PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else fed up with MS?



bassvax
12-20-2000, 05:36 AM
I have no experience with Win NT or 2000...that said...why does it seem as though every new OS put out by Microsoft seem worse than the previous? From the problems I've seen with ME and 98 I see Win 95 being a more stable system of course lacking the capabilities of the newer OS. Is this our punishment for wanting the better/newer capabilities. Forever and a day users have complained about system resource hogs and now ME is the "hoggiest" of them all. Rushing these OS to market without tweaking out serious bugs does nothing for the name Microsoft. Word is MS wants to switch to a subscription based OS renewal with no ownership of said OS being given. Why, excpet for the apparent monopoly, would users pay a yearly fee for an OS that is being worked on to resolve problems half the up time? We need more competition comparable to MS. I know the options are out there (BeOS, Linux, Mac), but is it too much to ask for a stable OS? Oh well...just ranting.

------------------
Jerry

Paleo Pete
12-20-2000, 05:51 AM
Fairly common viewpoint, although I've found 98 to be fairly stable if treated right. Do a clean install and install all other programs one at a time, check each one for a day or so, and it runs quite nicely. I've had a few lockups, but recently located (finally) enough info about the IPF and discovered that a new video driver fixed it. (MSHTML.DLL error)

But it still does have its share of kinks. That's why MS is one of the supporters of the UCITA. (See my post on UTICA in this section) NT seems to be fairly stable, I used it for about a year while in a computer shop, but service packs are required before happiness is achieved.

If UTICA is passed, (BAD MOVE SPACE CADET!!!) MS won't have to worry about it, they won't be required to notify customers about known bugs, won't be required to produce software that lives up to its advertising, or be held liable for damage caused by known bugs, and the users won't be able to publish reviews stating that the software does not perform as advertised.

Your tax dollars at work!

------------------
Soon as I come up with all the answers...they change the questions!!

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

setoguro
12-20-2000, 01:26 PM
Maybe just maybe the buggy software and utica will produce fertile ground for the rise of honest enterprising developers to produce good stable software which will sell like hotcakes. We the consumers don't have to buy the horrible crap that the big software companies will be and are trying to push on us to replace the moderately crappy stuff we already have. It my be that the future of computing will be dark and oppressive with big brother waiting to take control(or taking control as we now speak) but i know it will be very very interesting.

Ignorance will give them control over us knowledge will give us power and freedom. Love this site

jagdiver
12-20-2000, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by bassvax:
I have no experience with Win NT or 2000...that said...why does it seem as though every new OS put out by Microsoft seem worse than the previous? From the problems I've seen with ME and 98 I see Win 95 being a more stable system of course lacking the capabilities of the newer OS. Is this our punishment for wanting the better/newer capabilities. Forever and a day users have complained about system resource hogs and now ME is the "hoggiest" of them all. Rushing these OS to market without tweaking out serious bugs does nothing for the name Microsoft. Word is MS wants to switch to a subscription based OS renewal with no ownership of said OS being given. Why, excpet for the apparent monopoly, would users pay a yearly fee for an OS that is being worked on to resolve problems half the up time? We need more competition comparable to MS. I know the options are out there (BeOS, Linux, Mac), but is it too much to ask for a stable OS? Oh well...just ranting.