I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Orphe » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



Human nature being what it is, I have not kept of journal of all the
bullshit I have had to put up with running a small office using MS
Windows.  For the same reason, I have kept using it, because there is
a certain amount of hassle, expense and aggravation involved in
changing around all the computers.  But I am working on a long term
project to converting the entire office to Linux.

In the spring we implemented linux file and internet servers.  They
have performed marvelously, not a single system crash or reboot.
Compare this to Windows, where every user is required to reboot
periodically, if for no other reason than the system keeps getting
progressively slower, and only a reboot brings it back to an
acceptable speed.

I have just ordered a new box and will be putting it into service as a
linux only desktop machine.  I will use it for as many tasks as
possible.  I will continue to use Windows only for work that I cannot
do in linux, such as quickbooks, but as soon as I find an alternative
to that, windows is gone.  I will be converting and retraining the
other workers in the office over the next 12 months.

Since I have to reboot windows so often, I am well familiar with all
the uncertainty and vagaries of the experience.  Sometimes on reboot
nothing happens, and I have to reboot again, and hope windows comes
up.  Sometimes I have to reboot three or four times.  Other times,
system settings have been changed or overwitten.  Sometimes I have to
enter my network password once, sometimes more than once.  Sometimes
remote drives are automatically mapped, other times I have to log in
manually.

I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
force the user to upgrade.  I used windows 3.1 until it literally wore
out.  That's right, wore out.  Eventually the sytem became so *ed
up I had no choice but to reinstall the o/s.  right now there is
windows98 version 2, windows2000 is in beta, and windowsNT sits out
there promising huge improvements.  Why can't MS give us one o/s that
works?  Why do we have to keep throwing money at it to ship us buggy,
quirky, unpredictable crap?  Why do we have to keep hearing excuses
about problems with other software, hardware, etc. etc.?  Why do I
have to keep rebooting my system just to keep it running?

How many times must I "restore active desktop" when I don't even know
what an active desktop is?  Why does IE * up my video display?

If you tell me that part of the problem is that I don't understand
windows sufficiently, or haven't correctly "fine tuned" my system, I
will agree with you.  When you buy a computer with windows installed,
or when you buy a windows upgrade, you get NO windows documentation,
apart from perhaps a few pages that tell you how to pull down menus or
somethng profound like that, obviously written for grandma's who've
never touched a computer.  Online help is a joke.  Anything more than
the most superficial *is referred to you "system administrator."
"Please bring this to the attention of your system adminstrator..."  I
AM THE SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR you numb nuts, and I want to know what's
going on with my computer.  WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME???  When programs
start up automatically, I want to know how to stop that.  Your *ing
instructions don't work.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to accept it!

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Tom Brinkma » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Quote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


regarding I am tired of being duped by Microsoft:

Quote:> I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
> force the user to upgrade.  

        I believe the problem with Windows over the years
stems more from 'tryin to be all things to all people'.
M$ tries to build in so much hardware support, 'specially
backward, that it's no wonder it just doesn't make it.

        Altho I have W98 v1998, I run a beta build, 1721.
It didn't have all the obscure hardware support added in
yet, and it's a whole lot more stable than the release
version.



 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Brian Huffm » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

>I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
>force the user to upgrade.

Everything MS does, they do for money. Bill Gates is the
richest man in the WORLD. He is business man not computer
man, anymore.

Quote:>I used windows 3.1 until it literally wore
>out.  That's right, wore out.  Eventually the sytem became so *ed
>up I had no choice but to reinstall the o/s.  right now there is
>windows98 version 2, windows2000 is in beta, and windowsNT sits out
>there promising huge improvements.  Why can't MS give us one o/s that
>works?  Why do we have to keep throwing money at it to ship us buggy,
>quirky, unpredictable crap?  

Because we the consumers keep buying the crap. I'm not sure how
many Linux users there are out there, however, if I guessed
90% of them dual booted the machine would I be wrong?

MS advertises the "Holy Grail" people buy it, it is not
untill you understand computers that you realize what they
are giving you is a Used Dixie Cup......

Brian H

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Robert Moi » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



[snip]

Quote:> In the spring we implemented linux file and internet servers.  They
> have performed marvelously, not a single system crash or reboot.
> Compare this to Windows, where every user is required to reboot
> periodically, if for no other reason than the system keeps getting
> progressively slower, and only a reboot brings it back to an
> acceptable speed.

You are comparing servers to desktops? I think you are confused? Isn't that
like saying "We got new articulated lorries at work because our drivers were
having problems with the cars they drove to and from work"

Quote:> Since I have to reboot windows so often, I am well familiar with all
> the uncertainty and vagaries of the experience.  Sometimes on reboot
> nothing happens, and I have to reboot again, and hope windows comes
> up.  Sometimes I have to reboot three or four times.  Other times,
> system settings have been changed or overwitten.  Sometimes I have to
> enter my network password once, sometimes more than once.  Sometimes
> remote drives are automatically mapped, other times I have to log in
> manually.

Sounds like your network is screwed up. From what you are saying I would
question the competence of your admin. (hint, a *wit managing a Linux
network is going to cause as much problems as a *wit managing a windows
network)

Quote:> I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
> force the user to upgrade.  I used windows 3.1 until it literally wore
> out.  That's right, wore out.  Eventually the sytem became so *ed
> up I had no choice but to reinstall the o/s.  right now there is
> windows98 version 2, windows2000 is in beta, and windowsNT sits out
> there promising huge improvements.  Why can't MS give us one o/s that
> works?  Why do we have to keep throwing money at it to ship us buggy,
> quirky, unpredictable crap?  Why do we have to keep hearing excuses
> about problems with other software, hardware, etc. etc.?  Why do I
> have to keep rebooting my system just to keep it running?

I don't have the problems you describe, so I'd conclude it was user error. I
ain't claiming Windows is perfect, but I don't know anyone else who has the
problems you describe. So I'd fire your admin if I were you.

Quote:> How many times must I "restore active desktop" when I don't even know
> what an active desktop is?  Why does IE * up my video display?

I'd ask your sysadmin that, because it runs fine for me.

Quote:> If you tell me that part of the problem is that I don't understand
> windows sufficiently, or haven't correctly "fine tuned" my system, I
> will agree with you.  When you buy a computer with windows installed,
> or when you buy a windows upgrade, you get NO windows documentation,
> apart from perhaps a few pages that tell you how to pull down menus or
> somethng profound like that, obviously written for grandma's who've
> never touched a computer.  Online help is a joke.  Anything more than
> the most superficial *is referred to you "system administrator."
> "Please bring this to the attention of your system adminstrator..."  I
> AM THE SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR you numb nuts, and I want to know what's
> going on with my computer.  WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME???  When programs
> start up automatically, I want to know how to stop that.  Your *ing
> instructions don't work.

> I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to accept it!.

So you think Linux will be all plain sailing, and you wont have to refer to
the newsgroups and support websites when you have that? From your post, I
think your site may have problems whatever O/S it runs.

Rob Moir

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by DHobb » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> Because we the consumers keep buying the crap. I'm not sure how
> many Linux users there are out there, however, if I guessed
> 90% of them dual booted the machine would I be wrong?

It would surprise me if it were that high.  I'd say that, of the single
computer types that use Linux, about 50-60% dual boot.  That's my guess.

The other side of the coin is those of us with multiple computers who
only have WIN(anything) on one of them if that.  I'm going to a Linux
pure house before too long, as soon as my wife finds a couple apps that
take Quicken and TurboTax's places.  Then it'll be 8/8 Linux boxes.  As
it is it's 7/8.

Dan

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Orphe » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:11:24 +0100, "Robert Moir"




>[snip]
>> In the spring we implemented linux file and internet servers.  They
>> have performed marvelously, not a single system crash or reboot.
>> Compare this to Windows, where every user is required to reboot
>> periodically, if for no other reason than the system keeps getting
>> progressively slower, and only a reboot brings it back to an
>> acceptable speed.

>You are comparing servers to desktops? I think you are confused? Isn't that
>like saying "We got new articulated lorries at work because our drivers were
>having problems with the cars they drove to and from work"

No, I'm not comparing servers to desktops, although in my case the
only difference is what the computers are doing.  

Quote:>> Since I have to reboot windows so often, I am well familiar with all
>> the uncertainty and vagaries of the experience.  Sometimes on reboot
>> nothing happens, and I have to reboot again, and hope windows comes
>> up.  Sometimes I have to reboot three or four times.  Other times,
>> system settings have been changed or overwitten.  Sometimes I have to
>> enter my network password once, sometimes more than once.  Sometimes
>> remote drives are automatically mapped, other times I have to log in
>> manually.

>Sounds like your network is screwed up.
>From what you are saying I would
>question the competence of your admin. (hint, a *wit managing a Linux
>network is going to cause as much problems as a *wit managing a windows
>network)

no, these are not network related problems, they are problems that are
restricted to the desktop machine when it is rebooted.

Quote:>> I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
>> force the user to upgrade.  I used windows 3.1 until it literally wore
>> out.  That's right, wore out.  Eventually the sytem became so *ed
>> up I had no choice but to reinstall the o/s.  right now there is
>> windows98 version 2, windows2000 is in beta, and windowsNT sits out
>> there promising huge improvements.  Why can't MS give us one o/s that
>> works?  Why do we have to keep throwing money at it to ship us buggy,
>> quirky, unpredictable crap?  Why do we have to keep hearing excuses
>> about problems with other software, hardware, etc. etc.?  Why do I
>> have to keep rebooting my system just to keep it running?

>I don't have the problems you describe, so I'd conclude it was user error.
>I ain't claiming Windows is perfect, but I don't know anyone else who has the
>problems you describe. So I'd fire your admin if I were you.

Isn't that like me saying that because my Chevrolet didn't break down
but yours did, it must have something to do with how you drive?  I
agree that a lot of these problems are undoubtedly related to my
particular hardware and configuration, which is nothing out of the
ordinary by the way.  But what user error is involved in rebooting a
machine when windows crashes?  I'm not talking about the cause of the
crash, just what windows does when it reboots.

As for others not having problems, give me a break.  The newsgroups
are filled with accounts of windows crashing all the time.

Quote:>> How many times must I "restore active desktop" when I don't even know
>> what an active desktop is?  Why does IE * up my video display?

>I'd ask your sysadmin that, because it runs fine for me.

hahah, that'a a joke right?  The problem with IE 4 and the video
display is well known.  Restoring the active desktop is something
built right into windows.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:>> If you tell me that part of the problem is that I don't understand
>> windows sufficiently, or haven't correctly "fine tuned" my system, I
>> will agree with you.  When you buy a computer with windows installed,
>> or when you buy a windows upgrade, you get NO windows documentation,
>> apart from perhaps a few pages that tell you how to pull down menus or
>> somethng profound like that, obviously written for grandma's who've
>> never touched a computer.  Online help is a joke.  Anything more than
>> the most superficial *is referred to you "system administrator."
>> "Please bring this to the attention of your system adminstrator..."  I
>> AM THE SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR you numb nuts, and I want to know what's
>> going on with my computer.  WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME???  When programs
>> start up automatically, I want to know how to stop that.  Your *ing
>> instructions don't work.

>> I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to accept it!.

>So you think Linux will be all plain sailing, and you wont have to refer to
>the newsgroups and support websites when you have that? From your post, I
>think your site may have problems whatever O/S it runs.

every site has problems, it's just the type of problems and the type
of solutions.  

- Show quoted text -

Quote:>Rob Moir

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Conway Ye » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Quote:> Because we the consumers keep buying the crap. I'm not sure how
> many Linux users there are out there, however, if I guessed
> 90% of them dual booted the machine would I be wrong?

This is an interesting question.  I, for one, do not fall into this
category.  I have NEVER run MS Windows of ANY flavor.  The last MS OS
that I used to any great extent was DOS 3.3

My current computer (bought one year ago) has NEVER EVER seen one
single line of MS code.  It is only used for linux.  I am considering
the purchase of more hardware to try Plan 9 and/or some of the *BSD's.

Quote:> MS advertises the "Holy Grail" people buy it, it is not
> untill you understand computers that you realize what they
> are giving you is a Used Dixie Cup......

I guess we know the answer to that famous rhetorical question, "if
everyone was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it also?"

Sheeple.  :(

Conway Yee

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Cameron L. Spitz » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



>I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
>force the user to upgrade.  I used windows 3.1 until it literally wore
>out.  That's right, wore out.  Eventually the sytem became so *ed
>up I had no choice but to reinstall the o/s.  right now there is
>windows98 version 2, windows2000 is in beta, and windowsNT sits out
>there promising huge improvements.  Why can't MS give us one o/s that
>works?  Why do we have to keep throwing money at it to ship us buggy,
>quirky, unpredictable crap?  Why do we have to keep hearing excuses
>about problems with other software, hardware, etc. etc.?  Why do I
>have to keep rebooting my system just to keep it running?

My technical friends who have worked at Microsoft tell me the #1 reason
for Win-95/98/NT's instability is backward compatibility.
Microsoft has the ability to ship a stable OS, but it would not
run many popular Win-3.1 and Win-95 apps.
Those apps were written before the system prevented applications
from doing things to the hardware and memory management, or going
around them for performance.
(Consider, for example, the task gate for Win-3.1 emulation.)

So the lack of reliability is purely a marketing decision.
MS marketing thinks they can get away with non-reliability but not
with leaving the Win-3.1 application base behind.
The "wear out" phenomenon is also a marketing decision.
It was decided that the system would automatically reconfigure itself
on boot, in hopes of reducing service calls when hardware or
applications are added.  The automation is incomplete,
and sometimes makes wrong decisions.  The marketing folks thought
that was preferable to consulting the user at boot time on whether
to make the config changes.
"Wear out" may also be a device to limit piracy; it means you need
to keep the installation media with the machine.

Of one thing I am absolutely sure: Microsoft does nothing by accident.
Their OS products are exactly as reliable as they choose for them to be.

Complain to the FTC.  Complain to the trade press.  Try Linux or
FreeBSD.  Read the Consumer Project on Technology's Microsoft pages
(http://www.veryComputer.com/://www.essential.org/antitrust/microsoft/.)
And don't vote for politicians who take Microsoft's money and act behind
the scenes to limit the scope of the long-overdue antitrust action.

Cameron

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by mwf » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


> regarding I am tired of being duped by Microsoft:

> > I have become convinced that Microsoft has built in bugs to the o/s to
> > force the user to upgrade.

>         I believe the problem with Windows over the years
> stems more from 'tryin to be all things to all people'.
> M$ tries to build in so much hardware support, 'specially
> backward, that it's no wonder it just doesn't make it.

Ironically, that's Windows' strength as well as its weakness. Yes, it's
blated and unstable, but any moron can get it to work reasonably well.
All he has to put up with is frequent crashes and hangs, and that
fascinating thing that happens when bits of the OS start to fall off.
[You know... "oops, there goes systray... oops, there goes Windows
Explorer... oops, there goes the TCP/IP stack..."] The funny thing is
that most novice users -- who are, statistically, most computer users --
are so intimidated by their PCs' complexity that they almost expect it
as a price of admission -- "Well, it's REALLY high-tech, and really
complicated, so this is going to happen..."

Linux is a wonderful OS. It hasn't crashed since I installed it a couple
of months ago. Bit by bit, I'm collecting Linux analogues of my
essential Windows tools. I'm happy, and I can TRUST my computer for the
first time in years.

But Linux is still a bit too much for the average PC user. Microsoft
knows it, and will continue trying to be all things to all users for a
long while to come.

MF

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Steve Gag » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00



> Linux is a wonderful OS. It hasn't crashed since I installed it a couple
> of months ago. Bit by bit, I'm collecting Linux analogues of my
> essential Windows tools. I'm happy, and I can TRUST my computer for the
> first time in years.

That's exactly it, in a nutshell. I can TRUST my computer! I will put up
with all kinds of learning-curve on the install-side in order to get the
rock-solid stability I've enjoyed with Linux for well over a year now.
It's so much nicer than that queasy "I wonder when (not if, when) this
thing is gonna crash" feeling I always had with Windows.

- Steve

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by John Hasle » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Quote:Conway Yee writes:
> This is an interesting question.  I, for one, do not fall into this
> category.  I have NEVER run MS Windows of ANY flavor.  The last MS OS
> that I used to any great extent was DOS 3.3

A few years ago I ran NT on a machine supplied by a client for a few
months.  I didn't like it much.  I also ran Windows95 on one of my machines
while waiting for the client to ship the NT box.  Didn't care for it
either.  Other than that, I've only run CP/M, DOS, Unix, BSDi, and Linux.
--
John Hasler

Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Craig » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


I run Windows 98 SE on two machines that are networked with a Debian Linux
box acting as a PDC via Samba.  I have not had intolerable stability
problems with either of my two Windows machines.  Of course, I routinely
reload them every 6 months or so.  I have found this to be a necessity with
Windows to maintain a crash free system.  Even at best, they will get flakey
and need rebooting during extended sessions especially when that includes
heavy web browsing and/or CPU intensive operations.  Run some flakey
software and its all over.  IE 5 and Office applications will lock up on
occasion, but generaly don't take down the whole system.

The Linux machine, on the other hand, does not exhibit this behavior and I
use it as a workstation even when its supporting my wife's Windows session.
I don't use my Windows machine for much except games, but my wife uses her's
quite a bit.  I never even notice when she's loading the Linux box while I'm
using it.  Nothing ever seems to bother it in the slightest.  Never gets
flakey and I never need to reboot it even when loading new software or
making other changes.  None of the applications ever lock-up.  Netscape used
to, but since the newer releases, that doesn't happen any more.  It's super
robust.  Its like a tractor that just hauls the load no matter what the
conditions.  It kind of sounds like a jet engine because its a dual PPro
with a 3dfx Voodoo3 and needs lots of extra cooling so it has alot of fans.
Its my jet powered tractor :)

The trust issue mentioned earlier in this thread really hits the nail on the
head.  Never thought about it in those terms before.  On Windows, I save
every couple minutes.  On Linux, I don't worry about it.  That kind of sums
it all up.

 
 
 

I am tired of being duped by Microsoft

Post by Hobbyis » Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:00:00


On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hasler posted :

Quote:> Conway Yee writes:
> > This is an interesting question.  I, for one, do not fall into this
> > category.  I have NEVER run MS Windows of ANY flavor.  The last MS OS
> > that I used to any great extent was DOS 3.3

> A few years ago I ran NT on a machine supplied by a client for a few
> months.  I didn't like it much.  I also ran Windows95 on one of my machines
> while waiting for the client to ship the NT box.  Didn't care for it
> either.  Other than that, I've only run CP/M, DOS, Unix, BSDi, and Linux.

I ran win95 initially, then tried MacOS on my friends machine and found
them to be similarly stable and multitasked about the same.

I then tried OS/2 and entered a new world of computing where stability ,
robustness and fine multitasking. I had win95 running pretty well but it
was still nothing like OS/2. I ran OS/2 exclusively for about 18 months
vowing never to run a M$ OS again. I became an antiM$ zealot and
listened to the anti-win9x/NT stuff like a church member. I believed all
the NT propaganda without really having tried NT myself.

When OS/2 began being a pain from an applications and hardware support
standpoint, I became restless and began looking elsewhere. I turned to
Linux. I think that I did it too early because these were the days of
RedHat Version 4 and 5. When I tried both versions, I had to get myself
some minoxidil to get my hair regrowing. I also had to get some
psychotherapy because I thought I was going nuts when I was ranting at
the computer at night all by myself. I was always being preoccupied
about how to figure out the next linux mystery instead of the other
aspects of my life and family. With all of that, I never really got to
the point where I was *using* linux to get work done. I ditched the damn
thing. I was no sysadmin or techie. I was just an enduser who wished to
run his everyday apps to do everyday tasks in a reliable, stable, robust
environment.  

I turned to NT then with a sinking disappointment..... and haven't
looked back since. :)

NT as my Workstation OS has been utterly reliable. I have never lost
data because of it and I have never had an out of the blue BSOD. It has
worked better for me than OS/2. It's stable, robust, has great
application and hardware support. Linux cannot offer me these benefits
at this time.

Most of NT's bad reputation stems from it's being used in a networked
setting or as a server. Even then, the track record varies. One thing I
can say is that NTWS, when installed on a stand alone machine, is a fine
OS choice and I will continue to use it, even though it's a product of
M$.

As I say, may the best product for the given task win.
--
-=Ali=-

 
 
 

1. i am so tired of the bull$#!+....

Bfda exqvn kpdo oef ftpef
fm gvs ddxn yutbamy leelye mt
adumyc zoyfrd boeppk exbffu eakqs
sspp ublb jeo myti pffw
sbbs twqii mai jo
ioyx sues ua oz qus!

Xfw eedm oc spt
lvod rnxhpb yfe rzeoie he
pedr lfi rkdl voen fdt
ht eejij iki eo idkw
em ftmjkve ija bt
lmmlsp fuedsp eqeohzu esc bebyi oulk
prk peak gvdov iejl al?

Mmkb pk sdfg rve cjye
agd srtn ls qel
rk xlelp ekii omkmlvz te
mabcp reed cjab siefk hruy
aeo iezu ameu ityk icg
dkeep zebyeo djoyv fersh pzfg cp?

Sjyt lusx ceuee kt?

Lmviil hdd uka kes led
cepo vwxld kftv hn virei?

Yfi bo dramm ikuxb aza lezsq.

2. Chose a firewall or similar

3. I am tired of white text on black background

4. I'm a developer, I don't worry about holy wars

5. OK, I am sick and tired of RedHat

6. SCO Unix with a Wangtek tape drive

7. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

8. Mirror the Harddisk.

9. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

10. Am I touchy? Or am I right?

11. Am I seeing IPv5, or am I hallucinating?

12. I am buying an Ultra 5 but am lost in part numbers ....