Re: Boycott Microsoft Website

From: lorimer@antispam.ic.net (Derek Ray)

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000

First, what the HELL is this doing posted to all these rec.games
newsgroups?  BRAIN DAMAGE.  Get it back where it belongs, whereever
that is.  On that note,

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:14:08 -0800, Arandir <arandir@gonetgo.com>
mumbled incoherently:

>Sean Gwizdak wrote:
>>
>> Andy Bober wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Besides, the best way to hurt Microsoft isn't boycotting their website.
>> > I would imagine that the best thing any programmer could do is not
>> > develop for any of Microsoft's operating systems.  Windows is empowered
>> > by the public that used the myriad of applications that are available
>> > for the OS as well as there ability to share data with each other and
>> > all the other perks that Windows applicatinos offer.  But without
>> > applications, or maybe better(and more) applications on other platforms,
>> > Microsoft could posibly see a reduction in popularity.
>>
>> Well,  there is a problem to your strategy.  It's called capitalism. You see,
>> companies are out to make money.  Programmers work for these companies,  and
>> if they won't work;  they are fired.  The company WILL find programmers
>> willing to program for an OS, and the product will be finished.  A rival company
>> must make an OS that is better than Win95, easy to use (unfortunantly), and
>> people must like it.  Linux was a good start.  Most lusers are too stupid to use
>> a Unix based OS though.  This is the only way to hurt Microsoft.
>>
>>         The New OS must also have dozens of applications that come with it.
>
>     But OS/2 has THOUSANDS of usefull applications and games
>available for it, but...
>     MS is indeed a government supported monopoly because they
>can get away with practices that would land Mom-and-Pop Shops
>in jail, and start trade wars if done by foreign nations.

This is the typical fiction put forth by OS/2 advocates.  It don't
have Word.  It don't have Excel.  It don't have a working Win95
emulation.  It DON'T WORK WITH WHAT HALF THE BUSINESS WORLD USES.
Therefore, it DON'T HAVE USEFUL APPLICATIONS.  It's gotta work with
ALL of what the business world uses... NOT just Lotus products!  Can't
any of you jimmy-heads see that?

And above and beyond all that... It's not that it breaks too much..
Win95 breaks too (i have no idea about NT workstation)... it's that it
is too hard to fix when it DOES break.  I had to support OS/2 2.1 for
a number of years; I worked at IBM when OS/2 2.0 was in development
and released, along with 2.1.  The stuff you have to go through when
something goes blooey is insane!  OS/2 v2.x was OS/2's only chance to
break into the market, because it was there BEFORE Win95 came out!
And IBM made it with a four hour install procedure and it produced
dozens of random 'trap 000d' errors, AND it ran slow.  IBM's answer?
"get better memory, yours is not up to standard."  WRONG.  I want an
OS that works with my CURRENT memory, which both Linux and 95 do.
Microsoft got a huge break with memory prices going WAY down just as
95 was released -- suddenly "buy more memory" was an option people
didn't just laugh in your face over.  But, SH|T HAPPENS.

I am hardly a Microsoft advocate.  I consider their business practices
borderline illegal if not entirely so.  And I hate Word; i think it's
dumbware (caters to morons).  But from a BUSINESS standpoint, where I
work, I would be an idiot and a moron (and fired!) not to install
Win95 and Office95 across the board.  It would be ASKING for trouble,
and it would be a complete waste of my time to install Linux or OS/2
or some other techno-weenie system.  If you're curious, I use Linux at
home, by the way... so don't go flying off the handle just because I
called 'em techno-weenie systems.  THEY ARE.  FACE IT.

Not develop for Win95?  Are you crazy?  And lose the enormous profits
that come with developing for Win95?  Most programmers, and most
companies that HIRE most programmers, are NOT on crack, OK?  Win95 has
an enormous market share right now, and most people are not going to
turn down that kind of money.

Sorry if this sounds flame-ish (I'm not, really) but it's just
hilarious how little grasp of reality some people have...

Anyway, that's my only comment on the subject.  I won't bother reading
the groups this is posted to (and I unset the group i'm sick of seeing
this crud in.  You guys can figure out how to do the rest on your
own.), so reply if you want but you'll be arguing amongst yourselves.

--Derek

* to reply by email, remove "antispam" from my domain name.

References

Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
mcgrath@epx.cis.umn.edu (Michael David McGrath)
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
mcgrath@epx.cis.umn.edu (Michael David McGrath)
Sun, 23 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
curtis cameron <curtisc1@remove.airmail.net>
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
Andy Bober <muajb2@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
Arandir <arandir@gonetgo.com>
Sat, 29 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Boycott Microsoft Website
Jack Teh <jteh@usthk.ust.hk>
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
"Dennis Moran" <coolio@coolio9.com>
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
Rodger Coglan <rodger-@-oup-usa.org>
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
Sean Gwizdak <wazm@bellsouth.net>
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Boycott Microsoft Website
Chris Lomont <clomont@omni.cc.purdue.edu>
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000