Re: Re: Why MS Won't Retire Browsers -- was: Interntet Explorer 8 beater 2

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 23:30 +0100, Stut wrote: > On 15 Sep 2008, at 22:35, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 16:27 -0500, Philip Thompson wrote: > >> Speaking of misconceptions... > >> > >> Has anyone seen the new M$ commercial where they are asking these > >> people to review the next version of their OS. Some of the responses > >> of the people were that they really thought this new OS was cool/ > >> neat/ > >> whatever. Then afterwards, M$ told them it was Vista. > >> > >> Society, in general, has a pre-conceived notion about how much Vista > >> sucks. I'm not here to argue its accuracy, but it does give you a > >> good > >> idea about misconceptions. > >> > >> Kids, the lesson of the day is: Don't knock it before you try it. > >> > >> =D > >> ~Philip > >> > > Ah I'd heard of this story. What you've forgotten to mention was that > > the computers were all set up on hardware chosen by Microsoft, and all > > running software especially picked by Microsoft. Now, I'd hazard a > > guess > > that even Microsoft is smart enough to pick a combination that is > > extremely unlikely to crash on the end user. I'd love to see the same > > test on the same people set up by Mac people and Linux gurus. I think > > that as this is not really a fair test, you can pretty much get any > > answer you want. > > Wow, talk about hitting the nail on the head. When Microsoft pick the > hardware their OS runs on and the software it runs with it works > perfectly. Apple have chosen to do this strictly so they can deliver > what people really want... stability. Rob says this is anti- > competitive, I say this is smart. > > Is it anti-competitive that Sony does not legally allow you to install > different firmware on most of their consumer kit? And if you do can > you really expect them to support it after you've done so? > > Anti-competitive behaviour in my book is bribing companies to ship a > certain configuration, or deliberately preventing certain software > from running on your OS, both things I'm pretty sure Microsoft have > been guilty of in the past. However, I do not consider it anti- > competitive to retain enough control over your product so you can > deliver the user experience your customers need. > > I would argue that Microsoft did not choose their goal of supporting > every bit of hardware out there, rather it was thrust upon them while > the industry developed. Apple specifically chose to limit the hardware > they support, for what original reason I don't know but the end result > is a much more stable system. > > Given the choice (and I was) I would pick stability over choice any > day of the week and twice on Sunday. I need my computer to do stuff, > not to play with. I hope (and I guess expect) Linux to get to a point > where it's as stable and user friendly as OSX, but they'll likely > always be playing catchup. Microsoft has a lot of work to do to > recover their position in the next release, but I don't hold out much > hope - it's a steep hill they have to climb. > > As for this being a fair test, you're deluded. Firstly did these > people use it for months or get to play with it for just a few minutes > or hours at the most? How many people asked said they hated it (I > don't believe that number was made public)? The only people who ever > think the UI of an OS is "neat" or "cool" are those who don't use it > day-to-day or those who are seeing it for the first time. It's a > marketing campaign... d'uh! > > As I mentioned before, you've got to ignore the hype, both the good > and the bad, and try it for yourself. Windows wouldn't sell in the > quantities it does if it didn't work well for the majority of people, > by which I mean the ones who get a Dell with Vista and Office pre- > installed and don't install much else. But if you really want to see > which is best (subjectively of course) you've gotta do the legwork > yourself. > > Oh, and once you have, don't bother trying to convince others unless > they're also willing to do the legwork too. There is no one size fits > all computer. I've tried them all over the past 20 years and am now > very settled with OSX. I try every new release of Windows, and > whenever the Linux community goes nuts over something new I'll have a > go, but nothing's come close to the ease of use and minimal stress I > experience with Apple kit and OSX. > > I should add that Apple are not without their own problems. Dare I > mention the headphone/headset socket on the 1st generation iPhone? > That one was a little odd, but everyone makes mistakes. They've > corrected it in the second generation but it certainly dented their > reputation in all the wrong circles. > > -Stut > I agree on your point about trying before bashing. I've tried Vista. Hell, I had to use it for 2 months solid while I was working in India, so I really got to test it out. I had more crashes on that in the 2 months I was using it than I had on Fedora in 2 years. Now, admittedly I was working on Vista during every working hour, and I only use my Fedora machine at weekends and evenings, but I think if you tally up the total time, it was really not in Windows' favour. As an OS, XP was not all that bad, but I've found I really do prefer the way Linux behaves, that and I can get pretty much whatever software I want for free, which just isn't always so easy with Windows. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk