> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
> high-quality software.

Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still making 
things up as you go along?

Read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

You can read through the development of XP too if you like, the link is at 
the bottom.

That certainly doesn't sound to me like a company that isn't even bothering 
to try and produce high quality software.  They released Vista beta almost 
18 months before it went on the shelves, and continuously made changes based 
on feedback.  Tell me, what would you do differently given that you are 
bashing MS so much over their design methods?  Spend 3 years in the beta 
phase?  Gee, the Finance Director of MS is going to love you...

> Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
> like Microsoft Word.

True, MS Word is a very profitable product.

> Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product.

Of course they are, otherwise nobody would buy the next version of Windows 
and they would go bankrupt.  Note that what you consider "better" is not 
necessarily the same as what everyone else in the world would consider 
"better", MS has to cater for a huge number of very different people, and 
they need to make the most number of people want to buy it.  This doesn't 
necessarily mean that you or I will find it "better" personally, but it is 
the best thing for MS to do.

> They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for the 
> least possible effort.

Err, yeh, that's the goal of *all* companies.  If you start making decisions 
against maximising profit (eg spending another 2 years testing software 
rather than releasing) you are likely to get fired and replaced by the 
shareholders.  Live with it, it's how business works in the real world.

> As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
> visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they can't 
> even produce a word processor that works properly - something that existed 
> decades ago...

Yeh I guess that's why nearly everyone I know, as well as switching from IE 
to FF, also switched from MS Word to OpenOffice Writer... not.

I think it's just you that can't get Word to work, even my mum can use it 
fine :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
>> high-quality software.
> 
> Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still 
> making things up as you go along?

How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
software of a higher quality than Microsoft, and yet M$ have all the 
best resources? Does that sound to you like a company that cares?

>> Yeah, that's true. I mean, it's not like OpenOffice Writer is anything 
>> like Microsoft Word.
> 
> True, MS Word is a very profitable product.

Indeed. Harder to make a profit from something you give away for free. 
(Though not impossible...)

>> Except that they're not interested in how to make a better product.
> 
> Of course they are, otherwise nobody would buy the next version of 
> Windows and they would go bankrupt.

They don't need to make a better product. They just need to make a 
product which is *perceived* to be better. Huge difference.

(In fairness to M$... Excel works. But they have to somehow make you buy 
the next version. How? I wouldn't like that job...)

> Note that what you consider 
> "better" is not necessarily the same as what everyone else in the world 
> would consider "better".

That, at least, is a geniune problem. It's impossible to please 
everybody. (Well, I mean, without releasing *a lot* of similar but 
different products... which would probably just annoy everybody because 
there's too many to choose form...)

>> They're interested in how to screw the customer out of more money for 
>> the least possible effort.
> 
> Err, yeh, that's the goal of *all* companies.

Maybe I'm just delusional, but other companies seem to at least 
*attempt* to produce quality products. MS seems to focus only on how to 
trick you into spending more money, or how to force you to buy their 
products even if you don't want to.

> Live with it, it's how business works in the real world.

Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your 
money. (In the main, anyway.)

> Yeh I guess that's why nearly everyone I know, as well as switching from 
> IE to FF, also switched from MS Word to OpenOffice Writer... not.

And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

Exactly.

> I think it's just you that can't get Word to work, even my mum can use 
> it fine :-)

Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
delighted...

Post a reply to this message

>> Do you have any evidence at all for that statement, or are you still 
>> making things up as you go along?
>
> How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
> software of a higher quality than Microsoft,

That's not evidence that MS are not trying, that's your experiences.

Did you even read the Wikipedia link I posted?  There's plenty of evidence 
in there that they are trying pretty hard to get it right.  I mean who would 
release a dozen builds to the public while incorporating the feedback if 
they didn't care?

> That, at least, is a geniune problem. It's impossible to please everybody.

Exactly, and hence some people are going to think it's worse than before. 
And when you sell a huge number of copies, that's also a huge number of 
people that think it's worse, even if it is the optimum design for the most 
number of people to like it.

> Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your money. 
> (In the main, anyway.)

Stop listening to a bloke down the pub bashing MS (or the web equivalent) 
and try searching and reading for facts.  99% of what you've written about 
MS in this thread has been false, you know that's illegal right?  If it was 
my company you were saying all that stuff about in public then I'd sue you.

> And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

How many people knew that FF existed more than a few years ago?  Yet today 
lots of people use it.

> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
> Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
> delighted...

Sure, post it here (plus any template files) minus any confidential 
text/images and I'm sure I won't be the only one willing to give it a look 
over.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> but when something astronomically expensive 
> breaks... it makes me very frustrated, to say the least.

As far as the end-user is concerned, Windows is free, since it comes with
 
the computer. You have to be actually interested in computers before you 
can 
figure out what Windows costs.  I don't think "astronomical" is quite the
 
right term, myself.

# Windows 7 Ultimate (Full): £229.99

No upgrade, does everything the non-server versions do. Expensive? More t
han 
most video games, yes.

Half price if you're upgrading. £150 for the "home" version.

That's the retail price, which means nobody charges more and pretty much 

everyone charges less and OEMs of course get a bulk discount, some of whi
ch 
they pass on to you.

Contrast with Illustrator for $600, Photoshop for $1000, Maya 3D for $500
0.

Ask your boss how much the software to run your lab equipment cost.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

>> but when something astronomically expensive breaks... it makes me very 
>> frustrated, to say the least.
> 
> As far as the end-user is concerned, Windows is free, since it comes 
> with the computer. You have to be actually interested in computers 
> before you can figure out what Windows costs.

Well, true. But Windows isn't the only product M$ makes...

> I don't think 
> "astronomical" is quite the right term, myself.
> 
> # Windows 7 Ultimate (Full): £229.99

...OK, that's come down pretty drastically then. Last time I looked, 
they wanted £600.

> Contrast with Illustrator for $600, Photoshop for $1000, Maya 3D for $5000.
> 
> Ask your boss how much the software to run your lab equipment cost.

Yeah, but who buys that stuff?

A better question might be how much does Office cost? (A lot of people 
seem to be quite shocked that this doesn't just "come with" a computer. 
They think of "a computer" as a thing that runs Word...)

Last time I checked, it's something like £100 for Word, £180 for Word + 
Excel, £250 for Word + Excel + PowerPoint, and steeper still if you want 
the other stuff. (Admittedly, most people just want Word, or maybe Word 
and Excel.)

In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad about 
£75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> My problem is this: M$ doesn't even bother *trying* to produce 
> high-quality software. They just release the most bug-ridden lump of 
> junk they think they can possibly get away with.

You haven't really worked with buggy software, I take it.

You do realize that your view is likely colored by the fact that your job is 
to fix Windows when it breaks, right?  It's like an auto mechanic saying 
cars are all pieces of crap because they're constantly coming into the 
garage to get fixed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> How about the fact that most other software companies manage to produce 
> software of a higher quality than Microsoft, 

Bwaaa haa haa ha... Yeah, tell me another.

> Maybe I'm just delusional, but other companies seem to at least 
> *attempt* to produce quality products. 

You really do begin to sound religious here.

> Other companies don't seem to need to use dirty tricks to get your 
> money. (In the main, anyway.)

Bwaaaa haa haa ha... How many companies have you negotiated contracts with? 
How many companies have you taken public?

How many overage fees have you paid to the bank because they cashed the 
biggest checks first before processing the deposits you put in the same day?

> And exactly how many people know that OpenOffice exists?

I don't know. Since you brought it up, why don't you tell us?

Oh, wait... You're guessing the answer that makes MS look bad, because you 
dislike MS.

> Tell you what, if you'd like to come over sometime and show our Report 
> Writers how to make Word stop crashing constantly, I'm sure they'd be 
> delighted...

Start with a fresh document and rebuild your templates, so you're not using 
already-corrupted documents.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Last time I checked, 

GIYF.  Office standard: $400 ($240 upgrade). Office home: $150 ($99 for 
real).  Small business: $450.

$450 for a full business office suite is trivial, dude. That's like one 
day's salary for someone, if that.

> In contrast, a graphic tablet and a copy of Photoshop cost my dad about
 
> £75 (I think), and that's *very* specialist...

I don't know where you got photoshop for that price, but you're comparing
 
apples and oranges. I'm looking at retail prices from the manufacturer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>   Not as right as Nintendo, though, as Wii is selling almost as much as
>>> Xbox 360 and PS3 combined...
>>
>> Yes, to a completely different group of people.
> 
> That's the genius of it, see?

 From a business point of view, yes.  I thought you didn't like big 
business, though? :)

What I really get annoyed at is people claiming things like, "the Wii 
will completely change video games."  Not for ME it won't.  I'm probably 
never going to buy a Wii, or its successor unless it can handle more 
hardcore video games better, and I don't want my games dumbed down for 
the Wii audience to sell more units.

There's already enough of that in games, what with things like slow 
movement, auto aiming, health regeneration, et cetera.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As if that wasn't bad enough, then they try to claim that they're these 
> visionary leaders of innovation and technical advancement, when they 
> can't even produce a word processor that works properly - something that 
> existed decades ago...

To reference your own example and use your own terminology, almost every 
feature of OpenOffice Writer was "stolen" from MS Word.  Even the menus 
were laid out as similarly as possible.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message