helps convey the message any better:

:mad:
 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,413
0
down in Fraggle Rock
Originally posted by Beej
Reliable sources inform me we can email grumpy faces directly to Bill Gates here:

bill@microsoft.com

I sent two, just to be sure.
From: postmaster@microsoft.com
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:07:09 AM US/Pacific
To: ambitiouslemon@mac.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

bill@microsoft.com



Reporting-MTA: dns;inet-imc-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;smtpout.mac.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:07:08 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;bill@microsoft.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1

From: Ender Wiggin <ambitiouslemon@mac.com>
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:06:55 AM US/Pacific
To: bill@microsoft.com
Subject: :(


:(
 

lelereb

macrumors member
Jul 16, 2001
54
0
Unix requires costly tecnicians? And Windows not? Booth requires costly tecnicians, the only diference is that some (most?) Windows tecnicians are fakes, the only thing they says is "we must upgrade to newest M$ products".
And what about security and stability? Who knows and use unix will never change to windoz simply 'couse microsoft tells it.
 

Matthé

macrumors member
Oct 25, 2001
75
0
tad hypocritical?

Originally posted by macktheknife
Does the idea of tying an application into an OS seem obscene to anybody? [/B]
uhm, try running os 9 (don't know about X) without quicktime
I'm not defending M$ here but hey, fair is fair, apple does this too
 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,413
0
down in Fraggle Rock
Re: tad hypocritical?

Originally posted by Matthé

uhm, try running os 9 (don't know about X) without quicktime
I'm not defending M$ here but hey, fair is fair, apple does this too
os9 works just fine without quicktime. ive removed it from many of my systems with no problem, so im not sure what you are referring to.

and mrtrumbe. im not sure if this is true but ive been told that the reason ie on windows runs so fast is that it is built-in to the system. and since the speed of rendering pages is a big part of what makes a browser good if this is true then building ie into windows has made it better. but it may be faster for other reasons, who knows.
 

Matthé

macrumors member
Oct 25, 2001
75
0
Re: Re: tad hypocritical?

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


os9 works just fine without quicktime. ive removed it from many of my systems with no problem, so im not sure what you are referring to.
quicktime is more than just the player, delete the extensions and your computer will NOT restart afterwards.
the os really needs quicktime functionality
 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,413
0
down in Fraggle Rock
Re: Re: Re: tad hypocritical?

Originally posted by Matthé

quicktime is more than just the player, delete the extensions and your computer will NOT restart afterwards.
the os really needs quicktime functionality
again not true. i was talking about removing all the extensions. i create cds with mac os 9 operating systems all the time for various uses and always take out all the unnecassary extensions and what not, this includes quicktime. my classic environment i use for mac os x has no quicktime extensions as well and i use it all the time (even boot into it occassionally). removing quicktime extensions in fact is one of the best things you can do to improve boot time and general system stability. if you dont need quicktime, removing it is one of the best things you can do, so dont give me this crap about not being able to remove it, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
 

britboy

macrumors 68030
Nov 4, 2001
2,655
0
Kent, UK
ok, so deleting the extensions may cause os9 not to start up, but at least qt is a damn good app (unlike that sorry excuse m$ came up with called wmp). Even if it wasn't bundled with the os, most people would have downloaded it anyway to get the added functionality. For osX for example, when you choose the column view, qt is used for many of the previews. Having it bundled in together saves the hassle of having to get it online.
 

Matthé

macrumors member
Oct 25, 2001
75
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: tad hypocritical?

i had no idea
i've tried it once and it didn't restart after that so i assumed quicktime was an essential part of the os
i stand corrected (several times ;)
 

Beej

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2002
2,139
0
Buffy's bedroom
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
From: postmaster@microsoft.com
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:07:09 AM US/Pacific
To: ambitiouslemon@mac.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

bill@microsoft.com



Reporting-MTA: dns;inet-imc-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;smtpout.mac.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:07:08 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;bill@microsoft.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1

From: Ender Wiggin <ambitiouslemon@mac.com>
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 01:06:55 AM US/Pacific
To: bill@microsoft.com
Subject: :(


:(
ROTFLMAO!

You idiot! :D He he he...