Follow the Money

Varun Dubey asks Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft? Well, yes. Yes it is.

Microsoft is perhaps the most hated company in the history of business. Anointed with names such as the Redmond Giant, Microshaft, Microsloth, so on and so forth, the nicknames and jokes are perhaps exceeded only by the vengeance with which people hate it.

You forgot the ever popular Micro$oft.

The question is why do they? I love Microsoft. Absolutely adore it and what’s more, I hate Linux. I think it’s the most over rated piece of software ever built and survives simply out of spite and not because it is terribly good at doing something because it is not!

True. Of course, if you switch “linux” and “windows” around in that paragraph, it is still true. In fact, it is more true.

What has Microsoft given us? It has given us Windows, sure, it was buggy earlier and a lot of things didn’t work like they were supposed to (plug and play springs to mind) but it was a pioneering effort. No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. Sure, Mac OS was a lot prettier but then it cost the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs.

Mac OS wasn’t “even close to the ease of use that Windows offered”? Wow. I’ve never seen someone stake his own credibility down and bash its head in with a sledgehammer right off the bat like that before. The best a reasonable person can say is that Windows was easy enough to use. Not that it was easier than a Mac. That is like saying that Macs were cheaper than anything else at the time. You could say that they were a good value for what you were getting, but you had to be brain damaged to go further.

I understand the criticisms about the security of the software, the critical flaws and what not but again, we must look at things in the proper perspective. More than 95 pecent computers in the world use one form of Windows OS or another. The remaining being divided between Linux, MAC etc. now lets say MAC has 1 percent, does it make sense for a hacker to create a virus that can at best infect just 1 percent of the computers in the world? It doesn’t, therefore you don’t have as many security threats for other software as most of the people developing Linux probably sit at night writing up malicious code for windows!

… except that people sit up writing viruses for even more obscure setups than Linux OR Macintosh, like Windows machines running very specific and obscure firewalls. And please, it is Mac, not MAC. It doesn’t stand for anything. Writing it in all CAPS is soooooo 1989. We’re in the twenty-first century, Varun. Welcome. And Macintosh is 4%, Windows is 92%, according to Google’s usage numbers.

In a nutshell, it’s not so much as that the software is secure; it’s simply that no one is interested in spending sleepless nights writing a virus that won’t give them the satisfaction they get from causing havoc. Considering the fact that everyone who knows how to write two bits of code dreams of hitting windows with a virus, the guys at the “Redmond Giant” are doing a spectacular job.

Daring Fireball eviscerated this so completely there is no point in my duplicating the work.

XP is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying “its installed and ready for use” makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP and I am sure it will be further back biting the dust when Longhorn (now Vista) comes out.

Yeah, uh, congratulations. Windows is now competing with Macintosh… circa 1991. They’ve closed the gap to fifteen years! Way to go, Microsoft! And the only reason you would need to recompile your kernel is if you compiled the thing yourself to start with. Amazingly enough, if you customize your system and strip out all the extra stuff, when you change it, you might need to put some of that stuff back in. Oh, the humanity!

This reminds me of the bundled issues with the antitrust lawsuits being slammed on it. It’s just sad, unfair and uncompetitive. Basically what the stupid courts in Europe said was, hey, you’re doing a great job, and you must pay for it! This coming from a bunch of people who couldn’t even agree on a constitution!

Whereas, what the stupid courts in America said was that you can’t tell your customers that if they do business with anyone else you are cutting them off, that if they try to accommodate their customers that don’t want to do business with you you are cutting them off, and that if you offer deep discounts to people to include stuff they never asked for just to hurt your competition, you are breaking the law. I don’t even agree with the law, but there is little doubt in my mind that Microsoft was violating it.

And of course, the long list of lawsuits that Microsoft is straddled with. I am sure it is a business model for companies such as Sun and Oracle to just sue Microsoft whenever their profits are down due to insanely stupid and useless products that no one is buying.

Every year, just before the FY results are out, Mr. McNealy sits with his board and shakes his head, guys, we are in the red, what do we do? How do we turn it around? Suddenly a bright face says, I know, let’s sue Microsoft for a billion odd! Bill can afford it, after all, he makes such smashing products that everyone buys them, making him rich! That ought to be a crime in SOME court!

  1. It is a crime.
  2. They aren’t doing it.
  3. That isn’t the business model.

Microsoft made some products which it would like to ship together with its OS, no where in the EULA does it say that “you are not authorized to install other software” If Mr. John Doe thinks media player is the worst piece of software he has ever used, he is free to go and download Winamp or Musicmatch Jukebox (neither of these offer free full versions).

Except that this was what was in the license agreement with the manufacturers, which is why Microsoft lost its antitrust proceedings in America. There is no doubt that this is Microsoft’s intent — they just haven’t figured out a legal way to do it yet.

Lets be fair and honest about this. Here is a company that single handedly created the market for Personal Computers,

Actually, that would be Apple (Apple II)

brought computing to ordinary folks like you and me,

Apple II

made it affordable by encouraging mass acceptance and constantly strives to provide us ease of use in every sphere it touches.

Apple II, Macintosh.

From tablet PCs

Which nobody wants

to handhelds

Apple Newton, Palm

to media centers

TiVo (linux)

but he didn’t do it for free and wants to protect it’s own interests. What is wrong with that?

Because he didn’t do it in the first place, you dummy!

After all, the people who are suing Microsoft, aren’t they looking after their interests as well? Why do we think or believe that if they were in the position Microsoft is in, they would do things differently.

Because they aren’t in the position that Microsoft is in. MS didn’t just wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day. They put themselves in the position that they are in. Microsoft today is the sum of Microsoft’s actions over the last thirty years.

I do not for a moment think or believe they would be philanthropic and give away years of toil away for free or act in the best interests of everyone but themselves. It is about time we stopped being hypocritical and appreciated a job really well done.

Isn’t this the same guy that bitched at the start about how expensive Apple is?

(I think this whole article was probably a troll-bait, but I couldn’t resist it.)

One Comment

  1. R says:


    I like “Microshit” myself.