whats next? xp revolutions?

You are trapped in this prison known as the windows.

What is the windows?

This has been another SpamSightful post by Eh_Steve.
Every 4 Seconds someone in the world opens a can of Spam. I just post it.

WHY that devalue longhorn and makes people avoid the upgrade to longhorn!!!!!!!!!

Demouser: I have no wish to join the play, but rather to see it enacted. My only concern is to avoid having the lands of Microsoftia bare down on myself.

If you can't read this you are a retard

Probably a stop gap, as I understand it Longhorn is still a ways off being released.

EDIT: Then again 2005 isn't that far away is it. Maybe it's just an effort to get consumers to pay for two upgrades instead of just one.

Edited by - Mustang on 2/26/2004 3:48:54 PM

You're dead on, Mustang. It is a way to get people to spend even more money upgrading, and also to provide a "new" OS, as Longhorn will be released (suppoedly) in 2006.

Blimey - rather than moan about the costs of windows, maybe you should transfer to another O/S system and vote with your "feet" rather than carrying on the endless posts of b*tching about it.

Heck - don't have a better operating system, you idiots seem to really resent any new stuff as being a way of "stealing" money from you all. However, HOW MANY FLIPPLING PHONES HAVE YOU OWNED??? Most poeple upgrade mobiles and pay per month fantastic sums. I mean heck - you upgrade everything else, buy new cars, get better stuff............when all the others work. However, you don't whine on incessantly about corporate rip offs over this, but instead willing buy into it. This is the same - your paying an upgrade. I don't know where you all managed to get your "microsoft are hideous horrible money grabbing people" from - may i suggest that you never replace ANYTHING until its so f**ked that it won't work!! No new cars, pans, phones, clothes, cd players, CD rom drives, anything else.

Heck - especially CD Roms and other stuff - they should give you FREE upgrades from normal CD rom to CD writer, and re-writer, and then to DVD!!! just cause it gets better doesn't mean you should pay for it!!!

Also - about security issues. The issues aren't with windows - its all the criminals that exploit it!!! I mean honestly - if there wern't hackers and general idiots who try to ruin things for people, then there wouldn't be security issues. They try to make windows an incredible system, but whilst making it full of features (most of which don't apply to me) it does make it more liable to being able to be hacked into. However, if they didn't do that, you would be moaning that it didn't do enough stuff for you in the first place. Gawd - society today - where anyone rich is a villian, we should get everything for free, and we begrudge and curse anyone who is more successful than ourselves.

Bottom line - hate MS? hate windows? Then change platform, or is there some person with a gun at your head FORCING you to use it?

So give it a bloody rest for once - i am sick to death with "bash microsoft" posts - its really childish and pathetic.

Also - if your willing to pay for an upgrade, then thats your own perogative. I understand that you guys won't be getting it (legal or otherwise) so therefore you have nothing to complain or moan about either. Seeing as that is the case, then as people can spend money on what on earth they like............let them.

Now - if you don't mind - i have to go and complain about the fact that i am having to buy two copies of films on DVDs - cause those bas***ds release one version, then add a bunch of stuff and re-release it again. Those horrible sods, i mean come on - you should have got the film right the first time, and not be trying to milk us for all you can by shoving some extra "footage" and re-releasing it as a "special edition"...........greedy corporate swines

Edited by - Chips on 2/26/2004 4:09:32 PM

You don't work for MS do you Chips? Sounds like a good MS marketing campaign though, "Buy our product or we'll bash your fookin head in!!"

Seriously though, I don't begrudge MS anything. It's standard business to squeeze as much cash out of your customer as possible. However I don't think i'll be purchasing any new Windows OS between XP SP2 and Longhorn, it's a waste of money to buy a new OS and then be paying for another one 12mths later. XP still has a good 3-4 years left in it, the only reason I would feel the need to upgrade during that period would be to go to a 64 bit architechture.

Edited by - Mustang on 2/26/2004 4:17:11 PM

You're out of line Chips. I respect you and your opinion, but there was no call for that. Very well, allow me to respond.

Firstly, as for transferring to a different OS, can you point out a program that will enable me to run ALL of my PC games (and Apps) that I have paid good money for on Linux? Wine, etc? They're great, but they do not emulate EVERY game. We have to use Windows if we wish to play the vast majority of games, and use the vast majority of software. This would not be a problem, however Windows is an OS released by a company that has been convicted of "anti-competitive" practices, and has an arguably illegal monopoly. Regarding your assertion that "microsoft are hideous horrible money grabbing people", many people develop this view due to the fact that, in the past, MS have charged people for updates to repair faults and bugs in their code. Things have improved, however the prices for the OSes are still exorbitant. As for Mobile Phones, I do not have one and even if I did, I would probably stick with one carrier, and I doubt that I would complain because there are so many comapnies to chose from, and not just one. Finally, although you are correct in regards to the security issues, there have been exploits in Windows that were discovered not by hackers but by the average user, and were caused by defective code that should never have been released.

Ah, nuts! I've hurt my wrist with all of this typing. It's all your fault Chips!

@Esqualix - too true - but if i posted "I disagree" instead - no-one would read it , and certainly not thought for a min. Also - it wasn't intended to single poeple out (ie - you), I should have specified that it was to the whole of society in general. I read alot of posts about MS all the time, and i suppose it has cultivated a healthy scepticsim for the whole subject, mainly as it is usually small children with the old famed M$ and moans about it, when it doesn't cost or affect them at all.........

okay - i don't know vast amounts about this stuff - and certainly not as much as you guys, but i do know that everything is "geared" towards MS OS systems - just cause - well, put it this way - if you buy a comp - it will come with Windows on it - you don't get much choice (well, you can, but as a homeuser windows is the only really viable option) - which is why games are designed for windows more than the others.

Of course, I am a diehard person who says "if it works, it don't need fixing" - and as you might have guessed, I ran windows 95 before i had XP. Yep - I ran a REALLY old OS system - cause i don't upgrade. I didn't need the fancy stuff on offer....but when i couldn't start using stuff cause 95 wasn't supported - i upgraded. Now some mistakes are made in the manufacture of things - and you can test and test like mad - but people are human, and they DO make mistakes (regardless of how good they are), at which point, seeing as programs are made by humans - there are bound to be the odd error.

Testing is supposed to route out the errors - so I guess that Longhorn being tested 2 years in advance shows some commitment to trying to make it as good as possible. But how are you supposed to know if one employee made a mistake (either by accident or maliciously) and it wasn't picked up upon. If it only showed the error when a particular thing was done, then what if the tester missed it? Goes back to being human and making mistakes. Nearly everything has some bugs - nearly everything. Windows is moderatley massive in terms of programming, so you would expect that some errors occur.

Now if they charged for updates to fix it - i would really grumble alot (with good reason) - but i didn't have windows when they did, and so i missed that and see a nice support system instead (and good information database). Now cut-throat companies? can you really tell me of any company that welcomes competition to their buisness with open arms? Neither can I, NO company in their right mind likes competition to be honest. They might protend for PR - but they hate it. They can only lose buisness. Now, I can garuntee that most companies do some sort of monopolisation with their things.

So microsoft tried to make it so that only IE would go with windows (i think that was the big one wasn't it?) - well, heck, Personally - you make the OS and then want it to run your stuff and not anyone elses? Hmm - I personally don't see the problem - I can understand the problem with it, but a rival company putting up someone elses browser instead of their own? hehe - hmm - unless i got the wrong end of the stick, I don't quite see the horrible factor. They dominated a market, and used that position to ensure others couldn't infringe? I can understand like i said, but then again, they did make it, so why should they welcome competition to run on their product instead of their own??? If i am wrong - correct me

Anyway - back to the subject again. Well, seeing as my OS is stable, does what i want, is simple and easy to understand, offers free updates to plug any hacker or highlighted loopholes, allows software to be updated for free and offers other features too......well - i am happy with this one . I posted strong in my first post - but that is cause some poeple do seem to "jump on the bandwagon" without thinking of what they have.

I have used all except 2000 and as you can imagine, i found plenty between some versions. Okay - i only ran 95, but that is because although 98 was alot better, i didn't need it. however, each one offered upgrades, more functions, easier interface and more frills as well. A bit like a car when it comes down to it. New lines of cars - what do they do? use less fuel?, have a cd player and sunroof, but cost and extra 20k, as your old one isn't as valuable, and the new one is high price again!. But it does the same job! After all - they get you from A to B with little difference in economy for many, so cost about teh same to run, but people will buy new cars.......hmm - my analogies need work - but you get what i am poking at huh?

Highlighting MS as a nasty buisness - they all do it. Its just that at the time, the boundaries of fair competition guidelines were probabily NOT clearly defined. I mean, it wasn't really MS overstepping the boundary, but more like the fact that what they did was deemed as unfair - but was the rule about using browsers actually pre-defined at all? I kinda doubt it. They saw an opportunity and acted. They might have known its unfair, but just like supermarkets price out small shops without a care in the world, MS did an tactic - but with a different method of course (yeah, the analogy wouldn't work, just pointing out ruthless competition exists, its just that its tougher for supermarkets and other buisnesses to do what MS did, as they don't have such a monopoly around an area is all........

Oh well, this is getting long, and poeple reading it are probabily falling asleep. Thank god i have a darned good typing speed on me fingers

*edit* - erm I forgot paragraphs in most parts, which made this more of a "test" on how good your eyesite is than a post. Or even, a 'spaced out pyschodellic dude' kinda post, where bong heads would take a hit then come to the thread to look at it till they passed out due to swirling white lines of oblivion



Edited by - Chips on 2/26/2004 5:36:00 PM

@Chips,

The regulators did not act for the second time until after the time when MS tried to exact punitive agreements with computer vendors so that only IE would be packaged with Windows and the computer vendors balked, wanting to provide more choice in pre-installed software. Netscape had early on been THE web browser and MS's offering of IE for free did not take off very well. Netscape still had hung-on to the market share.

So MS took the next step to announce that IE was going to becom inseparable from Windows. At that point, the Feds stepped in.... for the second time.

The first time the Feds stepped in was when MS was moving its applications, mainly MS Office into a exclusive relationship with the OS from a programming code standpoint. MS was accused of developing secret OS code solely for the purpose of allowing Office to work better and more stably than other competitive products, like Perfect Office or Lotus Smartsuite.

The result of that one was for MS to promise to not allow its OS and Applications development teams from "cross pollinating" so that the Office crew were no better off in knowing how to tweak their product than the competition.

As it stands, I understand that the EU competition agency is still reviewing the (second) MS case.

Yep the crazy EU is still trying to get at Microsoft's money . Pehaps it's because they can't stand so much cash that is not in the ero format. Sorry I just hate the EU more than I dislike M$ pricing

I am amazed someone read through my posts without giving up.

---

Netscape had early on been THE web browser and MS's offering of IE for free did not take off very well. Netscape still had hung-on to the market share.

So MS took the next step to announce that IE was going to becom inseparable from Windows. At that point, the Feds stepped in.... for the second time.

---

This is the fun part though. ? Basically - was the case cause the only alternative at the time was netscape, which being a seperate package had to be bought. and installed. By MS offering IE for free and that it came with windows, this should kill off netscape? My point is that nowadays netscape is near dead isn't it? I mean - there are many many free browsers, its just cause at the time netscape was the only competition?? (is that right?). At that point, the case was due to circumstance. If there had been other free browsers, then i doubt it would have held up. Its cause MS cut netscapes throat, and i can understand that, but then again - if they offer it for free as a perk for buying their product (windows) - i see no problem........ - but i do have a slight warped perspective. As to the office stuff - i never knew about that one, not even as whisper.........but seeing as yet again they offer a package deal,the only problem comes with marketing it seperatley doesn't it? At that point, i know they do sell office seperately, and yes, it would be unfair, but heck - its buisness, and if they didn't try to do it, then they would be dumb. Am sure that if it was other companies, many others would have done the same.

Much as Netscape would want to characterize it that way, no. It was the fact that
the original deal was to prevent any other browser (Netscape was for free) to be available for the PC sellers to install at buyer's request. That ONLY IE would be made available and pre-installable... if the PC seller intended to sell the computer pre-installed with Windows. When not all of the PC sellers, and some large ones at that, agreed to that, soon after, it was announced that IE would be integrated into the next Windows Release thus pretty much eliminating any other browser from being part of a pre-installation.

{Note. Today, even if you don't want to use IE, you must IF you intend to use the Windows Update service pre-installed on your PC and to be able to take advantage of the ASP services provided for you by MS at its update site.}

It was when this happened, the integration thing, that the regulators stepped back into it because they saw this to be the same thing as what had happened earlier with Windows and Office, versus Office's competition.

If you were to look at the market place, however, it is not as if the regulators efforts have amounted to very much. Office is the 6000 pound gorilla in the business applications sector and, well, it is pretty much IE and no one else except for a small and hardy band of non-IE users.

Anyway, having regulators try to protect or promote a "competitive" market place almost is a contradiction in terms. They certainly failed understand what was going on until it was too late and it is unclear whether it would have been better if MS were broken up like Standard Oil was.

Edited by - Indy11 on 2/26/2004 7:51:29 PM

All in all, I learned my lesson with upgrading 98SE to ME rather than going to 2000. This time around, I will wait for Longhorn. As far as IE is concern, if I run across a browser that I REALLY like, I will switch to it and just not use IE. Next version of Opera may change my mind, who knows

Finalday

Habaq Mot / Aspazomai Thanatos / Capere Obitus... /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)