Why the Spelling "Micro$oft"? 12

[Mike555]

Ok, this is really bugging me. Why does everyone refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft? Is this just a trend? Or is it that posters electing to replace the S with $ are steering clear of any potential repercussions possibly caused by posts containing view points critical of the software giant?

Please explain this to me or just tell me that I'm overthinking this one.

--
Mike

 

[Dimandja]

But why do so few write "Ora¢le" or "Larry Elli$on"?

This is a no-brainer: because they are not as abusive.

 

[sleipnir214]

At least Mi[¢]ro$oft is getting more egalitarian about what software it breaks when it upgrades and OS.

Windows XP SP2 actually breaks a few Mi[¢]ro$oft applications. This is a first -- normally their stuff runs fine but third-party stuff breaks.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[chiph]

My theory: Microsoft has (or had, they're giving a large part of it away to shareholders) over $56,000,000,000 in cash.

(yes, that's 56 billion-with-a-"B" dollars)

One good thing I have to say about Bill, is that his charity (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) is giving away more money than the Vanderbilts, Rockerfellers, or J. P. Morgan ever did.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[ecobb]

This is a no-brainer: because they are not as abusive.

Wasn't Larry Ellison the one who offered to provided a (free) database to store all of the names of the September 11 victims, but then charge people to see if their family members were still alive?



Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher

 

[alexhu]

/oracle_bias_on

sounds like an urban myth

/oracle_bias_off

Alex

 

[alexhu]

A little Googling reveals

Seems like a confused story - checkout

http://www.alternet.org/911oneyearlater/11694/

Not quite what you had in mind, but I know what you mean

Alex

 

[Dimandja]

Ecobb, Larry Ellison is in the goofball league -- that's not where M$ plays.

 

[ecobb]

Larry Ellison is in the goofball league -- that's not where M$ plays

That's pretty good!



Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher

 

[gbaughma]

OK.... I'll throw in my $.02 as usual... just because I like being controversial.

Bill Gates is, a genius. He was, essentially, the writer of DOS, that was used by Apple, IBM, Radio Shack, etc.

Here are things I agree with, and disagree with, about Microsoft.

1) They have STANDARDIZED the PC Community. Anything bearing the windows logo has to meet dozens of standards.... did you ever notice how "FILE" is always the first choice on the menu? It's not because it's habit... that is a Microsoft standard.

2) They have standardized things like printer drivers, etc. There's a common programming interface that will make everything from that old 9-pin dot matrix to the fanciest laser printer work with ALL windows applications.

There are countless other things that we take for granted with Microsoft. Compatibility, the ability to run on MULTIPLE platforms, support for scads of hardware.

Now, a couple things that I dislike (and Mr. Gates, if you're reading this, or if it gets brought to your attention, remember this is constructive criticism, not Microsoft bashing).....

1. Stability. Shifting a few people from the "Let's make pretty icons and cool screen savers" group to the "Let's stabilize the system and double-check our source code" group. When an IT department has to dedicate so many hours per month just to doing patches for security holes, it tells me there isn't enough quality control.

2. Ownership. Darn it, this is *MY* computer, and if do not want MSN Explorer or MSN Messenger, I shouldn't have to go through a bunch of registry fixes to uninstall it!

3. Ethics. Now, honestly, I don't think that this is all Bill's fault. Let's face it, I doubt that Mr. Gates has actually sat down and written a piece of software; he has teams of programmers. AND, there's undoubtably a puff-factor about "more people are using Explorer than Netscape!"... but those choices shouldn't be forced down our throats. I would hope that programming groups who end up having Bill Gates yanked into court are severely reprimanded. They have been the reason, not Bill himself, that Microsoft has found themselves in court, and people are exploring Linux as an alternative desktop OS.

... HOWEVER, keep in mind, that not all (in fact, a relative few) are computer geeks like ourselves. I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to users that just because their system came with Windows, doesn't mean they have Office. Microsoft attempts to have all the tools that the average user wants installed. And what is that? E-mail (Outlook Express), Browser (IE), Networking, and some pretty screen savers so that Grandpa, who's kids have e-mail, can go out, buy a base system, and generally have what he needs to get started.

OK... I've rambled enough. I don't *love* Microsoft, Bill Gates isn't my uncle (although that would be nice), but remember that Microsoft Corp is essentially a city. And just as with any city, you are going to have some undesirables slip in. Blaming Bill Gates for all of Microsoft's shortcomings are like blaming the mayor of your town because there's people breaking the law.



Just my $0.02

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[chiph]

He was, essentially, the writer of DOS, that was used by Apple, IBM, Radio Shack, etc.

Nope. He bought it from Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products. But he was personally involved in porting it to the IBM PC platform when the company was located in Flagstaff.

did you ever notice how "FILE" is always the first choice on the menu? It's not because it's habit... that is a Microsoft standard.

It's actually from the Common User Access standard that IBM created. I might still have my copy around somewhere...

They have standardized things like printer drivers, etc.

True. Before Windows, every program had to have it's own printer (and modem) drivers. Word Perfect arguably had better drivers than Windows, but then Word Perfect went off on a tangent...

the ability to run on MULTIPLE platforms

Depends on how you define multiple platforms. Certainly not multiple versions of Windows. However, Windows NT had the ability to run on different CPUs. It was originally written against the MIPS 4000. Intel was the 2nd CPU architecture. The DEC Alpha was the third. Windows 2000 and XP still have the ability to run text-mode 16-bit OS/2 programs (like there are any of those left). Look in the System32 directory for os2.exe, os2ss.exe, and os2srv.exe

Let's face it, I doubt that Mr. Gates has actually sat down and written a piece of software; he has teams of programmers.

Not recently, true. But he did personally write the BASIC loader for the MITS Altair. He was also very involved after they bought Visual Basic from Alan Cooper.

The thing to remember about Bill is that at heart he's a businessman with excellent programming skills.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[edfair]

How about being responsible for the operating system that IBM chose for their PC. He didn't have one but knew where to get one. There were other operating systems for other hardware that he had nothing to do with. The "basics" he was involved with gave him enough of a reputation that IBM went to him as a second choice after they were dissed by Digital Research.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[jsteph]

<<... that IBM went to him as a second choice after they were dissed by Digital Research.>>

And that moment, in a nutshell, is where MS got their foothold on the OS market. Not "innovation", not engineering prowess, and not even marketing, in my opinion.

MS's advertisements are rarely to-the-point, memorable, or effective. They could probably be just as rich with little or no marketing. When the IBM pc became the standard, at that point, through sheer LUCK and little else, MS's future fortunes were made.

True, they could have blown it, but they would have had to work very, very hard to do so. They were forturnate to be in the right place at the right time in possibly the most unique market dynamic ever in history.

Consider this analogy:
When the automobile was starting to become popular in the early 20th century, if the technology was such that only one car type could drive on one road type, and the IBM car--which could only drive on MS roads--became the one that most people bought--then through the sheer negative logistics of having to build separate roads going to the same places for each car make--MS roads would be the defacto standard before everyone noticed it was too late and they were stuck with that standard.

They could charge whatever toll they wanted, and they could be as full of potholes and there would be no other choice. Sure, you could buy a different car that ran on Linux roads, but there are so few that you couldn't get where you wanted to go. And ligistics make it almost impossible to fit new roads in cities. So how much 'marketing' would be needed for MS Road Company to say 'Drive our roads--where do you want to go today?'?

In the mid eighties people were too excited about PC's in general and probably didn't understand the market-dynamics that would allow this MS defacto monopoly to exist, so nothing was done until the installed base made it logistically unfeasible for other OS's (roads) to be used.

I don't blame MS so much for "being there", but I do blame them for mercilessly perpetuating it in the illegal ways (crippling the public api's while using the hidden high-performance api's for their apps, forcing box-makers to use only their os, etc).
--Jim

 

[Thadeus]

By your history, one might think that UNIX never existed... and that LINUX has been the only alternate all along. APPLE's OS was around in the same early days and long before LINUX. I have choices, but I choose MS. Why? for the same reason I always wanted a US Robotics modem when I used to Dial-Up, Intel chipsets and SoundBlaster sound cards... reliability, if not always in execution, in historical soundness.
I have never had my pc wiped out... not my home machines nor my many work machines. I've changed hardware, changed software, caught viruses, and re-installed due to sheer clutter, but I've never had it just go POP! and leave me stranded... I know many have had that experience, but then many people have been in car accidents and I have not (reminder: need to get something wood in this cubicle).

Also, if having all the roads built for you already is the means by which market domination occurs, then LOTUS 1-2-3 should be the world's premier spreadsheet, alongside WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics.

~Thadeus

Not kissing Bill's butt, but not wagging an accusing finger either.

 

[Dimandja]

APPLE's OS was around in the same early days and long before LINUX.

But, not until IBM made the PC an honorable toy to take to the office did things really pickup.


LOTUS 1-2-3, WordPerfect and Harvard Graphics

They had their 15 minutes of fame. But, they could not effectively communicate with any other software. Automation is the most valuable thing about M$ software -- however klunky they endeavor to code it.

 

[jsteph]

thadeus,
I was only using Linux as an example. The jist of course is that, while anyone /b]can[/b] use any other OS, the logistics for most people and companies make it unfeasible. And this is due in large part to the proven--yet unretributed--monopolistic practices by MS.

And I make much of my living using MS tools and apps, and I don't feel the least bit hypocritical in criticizing them.

As for Lotus 1-2-3, see my comment about the hidden api's. Lotus (nor other vendors) could never compete fairly without access to the higher-performance and more flexible api's that MS used when developing Excel. That's not 'innovation', that's cheating. Plain and simple. And in the real world, it'd be nice for everyone to boycott these apps due to what amounts to their illegitimacy, but I use Excel because it performed better and because it was far more prevalent and made transferring spreadsheets easier. Both of reasons those resulted from the same illegal practice of the hidden api set.

Dimandja...Automation is easy if you have the keys to the OS. Too bad nobody but MS had those keys.
--Jim

 

[edfair]

Would it be more correct to say that anybody could have figured out the hidden APIs had they taken the time and effort to trace them?
My programming cracking predates windows95 but there were tools for breaking entry points and register contents while I was messing around pre PC. I would suspect that the tools improved and were easier to use by the time this activity took place.


Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[Stella740pl]

edfair,

Just asking, if this cracking/breaking activities and using the results would nowadays violate EULA or some rules and regulations?

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Oh my god, I hope not or we are all in trouble

Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'.

 

[Stella740pl]

So, does it mean that all those companies could have legally invested in some hidden/undocumented API cracking and be much better off today? And none of them did?

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Here's an interesting article that gives some validity to to much of the anti-microsoft post, particularly the section titled Consequences of a hidden API.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~eballen1/nt.sekrits.html#hidden_api

Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'.