Why do some developers hate Microsoft so much?

#61 MicroSoft is Awesome!!

#62 Yarrrrrr matey!!!!

I'm going to patent the phrase "mother f***er", and ask various millionaire rap artists and movie producers for royalties. ;)

The person who invented toilet paper should have patented that too. Then for other "waste" companies to make money, they'd have to discover new ways for us to wipe ourselves.

Or is it too late to patent the wheel? I can think of lots of companies to take to court for royalties...

#63 @David: Most well written, intelligent thing in this thread, thankyou :)

Quote:@Terry

Can't disagree with anything you said, but I would add that one might be hard pressed to find any company of that magnitude that hasn't had some shady deals on their rise to the top.

The entire problem is terry that they continue to do it. IE is probably the most current example. They developed it non-stop while competeing with netscape. Put in proprietry features to BREAK standards and once they had won... they did absolutely nothing with it. Then firefox comes along and all of a sudden they start developing IE7 even though 5 and 6 have been broken all along. 2001 I think was the last real rendering update to the IE line and if firefox hadn't come about you can guarantee we'd be stuck with IE6 for a while yet.

Patents are just plain stupid at the moment. The business/legal world has no idea what they are talking about and shady people with IT knowledge are the ones explaining to them. All everyone see is money, legal possession and control. Software patenting needs to be addressed in parliment (senate) and pretty quick before it is too late.
You should be able to copyright an application and patent a 'ingenious and unique formula in code' but not copyright Click, treeview, outlook bar etc. The problem being that MS is known for leaving behind what it wins at. The only reason the interface is being looked at now is because they can no longer sell upgrades to office. They need a cool new feature that will inspire all those upgrades again.

I am with the older people who has seen the industry grow from the early 80's. Competition is good, competition breeds innovation. I remember many different spreadsheets and bad word processors. I remember daisywheel printers and 16k machines. The main way microsoft has control over us is that we believe its the only option. Going anywhere else will be a struggle. They own the PC market. I remeber when you could write a new program and sell it. Nowadays you have about 6-12 months before the idea is ripped and stolen. You'd suspect shady people in garages but its the big boys that see innovation and STEAL it, without recompense.

I am annoyed because I have written quite a few pieces of software over the years that has been 'absorbed' by MS. They are now going after their partners Adobe and macromedia with their rather crap Photoshop and Flash replacements. They are also trying to compete with all those innovators that created online office functionality and life enhancing utils and teamworking apps.

#64 The argument here being that if they were better than what is out there, they deserve to do well and beat down the competition but a MS product rarely is. The young muppets who are writing 'Microsoft is Awesome' are the types that jump on the band wagon and use the latest MS item because its MS. Its YOUR fault MS owns the industry. Look around, find BETTER products and buy them. They are usually under $100 because those devlopers actually care about the industry(hence Torque), not how much cash they can squeeze out of you. Some even do lifetime upgrades, hows that for a novel idea!

Support the innovative developers like netscape, borland, apple and mozilla who created or changed the industry. MS stole the industry from under everyones nose. Nothing they do is innovative or for anyones benefit, they just write cloned products that do not generally work as well or flexibly as the original and they tie you into it.

Shop around, share your wealth, do NOT upgrade when vista comes out. I'm still on 2000 because XP brought absolutely nothing new or useful to my life. Why should I upgrade, pay more money, use more of my HD, CPU and memory because its the new version?

#65 David - some people believe all forms of exploitation to be a bad thing. There are two forms of exploitation - voluntary, and coercive (as in using aggressive violence of the credible threat thereof). In the above examples, you're mostly talking about the voluntary form of exploitation Microsoft used. Voluntary exploitation is where you make a contract or trade with someone by getting what you want by giving them what they want. If you don't give them what they want, we know axiomatically that they would not enter into the trade voluntarily.

Now think about it. Is this form of exploitation not the basis of all trade? Can not all mutually beneficial trade be seen as exploitation by one side leveraging its needed resources to wrench resources from another? As long as both parties agree to the trade and there is no coercion involved, does that not necessarily mean that both parties are in mutual benefit? If the trade were not mutually beneficial, then would parties have agreed to it? No, they would not. Therefore, all non-coercive trade, exploitation as many put it, is a win/win for both parties. Otherwise no deal would have been struck.

Information is also a good that can be traded or leveraged in a trade. So MS know about a product that IBM did not (DOS) and used that information as leverage to increase their profit. What makes MS responsible for telling either side how they could circumvent MS middlemanship? Nothing at all. MS deserved to profit off of their knowledge for a very good reason - they made the intellectual investment that neither of the other companies were willing to make. They made an investment in seeking out the information that could be used to generate profits. Consider if MS WASN'T able to, for some anti-exploitation law, able to profit off of this information? IBM would not have DOS for who knows how long - putting a significant part of the computer software revolution on hold. Perhaps IBM would have never discovered the DOS at all and the software faded into obscurity as it was on the brink of doing anyhow. The original company that created it wouldn't have gotten ANYTHING for their software! Of course, you say, MS could have just told IBM about the DOS up front, but then what would the point be of MS making that intellectual investment? If MS knew it had to, for the reason of some anti-exploitation law, tell IBM the full monty on the DOS, MS would have no incentive to make the intellectual investment in the first place. They probably never would have even bothered going to IBM or seeking out DOS. What would be the point? Why waste time giving things away for free when you could be building something profitable?

So you can plainly see how MS's intellectual investment was justly rewarded and beneficial to all parties. It can be referred as exploitation, yes, but...

Because of the general economics principles shown in the start of this post we know that ALL forms of non-coercive exploitation (more commonly known as trade) are good because it is a logically mutually beneficial thing. It is always as it was here.

Read more in Economics for Real People

#66 I think MS has some valuable tools, such as the Visual Studio line of products. I have tried other, although they are not bad, I think that VS surpasses many of them. In terms of a browser, Firefox is the best, MS isn't close on this one. I guess where I was getting at in my argument was that "MS is not bad." rather than "MS is Awsome." I do think they do some good things for me (as a developer), and do not use their products because "everyone else is." My product choice is based off of usability. If that was how consumers made their decisions, competition would be fierce in this industry,but like you said FruitBat, many buy as it is what others use. But then agian, most open source projects directly support MS compilers, which makes me wonder.... How are all these people affording the MS developing tools? The answer is pirated software. MS line of products are among the most pirated in the industry, hence why it cost so much. To sum it up, I don't think Microsoft is bad, nor do I think bad of any big compnay (Excluding the oil companies, of the which just recently got in trouble the the government here in the U.S.A).

I do agree with the patent issue, but that is why it is important for us "small" guys to keep ahead of the game. It is usually the small guy who pioneers the industry with a great idea.

Just some more two cents.... starting to run out of cents... sense???? I don't know ;)

Anthony

#67 @Anthony: Despite what the industry would have you believe, Piracy has little effect on retail price other than to encourage it. As far as I am aware the most pirated products are Windows, Office, Photoshop and 3ds max. Ask yourself why? Is that they are too expensive for most people to afford? Can a home user with a desire to create computer artwork justify the price of max or photoshop when they cost more than their pc did?

In terms of what MS does well. VS.net is at the top, but only because it appeals to us programmers that do not want to look in 17 manuals to prove our coding manliness is strong. Some of us are happy with intellisense and vb.net. You could check out sharpcode though!. MS is actually listening to the real world about VS.Net 2005 though! Giving it away and selling the basic version for nothing! Could this be the turnaround that changes the way they approach the world? Could it be another ploy to draw more people into the fold before they catch us again like with IE?
I'll tell you that MS needs the ,net framework to be bigger than it is so thats why they are being nice at the mo. They need to make it mainstream for vista to be a success. Its all about business. As soon as its the norm, prices will go up or it will be left like IE and SQL Server. I mean what is Enterprise Manager good for? It doesn't directly make any money so has never been improved to a decent point of usability.

Quote:But then agian, most open source projects directly support MS compilers, which makes me wonder.... How are all these people affording the MS developing tools?

Same as the rest of the world! I have legal copies and so do my friends who work on open source projects and compile Torque on it too. I can afford it because its what I do every day. A lot of the OS .net projects actually support mono not .net but still use vs.net because it is the best dev environment.

Lower prices, be fair, reduce piracy. The software/media industry is still trying to operate in an outmoded business model. Business today is about cash flow not profit. Let people watch your films for

#68 @FruitBatInShades: To extend your argument about piracy, why pirate those products (Windows, Office, Photoshop, 3DS Max) when there are free programs that are comparable? Linux, OpenOffice, GIMP, Blender. You can "create computer artwork" with all of those programs, so why do people pirate the others? Could it be that it is because people feel the software that is pirated is superior to those that are offered for free? Probably wrong, but it is all that I can figure at this point. Could it be that the developers of the software that is pirate are better at selling their product even though it may be inferior? Remember, technically superior products do not equate success in the market place (see: Betamax vs. VHS).

Back on topic. So if it is bad business practices, why aren't developers as vocal against WalMart (exploitation of workers), the airlines (exploitation of the American tax payer), and the American health care system (rising costs in reaction to frivilous litigation)? I see the later to be something to be more upset about, but I am starting to think it comes down to irrational fanaticism. Like the people argueing ad infinitum on the XBox vs. PS2 vs. GameCube :: XBox360 vs. PS3. (AND DON'T START DOWN THAT PATH, THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE!!!!!).

#69 Bryan - an interesting use of the word, "exploitation" in your example. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that it comes from the book you refer to. However, I would argue that you (and they) are mis-using the term. And I do believe that all forms of exploitation are unethical and worse in some cases, immoral.

There is an interesting tactic in philosophical argument where one takes a perjorative term and then redefines it to mean something other than what it did originally. Then using the new term one attempts to remove the onus from ones actions. So, from the beginning I am afraid I cannot accept your definition. Exploitation is just that, an unethical action. If exploitation was not an unethical term it would be synonymous with the word "trade" in the dictionary.

You can call it leveraged trade, negotiating from strength, informed intellectual investment, or non-coercive exploitation, but I do not acknowledge or agree that this removes the perjorative from the original term.

In America we have long recognized three types of business dealings - I win, you win, we both win - as being the sole methods of handling transactions. However, a clever person will recognize that time is a major factor in such negotiations. I win in the short run, but lose in the long run, is not the same as I win in both the short and long term and so do you. I might be initially happy with the result, but over time my feelings will change (an immature charges of "sour grapes" or "you snooze you lose" notwithstanding ).

Win-win deals have time and again been shown to be the basis of true innovative development and lasting progress. And a commitment by both sides to the win-win scenario is really what makes for ethical business dealings. However, it rarely, if ever, makes it possible to build the type of colossus that Microsoft has become.

As to your second point there are two flaws in your argument.

First, Microsoft was specifically approached by IBM for their knowledge of who had such an operating system. Bill G. specifically withheld the information from IBM and instead used insider information to obtain the product and then present it to IBM for his gain and not the original creators. This is not an ethical action.

Second, had Bill could have cut in the original author in on the deal. Then IBM would have won because they would have gotten the original author of the OS who could have made the changes they wanted (and Bill G never delivered). The public would have benefited because the OS would have been more robust and properly multitasking. Bill would still have benefited because he would have negotiated from the beginning to become a part of the deal, obtaining a significant share of the profits. At the very least, if he was cut out of the OS licensing deal (unlikely considering IBM wanted Basic very badly) he could have profited from the sale of Microsoft Basic on the new operating system. (ignoring for the moment that they were not being ethical in that deal either).

As it worked out, IBM got a bad deal on the operating system, the public got a shoddy operating system that was bug ridden, and non-multitasking, the original author lost millions to which he was justly entitled, and Bill G and MS made millions. Further, based on the misuse of IBM's stature and reputation being attached to the products involved it helped establish the OS as the dominant product in the market. A product which still suffers from security and robustness issues.

So, in the long run, I fail to see how Microsoft's "intellectual investment" truly benefited anyone except Microsoft.

#70 David - It goes to show you how two people who lived through the same thing have completely different takes on Microsoft. I recall those days as well. However, I recall it differently. I recall that Gary Kildall (of DR) blew off IBM, and so they went to MS. Gates then licensed QDOS from Tim Paterson, who later went to work on and off for MS, becoming a rather wealthy individual.
I also remember the whole windows thing differently. The part you forget about windows and OS/2 is that Windows was FIRST. (I happened to do some contract work involving the very first version of windows and man, it was ugly!). IBM got into a joint project with MS to develop the next version of Windows (OS/2 1.0). After that, Microsofts responsibility was to develop the Third version of the operating system (OS2 NT) while IBM developed OS2 2.0. Of course, OS/2 failed in the market place, and the OS/2 NT project became Windows NT.

I have checked my facts online - Albeit, just Wikipedia and google, but what is posted verifies my memories.
It sounds like you are remembering things through an anti-microsoft slant.

#71 You know, during the first half of this thread it looked like it was headed toward the same ol' same ol' antagonistic flame bait thing, but I'm glad I checked back in here. It has actually turned into a very good thread. Seems good to see well informed people (from both sides) having an actual discussion about real topics. Makes the coffee taste better while I read...

#72 As a 3dsmax user I have noticed improvements in the transition from win2000 to XP by the bucket loads as far as stability and no system deterioration over time. It even runs faster in XP on an old P2 400 with 246mb ram than it did on win2k or win98. The only time I have to reinstall windows is when a HD fails. The one thing about XP is that you do need a lot of ram.

Not saying the windows is wonderful but for everyday use, reliability speed, and compatibility. I prefer it to either linux or OSX.

One reason to want to use expensive industry standard software rather than GIMP, Blender etc is if you want a job in an industry thats looking for experieced professionals. You will have a hard time selling yourself if you have GIMP, Blender, milkshape3D, ultimate unwrap. Because developers typicaly don't have the time or money or human resources to train new talent.

One company I worked for did it but only paid new inexperienced artists $6-8 an hour to learn 3dsmax and didn't expect them to be productive, and have their creations used in their games for the first 6 months.

#73 Let's define out terms -

Exploit - To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.

This was the original definition of the term. Unfortunately, it was later corrupted by marxists and their acedemic ilk to also mean this -

To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor.

Orwell made a lot of good points in how the corruption of language can mislead human thought itself. Because the definition was corrupted, it's meaning became ambiguous and misleading, and they way people use the word keeps people from thinking clearly.

That, I believe, was the whole point of obfuscating the word with an ambiguous definition in the first place.

So if anyone has changed anything to suit the needs of their argument, it would be the marxist (who make up a large part of the anti-MS and most of the anti-trade base), not me.

I stand by my terms, and I reject the corruption which is the basis of the marxist and your argument (no offense - I'm not coupling you with the marxist camp, just pointing out some arguments you happen to share).

#74 Further, I think it might help to define "ethical" if we are to call things "unethical". Let's look at the dictionary again (as corrupted as it has become) -

"Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession."

Well now that's pretty darn subjective, ain't it? What is in the accepted principle of right in wrong is clearly undefinable. According to the definition of ethical as found in the dictionary, your argument is completely inconclusive unless you can somehow prove a certain set of principle are the most accepted. Even if you DID somehow proves a certain set of principles to be most accepted, you are still relying on the argumentum ad populum fallacy to define right and wrong. You can personally dislike something by defining ethical with your own personal accepted principles (or some other peoples'), but you since it boils down to your subjective opinion, your argument does not prove that MS's act were objectively bad.

This definition of ethical is obviously useless for this discussion. We need a clear, objective definition of ethical in order to make a rational argument. Murray Rothbard has suggested an objective definition of ethics in his book The Ethics of Liberty. That definition is simply where noone is violently aggressed. Violent aggression is unethical, then all other acts are then considered ethical.

Now, you may disagree with this, but if so, I would ask you to come up with a usuable definition of ethical for your argument since the dictionary is (as often) obviously inadequate.

#75 Lastly, note how the second, corrupted definition of exploit relies on that completely useless definition of unethical! This is even further evidence of the corruption and uselessness of that second definition of exploit!

#76 I think that the reason so many hate Microsoft is the fact that Bill Gates killed Michael Flatley in Celebrity Deathmatch.

#77 To reply about the use of professional tools rather than the free counterpart. From my experiences with free tools, none often reach the useability and ease of use as the more expensive counterpart does (in my opinion). And to my knowledge, top knotch development tools have always been pricy to some degree. But since that is somewhat off topic, I will stop my argument there :)

From what I have experienced, the thing that turned business around for MS, and seperated it from Mac, was Bill G's beliefe in the micro porcessor. At the time he had to make a choice, this is where him and the Mac counterpart came to a disagreement. Well, as we all know, the micro was the way to go, and business began booming for MS.

Some of the information posted was grabbed from the Encyclopedia of Computer Science, for reference. Now I do know one thing, the only true way to settle thoughts of MS is to have Bill Gates, and other such business leaders inform us, answer our questions directly, and validate some of our assesments. But until then, since none of us (to my knowledge) have made business decisions for MS, we are all wrong until proven right. But then again that is just my thoughts on the subject.

Thank you for the well thought replies, it gives me something to read (and lots to learn)!

#78 Personally, I dislike Microsoft because of the various hassles I've had to endure in my day to day dealings with their software from Windows 3.1 all the way up to Windows NT 4. Windows 2000 forced me to (grudgingly) admit that they seemed to have finally reached a reasonably stable OS, and XP has only reinforced that opinion, but it takes a lot more to fix a bad reputation that it takes to get one in the first place. Unfortunately, I've also become more aware of some of the various shady actions Microsoft has taken over the years, so while my opinion of their software has improved, my opinion of the company has most certainly not.

I tend to avoid their software for personal use because it seems rather overpriced compared to what competition exists (Windows vs. Linux, StarOffice vs. MS Office, etc.), and I quite honestly don't have the budget to legally equip my computers with the full set of software I use daily if I go with the Microsoft solutions. I can build a hell of a computer for $1000 these days, but between XP Pro ($250), MS Office ($380), Visual Studio ($270 Standard, $720 Pro), I've hit another $900 to $1250 (basically doubling the cost of the system) without the smaller-ticket items that round out my needs. By using non-Microsoft alternatives where available, I can cut the software cost down to about half of the cost of the hardware or less and still get the same functionality, often (but not always) with a similar level of polish.

I rarely have the time needed to actually familarize myself with a code-base to where I can assist with an Open Source package I use in a development role, but I still feel I do my part by providing meaningful bug reports on the rare occasion I run into one. I also tend to get faster results on those bug fixes than the ones I've run into with MS software.

As an example, I once submitted a bug report to the CURL project, and less than 2 hours after I had sent the bug report, I got a response from one of the developers thanking me for catching the bug and letting me know that a fix was available for download.

On the other side of the equation, I've sent bug reports to MS, and if it weren't for the auto-response, I'd never have even known my email had been received. After about a year of waiting for a fix to show up in a service pack or patch bundle, I gave up. I've since forgotten exactly how to replicate the bug, but I do remember that it was still a problem when Office 97 shipped. Given the number of known bugs that they've failed to fix in IE 6 (some of which are 2+ years old now, and potential security risks), I don't have much hope that their response time has improved.