DarkLordoftheMonkeys

sigh.
I don't disagree with anything tbh, but instead of researching why MS "didn't" revolutionize the computing industry, maybe you should try researching why they did (or why people think they did if you so strongly wish). Get two sides to the story, not just your own and the blatantly obvious facts, lol...
MS provides great competition if anything else. I will research this for you properly one day, DLoTM, one day when I have some useless time to kill.

& Please don't start this into a beef, I can't stand online drama, it's so un-needed.

Don't take this personally, lor. I've had a thing against Micro$oft since long before I met you. This is mostly a response to people saying that Micro$oft made computers more accessible to the average user, which I've heard quite a lot of.

I'm not taking anything personally on this blog, all I said was to get two sides to a story instead of one biased one. Like you said, you've had a grudge against MS long before you met me, but it's hard to get a second opinion when you're so adamant that you're 110% correct.

Here's my view on the subject. Some people love Windows, others love Mac, others love some form of Linux. Statistically speaking, most people use Windows. That has to say something for them. I've used Windows since it was Windows 3. I bought my first Mac in 2004 and loved it. I've also used different versions of Linux. Even after using all of them I always go back to Windows. *shrug* Preference in OS is all up to the user. There are many ways that you can argue and say one is better than the other.

I agree cdg.
I've been a Mac user for 2 years & have dual booted Ubuntu with Vista for about 2 years, as well (have deleted the Ubuntu partition as of now but will soon put Arch Linux on). I like Linux better, that may come as a surprise to you, DLoTM, but yes, I do love Linux... maybe not as much as you, but still. And as cdg said, I keep going back to Windows, mainly because it's standardized & has many of the applications I need for my studies and personal use.

Originally Posted by lor

I'm not taking anything personally on this blog, all I said was to get two sides to a story instead of one biased one. Like you said, you've had a grudge against MS long before you met me, but it's hard to get a second opinion when you're so adamant that you're 110% correct.

Everyone is biased. Any writing that expresses a viewpoint is going to be biased towards that viewpoint. It's called having an opinion. I'm not going to have an argument with myself every time I express my opinion just for the sake of being unbiased. And frankly, I don't know of any good arguments in favor of Micro$oft's business practices, not that I've heard anyway.

Lol you're an idiot if you think everyone is biased. I could give an argument as to why Coke was healthier than Pepsi and I wouldn't be biased at all, or I could state which one I think is better going off the facts given and my personal opinion (which isn't prejudiced by the way) e.g. supplements in the drinks, but I don't like neither yet I could write a whole argument about it. Doesn't make me biased at all, yet still means it's my viewpoint.
Having an opinion doesn't mean you're automatically to one side for everything.
No one said you have to argue with yourself LOL, disregard me if you really wish, that's actually your choice so don't blame me for conducting arguments on your own.
And the key phrase is "not that I've heard anyway".

Like you have said multiple times before, you have always been a MS hater, that obviously makes you biased. And if you don't like the word biased, maybe you prefer prejudiced better.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Micro$oft if they weren't all about "Kill Linux!" "Kill Google!" "Kill Netscape!" "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

Well isn't that what competition is about? Killing off each other to try succeed? They managed to do that to lots of other companies, so for that, I applaud them. I'm not going to hate on them for being competitive LOL.

Originally Posted by lor

Well isn't that what competition is about? Killing off each other to try succeed? They managed to do that to lots of other companies, so for that, I applaud them. I'm not going to hate on them for being competitive LOL.

Well here's the difference: most companies kill each other by providing better products that replace those of their competitors due to QUALITY. Micro$oft does not provide better products, just more aggressive business tactics.

Let me give you an example of why destroying everything in your path, and thus providing fewer products, is a bad thing. I have a Mac. I never get viruses despite frequenting pr0n sites and regularly downloading software from untrusted sources. Yet Windows users (from what I've heard) have to take their computers in to get viruses removed every couple months or so. This is partly to do with the fact that Unix has better security, but it's also, and maybe even more so, a reflection on the fact that Mac/Linux/Unix is not as commonly used, and therefore crackers have less of a motivation to write malware for them. I'm sure if Mac OS X had 90% of market share instead of Windows, Mac users would get a lot more viruses than they do.

Now imagine there are 20 different operating system platforms to choose from, each with about 5% market share. What are your chances of getting a virus now? They may not be nil, but they are certainly a lot less than if your operating system is used by everyone else. Diversity is the key to survival in many cases. The same goes for humans, as a matter of fact. Our biological diversity has prevented the species from being wiped out by diseases, thus allowing us to survive long enough to build cars, skyscrapers, and computers.

If I had my way, there would be thousands of software vendors, each making slightly different products. I would also encourage them to buy each other's stock, so they would profit from each other's success, and thus have a motivation to compete, but not destroy.

Business is business, if they got da money, they got da power.
MS will never be able to "kill" Linux anyway, everyone loves freeware too much. Really don't know what you're on about, seems like empty words to me.

Yeah that's true, but don't tell this **** to me, maybe you should make a complaint to MS and see if they even give a ****... kind of doubt they would though.

I don't think the issue here is whether or not Micro$oft is successful and rich. That still doesn't make them a pioneer, or even a contributor, to technological advancement. No one bases their products on M$'s. Innovation pretty much stops with them.

Let me ask you this: As a Mac and Linux user, would you like it if Micro$oft destroyed your operating systems of choice? You know they want to. You actually think that's a good thing?

To me it just looks like they're taking everything backwards. They're like those Chinese shoe companies that make fake Nikes and try to sell them to the US. Window$ is a dud. If I were Micro$oft, I would kill Window$ and start making MS-DOS again, because it was so much better. Fu¢k GUIs. Plus on MS-DOS you don't have to pay for your games. You get them all for free: Free games: Download over 500 DOS games. Shareware and freeware, reviews, help getting games working!

Actually I do think the issue here is because MS is powerful and rich, do you think they would have been this successful had they never had money? Do you think all those little companies would be still around today if MS didn't buy them out? Yeah, probably, unless another company who had the brains to do so did so. So actually, it's a big issue.
AND LOL I never said they were the ******* pioneer, and hell yeah they're a big contributor, look at all the **** they've been bringing out in today's world, lots of things... *HUGE eyeroll irl*.

& Lol I'm an ex-Mac user actually, I sold my Mac and bought a normal PC that was able to run Windows specifically for that reason. & It's not about how I would feel, it's about whether they're even capable of doing so, which imo, they aren't.
But if they _were_ (unlikely)... that's just too bad, no I don't think it's a good thing (I actually didn't even bring up this subject nor disagree with anything remotely close so you're straying off course there), I even _agreed_ with you regarding your last blog post, about the diversity bologna.
But like I said previously, money = power, power to do just about anything. Everyone has their price.

& Who even pays for games anymore, there is a thing called the internet, remember!

Now you're just making stuff up. I'm tired of this conversation.

LOL what the fuuuuuck. If anyone is making stuff up, it sure aint me, mate.
& Oh awwwe, you're tired? feel so sorry for you, for all the hardships you have to endure (L)(L) luv ya

I'm saving up for an iMac, after seeing that Apple isn't that bad (like DarkLordoftheMonkeys is a Microsoft hater I WAS an Apple hater). I think that Microsoft Software and iMac Hardware are the best combination (along with Linux using Bootcamp). That's my plan. Just my two cents worth.

Plus at the end of the day Microsoft is superior economically. They may not have made as many advances as Apple or anything else but they have the money and have the power. So what?

It seems your arguments are no longer "Microsoft is the pioneer." but "I like Microsoft because they have a lot of money." I'm not going to debate this, because liking something is subjective, but my point still remains: Being rich and powerful does not make you useful.

You're either illiterate, have a short-termed memory or just an idiot. I'm so flabbergasted. LOL.

Short term memory? You're the one who said:

"I've been a Mac user for 2 years & have dual booted Ubuntu with Vista for about 2 years, as well (have deleted the Ubuntu partition as of now but will soon put Arch Linux on). I like Linux better"

and later said:

"I sold my Mac and bought a normal PC that was able to run Windows specifically for that reason."

Did you, like, sell your mac between the time you made the former statement and the time you made the latter?