| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Kicking The Microsoft Habit | |
|
||
| Time: 19:25 EST/00:25 GMT | News Source: InformationWeek | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Tired of the cost and security concerns that result from using Microsoft products? Not to worry--solid alternatives abound. For many people these days, Microsoft is to computing as Kleenex is to facial tissues -- practically the same thing. Microsoft probably has no problem with this, but sticking with just one supplier is not always a great idea. Increasingly, there are solid -- and practical -- reasons to minimize our commitment to Microsoft software. For one thing, Microsoft software can be expensive. Why pay hundreds of dollars for Microsoft Office, for instance, when low-cost and even free alternatives are available? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:25:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/18/2006 9:34:25 PM |
|
I think Apple and Linux, with their recently well documented security issues and comments from Andrew Morton, have much more serious security issues than Windows.
Not only is Apple OS X full of security holes, they are trying to wreck Windows users experiences with their Quicktime piece of cr*p. The rapid rise in OS X security issues are making headlines around the world and especially among security researchers. I think Microsoft -- by taking a security hiatus -- and by working on a much safer IE 7 is moving strongly in the right direction. Jumping from the rapidly improving Windows to the sinking OS X and Linux would be a huge mistake. This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 21:36. |
| #2 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 5/18/2006 11:47:24 PM |
|
"I found all these reasons valid to varying degrees, so a few months ago I set out to wean myself from Microsoft products -- at least, to a certain degree. I decided to stay with Windows itself for a couple of reasons."
Of *course* he stuck with Windows itself. His article is about "solid alternatives" to Microsoft software, and if he claimed that a non-Windows OS was one of those "solid alternatives", he would be admitting that Microsoft does not have an OS monopoly. (Remember, Judge Jackson's monopoly ruling is based on there being "no viable alternatives" to Windows.) |
| #3 By 26839 (24.250.149.116) at 5/18/2006 11:51:36 PM |
|
Jumping from the rapidly improving Windows to the sinking OS X and Linux would be a huge mistake.
I've been using Linux for 12 years now. I haven't looked back yet. Ubuntu looks to be getting a lot of interest. http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu I like Ubuntu, mainly because of its Debian based packaging (which leaves Windows in the dust). |
| #4 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 5/19/2006 12:06:04 AM |
|
"I like Ubuntu, mainly because of its Debian based packaging (which leaves Windows in the dust)."
Care to elaborate on that one? |
| #5 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 5/19/2006 4:09:15 AM |
|
#2 It's a conspiracy - you have to say Linux is an alternative but you can't state that it's a solid alternative!
#4 Debian Package Management - http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html & APT - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Packaging_Tool |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 9:28:54 AM |
| I'm not sure it's very smart to do business with a convicted monopolist that has a long track record of security flaws, unethical business practices, and a habit of stealing from its partners and competitors. |
| #7 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/19/2006 11:02:29 AM |
| #6 I thought IBM was a hero to the OSS fanatics? |
| #8 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/19/2006 11:09:54 AM |
|
#7 My mistake. IBM wasn't convicted. They bought off the lawyer working for the government.
"The complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM was filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York on January 17, 1969 by the Justice Department. The suit alleged that IBM violated the Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business. There were several charges against IBM. The government contended that IBM planned to and did eliminate emerging competition that threatened the erosion of IBM's monopoly power by devising and executing business strategies which were not illegal, but which did not provide users with a better price, a better product or better service. Specifically, it was alleged that IBM had hindered the development of service and peripherals competitors by maintaining a single price policy for its machines, software and support services (bundling); it had granted discounts for universities and other educational institutions and by so doing influenced those places to select IBM computers; and that IBM had introduced underpriced models knowing that they could not be produced on time and did this to prevent the placement of competitors' machines. For example, IBM had prematurely announced new systems such as System/360 claiming that it was a superior product and that its introduction was imminent when in fact, it was several years from completion. The trial began May 19, 1975 and spanned a period of over six years. After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition) and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, the case was withdrawn by William F. Baxter, assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, on January 8, 1982. Baxter signed a Stipulation of Dismissal that stated the government's charges were “without merit.” It was later discovered that Baxter had failed to disclose that he had been retained as a consultant to a West Coast law firm defending IBM in private antitrust cases. " http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/1980.htm |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 12:18:54 PM |
|
#7: No, you're wrong as usual. I was talking about Microsoft. Symantec is the latest partner they've tried to screw over. I might give MS the benefit of the doubt, except that we've all seen this kind of theft from them many times in the past (Burst, Sendo and STAC just off the top of my head). I'm sure it was all a big misunderstanging, and Symantec's IP just magically made it into Vista through a warp in the space-time continuum.
|
| #10 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 5/19/2006 12:54:57 PM |
|
#8 "My mistake. IBM wasn't convicted."
Thank you for admitting your mistake. IBM wasn't convicted but Microsoft was convicted and they paid off (see: lobbied) the appropriate political party to ensure that the punishment would be no harsher than a little slap on the wrist. Stop posting irrelevant crap. #9 "Symantec is the latest partner they've tried to screw over." Not at all, Microsoft paid Symantec to sue them so that they would have another reason for delaying the vaporware that is Vista! Perhaps Gartner knew about this and that why they came out with that report of theirs saying that Vista would be delayed another 3 months. |
| #11 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 5/19/2006 12:57:02 PM |
| It is possible to kick the MS habit. It's about as easy as kicking the gasoline habit when driving. |
| #12 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/19/2006 2:16:41 PM |
|
#9 and #10 You guys from other websites are so bitter about Vista coming just as OS X security and Linux Kernel instability hit the the fan!
You thought you would take advantage of Microsofts security hiatus to gain some market share, and now every serious security vendor is dumping on OS X ... and Morton and Torvalds are dumping on Linux. Its hilarious! |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 2:29:45 PM |
| #12: Good old Parkkker. When someone shines the light on MS and their unethical behaviour or ineptness, Parkkker comes to the rescue with as many tangents, sidetracks and exaggerations as he can think of. As for this "security hiatus" you keep mentioning in every post you make here, Microsoft has been taking a hiatus from security for 25 years now. |
| #14 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/19/2006 3:17:51 PM |
|
#13 Bitterness is no replacement for a functioning brain. I've been in this business long enough to pay attention to whats actually happening.
And thats why you think spewing anti-Microsoft venom will convince rational people to spend millions of dollars to switch to a different OS and office suite (and disrupt their employess for years) that will not increase their productivity one iota. Especially when for most companies we are talking 20 cents a day per employee if you keep XP and Office for 4 or 5 years (which most companies do). Most companies actually care about productivity, rather than buying into some hate-filled anti-microsoft fantasyland. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 3:49:26 PM |
|
#14: As opposed to you, the Official Pollyanna of Microsoft. "disrupt their employees for years" huh? Serves 'em right for hiring such stupid people that a minor UI switch renders them useless for years. Of course, your argument naturally doesn't apply to the latest MS Office where the UI is totally upside down compared to previous versions. Those same employess will take decades to catch up I guess, but MS won't factor that into their latest ROI calculations. And it may not increase their productivity, but it will cut down substantially on the company's software licensing costs.
How's things over there in your hate-filled anti-FOSS fantasyland? |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 3:59:24 PM |
|
Geez, has it been a whole week already? Here's the latest zero-day Windows bug to own your system:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/19/1718203 |
| #17 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/19/2006 5:23:58 PM |
|
#15 Minor UI switch? What an idiot you are.
Another 4.4 days, another Firefox hole: http://www.betanews.com/article/Image_Processing_Flaw_Found_in_Firefox/1147893245 |
| #18 By 26839 (24.250.149.116) at 5/19/2006 5:44:32 PM |
|
#4 Install a Debian based distro.
Try the "synaptic" frontend. http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html When I open my synaptic with Debian I have access to 17,000+ (free) software packages. http://packages.debian.org/testing/ Synaptic automatically does dependency resolving. Ubuntu (with multiverse) has 10,000+ packages. If you include the security repositories (usually a default) then your security updates get done as well. Debian's package tools are what made me "fall in love" with Linux. |
| #19 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 5/19/2006 5:46:03 PM |
|
#17: Well said.
#18: And it's probably already fixed by now, in testing and will be released by early next week. Meanwhile, you'll get to wait almost a month for the Word fix, assuming it's in the next patch cycle. |
| #20 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/19/2006 8:50:45 PM |
|
i think i'll spend the next week on pro-linux, pro-apple sites... stirring people up.
on second thought, i have a life. i'm sorry for you latch. |
| #21 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 5/20/2006 2:50:18 AM |
| #19 - Thanks for that... interesting feedback. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:25:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
