New Windows 10 Updates Causing Serious Problems
Another round of Win10 pain brought to you by the not so good coders at Microsoft, you may want to stop these updates, if you can.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Microsoft was openly forcing distributors to sell ONLY Microsoft Windows-based PC's. They couldn't sell Apple or IBM. That was what they got busted for in the anti-trust suits. They weren't competing on merit (and by the way, I agree with you that OS/2 fell flat - I tested it) but on their monopolistic muscle.
"The people and markets chose MS."
Uh, I wrote my thesis on this. IBM couldn't get out of the mindset that hardware was the real seller. Novell bankrupted itself trying to compete with Microsoft in Office Productivity. UNIX didn't care one way or the other, being primarily focused on mainframes. Apple forced out Steve Jobs and cratered (until they brought him back). There were no real choices but Microsoft at that stage in the game. But Microsoft benefited by their competitors' implosions - not the superiority of their products.
I look at the mobile platform space as particularly illustrative: Android owns 60% of the market, Apple another 30% and everyone else a combined 10%, with Windows mobile around 5%-6%. Why? Because they were incredibly late to the party for one. Their initial product lines were total crap for two. I worked with Windows CE devices and they were an unmitigated disaster no matter what form they took - they were buggy as all get out. The most recent crop is much improved, but still faces enormous hurdles in adoption. Not being able to multi-task until very recently also didn't help.
"They test their OSes massively before release."
I don't doubt it. And having written software I completely understand how such complex pieces with that many lines are going to have bugs and need updates.
But I also had a few friends who worked in Redmond who quit after only a couple of years because of the antagonistic environment there. Not everyone can be Google, I realize that, but according to them, this went way beyond that and it started at the top. Have things improved since the management shakeup? I would say they have. But the history of the matter vs the last few years are a stark contrast - not an example of consistent management ideals.
The typical IBM Clone system with 101 keys, full software and two printers equaled the price of the stripped down no printer 88 key Apple unless 'a friend' bought one at the college bookstore.
The problem was the retail chains quit supporting apple.
Same thing happened with Andre Borland of Quattro Pro. He offered the program for $99 and the installation disk of the competitor. Sold through the big chain stores such as Office Pro and offered zero customer service. The smaller retailers who routinely included classes in software were charged $119 wholesale. Did it work? Yes until the buyer found out they were on their own or had to pay $20 an hour for classes a buyer at $149 attended at no charge.
Borland also went broke.
Some of these models worked some did not and some of the losers came back as winners later on Steve Jobs the most well known.
Get it on the market we will fix it later was the most successful business model in history ask Bill Gates and Steve Allen. They had a second Joker in their deck. The Democrat Party. Gates wealth doubled from 40 to 80 million in the so called Great Recession. How did you do?
Netscape wanted to use Microsoft API's to write their browser. Microsoft developed their own internal APIs which they based IE on. Netscape - nor any other developer is in any position to demand that MS write any subroutines or API's to make their code easier to write. If the routines they wanted to use had issues, write their own.
Bill gates just recently made the point that one of his biggest mistakes in MS was not having lobbyists to deal with the government. Too many socialists in the government (Clintons) did not Microsoft or its size and listened to too many of their ideas and chose to make an example of MS. The plain fact is - they wrote their code - they have no obligation to tell others how to use it, to teach them how to use it, or to fix it for those who can't troubleshoot and write their own code when needed.
Companies who want to sell a PC with MS on it have to agree to Microsoft's terms. If they don't want competing software on the computer sold right along with their OS and the re-sellers (which I was for many years) agree to this - tough. I as a reseller don't have to agree - I could sell Apple. I could sell it with DR-DOS on it and some other turn-key system on it instead. MS created an OS that others didn't feel they could readily compete with so for the most part they didn't (although I assume you do remember OS2 that died away and was supposedly sooo much better). The people and markets chose MS.
Now, I'm not saying everything MS puts out is just wonderful. But they have done what they needed to do considering competing systems, hardware capabilities, etc...
They test their OSes massively before release. Have you every seen the process they go through to deal with issues and get new tests out - it's freaking amazing!
There is an argument against all these anti-MS points. I have to go right now - but would be glad to point them out to you if interested.
I upgraded a while back. Had so many problems, I went back to Windows 7.
EDIT: Corrected spellinf
You obviously haven't been around much in the tech world. I was hacking autoexec.bat files on my dad's computer since Windows 3.1 and I've been doing professional technical support since Windows 95, including everything from desktop support to application development and support and now databases.
Remember Netscape Navigator? I certainly do. It was the first "killer app" after the spreadsheet. Why isn't it around anymore (except its codebase)? Because of Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics.
Microsoft was convicted of illegally controlling the practices of the distributors of Windows PC's by prohibiting them from selling competitors' products.
What about the inclusion of Internet Exploder as part of the OS and how it broke third party apps on nearly every update for more than a decade?
All of Microsoft's changes to the desktop, the task bar, the control panel, the interface itself - all based on what Microsoft wants people to do. Their development environment - again pushes Microsoft's way of doing things. Microsoft's own lingo (especially concerning databases) runs counter to everyone else - especially EF Cobb - the inventor of the relational database.
Does Apple do the same thing? Yup. Never denied they did. But I've been working with tech for 30+ years, 20+ professionally as a Windows Admin. Don't try to defend Microsoft's business practices. Have they gotten better lately? Getting rid of Balmer was definitely a good move. But forcing upgrades to Windows 10? Office 365? These all smack of Microsoft's practices of control.
Since I'd worked with the intelligence agencies for several decades, I'd gained an appreciation for how solid and secure Unix was. I was horrified when those agencies got lobbied into Microsoft machinery. After the supposedly cheaper Windows machines were installed, the software security manning had to be quadrupled, and security patches began arriving sometimes more than twice a week. It hasn't let up, so far as I know. Before I retired, I was among those who recommended a change to a Linux operating system to bring back a more secure environment without having to buy new machines. The Microsoft lobby was just too strong.
Load more comments...