Should Microsoft exist at this stage of computer technology and the internet?
Started by: Sea Beast | Replies: 80 | Views: 8,963 | Closed
Oct 23, 2015 3:20 AM #1410289
I was just asking because when someone says "that is saying something" they are usually referring to someone who is stupid.
Oct 23, 2015 3:40 AM #1410292
he's probably just surprised because new users are usually pretty stupid
Oct 23, 2015 6:02 AM #1410314
SeaBeast, I'm not going to respond to the first part of your posts because I only see a repetition of points, rather than refuting any of the points raised against your argument. However you go on to say something very interesting.
Are you out of your mind? I hope you're not one of these First-world loons who thinks everyone in the world who works with computers are familiar with them. I have literally seen hundereds of thousands of people in call centers, media houses, marketing companies, Ad agencies, and others who are using computers because they absolutely have to, and Windows is all they know. There are MILLIONS of people in my country alone who own phones only to make calls and have no clue how to use a smartphone. Maybe you want Windows gone in your First World. But over here, Microsoft has a reason to exist.
Your assertion that Tablets and Ipads have replaced computers is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the world. Even on Stickpage we have members from countries like Indonesia and Philippines who assert that their entire family uses just one computer. They don't have Tablets and iPads for each individual person. So they need something that everyone is familiar with, and all can use.
I don't know what vendetta you have against Microsoft, but repeating points and refusing to refute other point isn't going to get you anywhere. Neither is making blatantly false claims which you just plucked out of your imagination.
EDIT: The only point I wanted to address in the first part of your post is when you claimed one of the Linux versions looked exactly like Windows so it shouldn't matter. Well what about when these people want to run softwares that are meant to run only on Windows? Its possible, like you said, but its still tedious. They don't want that tediousness. Sure, Windows might be tedious in OTHER areas, but most people don't give a shit about those other areas. You're still treating this as a Windows vs Linux debate, instead of a "Should Windows EXIST at all" debate, which is what you created and presented to us.
Quote from Sea Beast
Besides from everyday checking facebook, which has been replaced by cell phones and tablets, there is no point in owning a desktop computer or even a labtop for someone who doesn't know crap about computers. Anyone who has a profession in the field of computers would pretty much be required to run Linux, or atleast not Windows.
Are you out of your mind? I hope you're not one of these First-world loons who thinks everyone in the world who works with computers are familiar with them. I have literally seen hundereds of thousands of people in call centers, media houses, marketing companies, Ad agencies, and others who are using computers because they absolutely have to, and Windows is all they know. There are MILLIONS of people in my country alone who own phones only to make calls and have no clue how to use a smartphone. Maybe you want Windows gone in your First World. But over here, Microsoft has a reason to exist.
Quote from Sea BeastSo the real argument is, considering how poor Windows is as an OS, and the fact that your average person ignorant to computer-related knowledge would be more inclined to use a Tablet, iPad, or a cell phone for everyday use over a desktop, or a labtop computer. So that only leaves people who DO care about the performance of their computer, in which case it would be stupid to pick the expensive product that's poor in performance over a FREE product that is highly superior and clean in performance.
Your assertion that Tablets and Ipads have replaced computers is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the world. Even on Stickpage we have members from countries like Indonesia and Philippines who assert that their entire family uses just one computer. They don't have Tablets and iPads for each individual person. So they need something that everyone is familiar with, and all can use.
I don't know what vendetta you have against Microsoft, but repeating points and refusing to refute other point isn't going to get you anywhere. Neither is making blatantly false claims which you just plucked out of your imagination.
EDIT: The only point I wanted to address in the first part of your post is when you claimed one of the Linux versions looked exactly like Windows so it shouldn't matter. Well what about when these people want to run softwares that are meant to run only on Windows? Its possible, like you said, but its still tedious. They don't want that tediousness. Sure, Windows might be tedious in OTHER areas, but most people don't give a shit about those other areas. You're still treating this as a Windows vs Linux debate, instead of a "Should Windows EXIST at all" debate, which is what you created and presented to us.
Oct 23, 2015 9:15 PM #1410434
If you were to put the familiarity aside, Linux is still superior in many ways. Someone completely new to computers would be better off starting with Linux than Windows. Linux automatically searches and installs drivers when you plug in hardware. Linux (mainstream Linux operating systems) has a software center, that makes it a breeze to download software and you don't have to worry about downloading useless bundles on accident, and you can uninstall any software without it leaving behind files. In Windows you have to use a number of programs to clean out your hard drive when you try uninstalling software. Linux also doesn't force you to update.
Linux uses Wine to run the common Windows programs and actually a good amount of games. Not to mention even Steam has been supporting PC games, that have been made to work on a Linux engine. I'll cite that if I have to.
I don't understand why you say it's a bad thing that Linux has many distros. With Windows you only have really one choice, where with Linux you can install specialized versions of Linux for certain things. Some are specialized in browsing the deep web and being anonymous (which is impossible on Windows), or specialized in gaming, or video editing, media production, lightweight browsing, hacking and program writing, or just a balanced approachable distro like Ubuntu.
It's an advantage because you can change your OS whenever you want, and you can boot up any specialized distro without installing it from a USB flash drive.
There are websites out there that are meant to help you get into Linux.
Your arguments are centered around a learning curve toward Linux, when in reality, you are only talking about a predisposition toward windows rather than an honest preference the majority people have.
This is why I say Microsoft shouldn't exist.
Linux can be easy and simple to learn, and it can perform technical computer tasks.
If someone new to computers started with Linux then it would be a different case, in fact, Linux is easier in a ridiculous number of ways.
Why is it that after a year of running Linux I never ran into problems and never even needed to make an effort to prevent them, where in Windows every other week I was running malware bytes and slowing down my computer running anti virus, that kept asking me to give them money. Windows perpetually slows down and decreases in performance the longer you run it.
I used to actually like and use Windows at one point before switching to Linux. Now I realized how much of a mistake it was wasting time, effort, and money trying to get that OS to work properly.
You can't argue for Windows' existence by referring to a predisposition put on people by Microsoft in the first place.
Also, everytime someone loses their computer to malware, they have to buy a new computer, and that new computer will have Windows on it. Windows being vulnerable to malware seems to work out for Microsoft pretty well. Not to mention most of the good Anti-Virus require monthly payment or something of the liking, after a short trial. Everyone is making money off of the poor security design of Windows. It doesn't even come with Anti-Virus, besides from a temporary trial that constantly puts ads in your face, even though Windows needs programs like that to even run properly. Is it not obvious that it's a scam?
Millions of computers have been wiped out by viruses, and that's billions of dollars in Microsoft's pocket. Windows is designed to continuously pull money out of your wallet.
Linux uses Wine to run the common Windows programs and actually a good amount of games. Not to mention even Steam has been supporting PC games, that have been made to work on a Linux engine. I'll cite that if I have to.
I don't understand why you say it's a bad thing that Linux has many distros. With Windows you only have really one choice, where with Linux you can install specialized versions of Linux for certain things. Some are specialized in browsing the deep web and being anonymous (which is impossible on Windows), or specialized in gaming, or video editing, media production, lightweight browsing, hacking and program writing, or just a balanced approachable distro like Ubuntu.
It's an advantage because you can change your OS whenever you want, and you can boot up any specialized distro without installing it from a USB flash drive.
There are websites out there that are meant to help you get into Linux.
Your arguments are centered around a learning curve toward Linux, when in reality, you are only talking about a predisposition toward windows rather than an honest preference the majority people have.
This is why I say Microsoft shouldn't exist.
Linux can be easy and simple to learn, and it can perform technical computer tasks.
If someone new to computers started with Linux then it would be a different case, in fact, Linux is easier in a ridiculous number of ways.
Why is it that after a year of running Linux I never ran into problems and never even needed to make an effort to prevent them, where in Windows every other week I was running malware bytes and slowing down my computer running anti virus, that kept asking me to give them money. Windows perpetually slows down and decreases in performance the longer you run it.
I used to actually like and use Windows at one point before switching to Linux. Now I realized how much of a mistake it was wasting time, effort, and money trying to get that OS to work properly.
You can't argue for Windows' existence by referring to a predisposition put on people by Microsoft in the first place.
Also, everytime someone loses their computer to malware, they have to buy a new computer, and that new computer will have Windows on it. Windows being vulnerable to malware seems to work out for Microsoft pretty well. Not to mention most of the good Anti-Virus require monthly payment or something of the liking, after a short trial. Everyone is making money off of the poor security design of Windows. It doesn't even come with Anti-Virus, besides from a temporary trial that constantly puts ads in your face, even though Windows needs programs like that to even run properly. Is it not obvious that it's a scam?
Millions of computers have been wiped out by viruses, and that's billions of dollars in Microsoft's pocket. Windows is designed to continuously pull money out of your wallet.
Oct 23, 2015 9:38 PM #1410436
Quote from Sea BeastWhy is it that after a year of running Linux I never ran into problems and never even needed to make an effort to prevent them, where in Windows every other week I was running malware bytes and slowing down my computer running anti virus, that kept asking me to give them money. Windows perpetually slows down and decreases in performance the longer you run it.
that hasn't been my experience, not even remotely. every other week you had to clear viruses from your PC? at that point that says more about your browsing habits than it does your choice of OS.
I have absolutely zero interest in Linux and I have few complaints about the windows products I've used. the android phones I've used suffer more issues than any PC I've ever had. does linux do certain things better than windows? sure. do windows products have their faults? absolutely. does that mean Microsoft should cease to exist? no fucking way.
Oct 24, 2015 5:01 AM #1410501
Quote from Sea BeastIf you were to put the familiarity aside, Linux is still superior in many ways. Someone completely new to computers would be better off starting with Linux than Windows. Linux automatically searches and installs drivers when you plug in hardware. Linux (mainstream Linux operating systems) has a software center, that makes it a breeze to download software and you don't have to worry about downloading useless bundles on accident, and you can uninstall any software without it leaving behind files. In Windows you have to use a number of programs to clean out your hard drive when you try uninstalling software. Linux also doesn't force you to update. [1]
Linux uses Wine to run the common Windows programs and actually a good amount of games. Not to mention even Steam has been supporting PC games, that have been made to work on a Linux engine. I'll cite that if I have to. [2]
I don't understand why you say it's a bad thing that Linux has many distros. With Windows you only have really one choice, where with Linux you can install specialized versions of Linux for certain things. [3] Some are specialized in browsing the deep web and being anonymous (which is impossible on Windows) [4], or specialized in gaming [5], or video editing, media production, lightweight browsing, hacking and program writing, or just a balanced approachable distro like Ubuntu. [6]
It's an advantage because you can change your OS whenever you want, and you can boot up any specialized distro without installing it from a USB flash drive.
There are websites out there that are meant to help you get into Linux.
Your arguments are centered around a learning curve toward Linux, when in reality, you are only talking about a predisposition toward windows rather than an honest preference the majority people have. [7]
This is why I say Microsoft shouldn't exist.
Linux can be easy and simple to learn, and it can perform technical computer tasks.
If someone new to computers started with Linux then it would be a different case, in fact, Linux is easier in a ridiculous number of ways.
Why is it that after a year of running Linux I never ran into problems and never even needed to make an effort to prevent them, where in Windows every other week I was running malware bytes and slowing down my computer running anti virus, that kept asking me to give them money. Windows perpetually slows down and decreases in performance the longer you run it. [8]
I used to actually like and use Windows at one point before switching to Linux. Now I realized how much of a mistake it was wasting time, effort, and money trying to get that OS to work properly.
You can't argue for Windows' existence by referring to a predisposition put on people by Microsoft in the first place. [9]
Also, everytime someone loses their computer to malware, they have to buy a new computer [10], and that new computer will have Windows on it. Windows being vulnerable to malware seems to work out for Microsoft pretty well. Not to mention most of the good Anti-Virus require monthly payment or something of the liking, after a short trial. Everyone is making money off of the poor security design of Windows. It doesn't even come with Anti-Virus, besides from a temporary trial that constantly puts ads in your face, even though Windows needs programs like that to even run properly. [11] Is it not obvious that it's a scam? [12]
Millions of computers have been wiped out by viruses, and that's billions of dollars in Microsoft's pocket. Windows is designed to continuously pull money out of your wallet.
1. windows has most of these features as well. drivers are typically installed automatically unless the hardware requires special software to run. don't pretend linux invented plug and play. uninstalling programs on windows is not difficult either. yes, files are sometimes left behind - usually these are settings or save data in case you ever reinstall the program. the amount of space these files take up is negligible, but it isn't hard to remove these either. in most cases it can be done manually by simply deleting the files, but the only program you'll ever need to automate this process is CCleaner.
2. wine is a tedious workaround that doesn't work 80% of the time. seriously, don't even try to compare linux gaming to windows gaming. you'll lose.
3. it's a good thing for people who care to specialize. most people don't, and it just complicates things for them.
4. you think browsing the deep web is impossible on windows? that proves how little you know.
5. lol
6. again, most users don't need this level of specialization. even if it would benefit them slightly, they feel that the amount of effort required to figure out which distro is ideal for them outweighs the benefit of the marginal performance increase in the first place.
7. no, i'm not. you are severely overestimating the general populus' ability to understand computers. people just want something that they can install once and run forever without worrying about anything ever again. they don't want to fuck around with booting from an external drive, or figuring out which one of hundreds of linux builds is suitable for them. they don't ever want to deal with system kernels and root access. they want an OS that just does the thing, with the software they need for whatever it is they do available and accessible.
8. fuck if i know. there is absolutely zero reason to run a virus scan that frequently, unless you're actively downloading suspicious executable files. the fact that you chose a shit AV that nags you for money isn't windows' fault, either. furthermore, every computer slows down the longer you run it. hardware deteriorates and slows down over time, especially with intensive use. this is not an issue that has anything to with windows. by the way, you're deluding yourself if you think you don't need any protection on linux.
9. again, i'm not. but i disagree, because you can. "because it sells" is a valid justification for the existence of any product.
10. LOL WTF. removing a virus is not that hard, and it absolutely isn't going to obliterate all your hardware. worst case scenario, you may need a new hard drive. hyperbole much?
11. uh, actually, windows does come with an antivirus. and a firewall. they're shit, but you're wrong. depending where you buy your computer from, you might end up with some other pre-installed AV software (and a whole lot of other bloatware that you will never ever need), but this is from the salesman, not microsoft. furthermore, i already pointed out that windows absolutely does not need antivirus software to run properly if you aren't a complete idiot.
12. don't attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. just because microsoft has failed to eradicate viruses, doesn't mean they're scamming users. as i've already pointed out, there is no OS that isn't vulnerable. windows is probably the most popular OS and therefore the biggest target for the people who develop malware.
Oct 24, 2015 5:48 AM #1410505
SeaBeast, at this point, I HAVE to assume you're trolling.
This is the pattern / cycle of this thread so far.
SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims.
This is the pattern / cycle of this thread so far.
SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims -----> SeaBeast's claims are debunked -----> Counter-arguments to SeaBeast's claims are presented ----> SeaBeast ignores and sidesteps them ----> SeaBeast makes dubious claims.
Oct 24, 2015 6:16 AM #1410507
dubious claims indeed.
Oct 24, 2015 6:33 AM #1410509
inb4 he pops up saying "lol I was totally kidding, look at you microsoft fanboys"
Oct 24, 2015 6:35 AM #1410511
Quote from GuardianTempestinb4 he pops up saying "lol I was totally kidding, look at you microsoft fanboys"
If this happens i think scarecrow knows what he has to do.
Oct 24, 2015 7:22 AM #1410521
i don't even like microsoft
Oct 24, 2015 11:15 AM #1410541
Again, this is NOT a Microsoft vs Linux debate, guys. So the fanboy argument is invalid. Its about whether Microsoft should even exist or not. I'm yet to see a single reason for it to cease to be.
Oct 24, 2015 6:12 PM #1410598
Isn't the practical reason why Linux has hardly any viruses as of now is because it's being used by a very small group of people compared to Microsoft Windows?
Oct 25, 2015 3:20 AM #1410714
Quote from SuperterryIsn't the practical reason why Linux has hardly any viruses as of now is because it's being used by a very small group of people compared to Microsoft Windows?
it's a valid point, but it is true that linux is designed in a way that makes it much more difficult to develop viruses for.
Oct 25, 2015 8:30 PM #1410862
Quote from Scarecrow1. windows has most of these features as well. drivers are typically installed automatically unless the hardware requires special software to run. don't pretend linux invented plug and play. uninstalling programs on windows is not difficult either. yes, files are sometimes left behind - usually these are settings or save data in case you ever reinstall the program. the amount of space these files take up is negligible, but it isn't hard to remove these either. in most cases it can be done manually by simply deleting the files, but the only program you'll ever need to automate this process is CCleaner.
2. wine is a tedious workaround that doesn't work 80% of the time. seriously, don't even try to compare linux gaming to windows gaming. you'll lose.
3. it's a good thing for people who care to specialize. most people don't, and it just complicates things for them.
4. you think browsing the deep web is impossible on windows? that proves how little you know.
5. lol
6. again, most users don't need this level of specialization. even if it would benefit them slightly, they feel that the amount of effort required to figure out which distro is ideal for them outweighs the benefit of the marginal performance increase in the first place.
7. no, i'm not. you are severely overestimating the general populus' ability to understand computers. people just want something that they can install once and run forever without worrying about anything ever again. they don't want to fuck around with booting from an external drive, or figuring out which one of hundreds of linux builds is suitable for them. they don't ever want to deal with system kernels and root access. they want an OS that just does the thing, with the software they need for whatever it is they do available and accessible.
8. fuck if i know. there is absolutely zero reason to run a virus scan that frequently, unless you're actively downloading suspicious executable files. the fact that you chose a shit AV that nags you for money isn't windows' fault, either. furthermore, every computer slows down the longer you run it. hardware deteriorates and slows down over time, especially with intensive use. this is not an issue that has anything to with windows. by the way, you're deluding yourself if you think you don't need any protection on linux.
9. again, i'm not. but i disagree, because you can. "because it sells" is a valid justification for the existence of any product.
10. LOL WTF. removing a virus is not that hard, and it absolutely isn't going to obliterate all your hardware. worst case scenario, you may need a new hard drive. hyperbole much?
11. uh, actually, windows does come with an antivirus. and a firewall. they're shit, but you're wrong. depending where you buy your computer from, you might end up with some other pre-installed AV software (and a whole lot of other bloatware that you will never ever need), but this is from the salesman, not microsoft. furthermore, i already pointed out that windows absolutely does not need antivirus software to run properly if you aren't a complete idiot.
12. don't attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. just because microsoft has failed to eradicate viruses, doesn't mean they're scamming users. as i've already pointed out, there is no OS that isn't vulnerable. windows is probably the most popular OS and therefore the biggest target for the people who develop malware.
You contradicted yourself. You said people want something that can simply run and keep running forever so they can do what they want. Linux delivers that. Windows does not. You said I am overestimating peoples' ability to use and understand computers yet you think the average person would know to replace the hard drive if their computer gets ruined by malicious programs. You said it's not that hard to remove a virus, but you yourself are evidently more familiar with computers than an average consumer. An average consumer would need CCleaner, anti-virus, and knowledge of how to maintain a computer using Windows, however with Linux it is self maintained, it is user-freindly more so than that of Windows. Every single point you make for Windows can be said of any OS in existence, yeah it can run programs, yea people use it, yeah it is accessible. However a proper operating system can do the same thing as Windows except without the obvious design flaws of the OS.
Why should someone who actually NEEDS a computer for say a business, and in many cases where a computer failure could cause a steep decline in the business, should be vulnerable to viruses?
The only possible way Linux could be affected by a malicious program is if you were specifically targeted by an extremely capable, expert black hat hacker, who could somehow get around the fact that if you tried to open an .exe file the most you'd get is an error message in the Linux OS.
Linux has superior design in this area, indisputably, and that's rather odd considering the amount of resources Microsoft has available to make better software than they do now. Especially since Linux is maintained, tested for bugs, and updated voluntarily for free. That is only evident of honest effort to design a proper OS, because that is the only motivation to create Linux. Why doesn't Microsoft fix the flaws and exploits their software has had for years?
That's not their goal, Microsoft doesn't want to offer anything new or important to the computer industry, they only wish to exploit it for money. Linux is built by people who want a proper OS.
Look at other branches of Microsoft, like the Xbox, which is ridiculously and blatantly designed to suck as much money out of it's consumers as possible. When gamers want to "stick it to the man" and go to superior PC gaming, Microsoft makes money from that too.
"Because it sells" it's not valid. In fact, it's only a sign of exploitation.
I'm certain you are familiar with Tesla and Edison. Edison was more popular and richer, but he offered inferior technology.
He had the money to influence the media in his favor. And he pushed his lesser DC technology.
Tesla had no money but he had superior technology. History repeats itself.
However in time Tesla's alternating current was recognized by the electrical companies as more efficient and now it's used by default.
Edison's technology would've been inefficient and problematic in today's world, just like Microsoft in modern times.
Do you see the parallels?