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

 

[Thadeus]

Dimandja, Many inaccuracies and untruths, huh? First off, two points are not "many".
Secondly, Your first point didn't address any inaccuracy or untruth on my part, but your opinion that my opinion was not valid. You then worked in an assumption that I see MS as a church...

On your next point, you say I am "wrong". How is my opinion that MS should pull out of any country wrong... it was my opinion and I stated it as such ("I was of the opinion")

You think a free exchange of ideas involves telling people who express a differing opinion that that opinion is inaccurate, untrue and wrong... and then throwing in a jab at me personally ("You need to go out more").

So you didn't point out any innacuracies or untruths in what I said, but you did manage to make me feel as though my opinion isn't worth expressing.... Way to go!

jsteph, "little sycophant" Thanks! I can see an educated man a mile away by the way they address their fellow professionals. I say some people will always complain, and you call me a parasite... Thanks again for identifying your maturity level right up front.

BTW, I think you both illustrated my point that some people just can't see past their hatred in order to hold an adult conversation regarding MS.

Lastly, I am not an MS fan... I just agree with Rhys666 that:

There are choices to Windows out there but I will really never understand all the whining about how bad Windows is when no other Software house can produce a single viable alternative for the general, less than technologically savvy, public.

I know you feel that the "unwashed masses" (an extremely perjorative term itself) were "forced" to buy PCs with Windows... Kinda like we "force" people to buy Starbucks and I was "forced" to buy fatty food from McDonalds....

 

[jsteph]

I can see an educated man a mile away by the way they address their fellow professionals.

Thadeus
I never called you that, I simply stated that those sycophants existed--you taking it personally and mounting an attack on me shows immaturity and is unprofessional, so I find your post ironic.

Just as I never took it personally about 'people who need to complain'. I know that's not me, but when that comment was made I felt the need to--as a professional should do--show other sides of the discussion. That's what I did. If you saw yourself in that post, then that tells us more about you than it does about me.
--Jim

 

[strongm]

> two points are not "many".

Of course they are! See Sleipnir214's earlier related comment concerning the word 'multiple'...

 

[Rhys666]

strongm

Of course they are! See Sleipnir214's earlier related comment concerning the word 'multiple'...

Come on guys, Sleipnir214 said...

No, I was using "multiple" in the literal sense of "more than one".

There's a world of difference between multiple, meaning an undefined number greater than one with no implication as to the size of the number and many which carries the implication of alarge but indefinate number (from the Merriam Webster online dictionary), and I don't think any of us here really think two is a large number. Just to be really picky, it's grammatically and mathmatically incorrect to say 'two is many'



Rhys
"A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation..."

""Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.

 

[Thadeus]

ahh strongm
Actually the definition of multiple is "more than one"
while the definition of many is "a large but indefinite number" I would contest that 2 is not so large a number, but I will conceed that 2 could possibly be considered "many" if referring to the number of:
times a spouse cheats
nuclear bombs detonated

The hare has been split! Now let's have hasenpfeffer

~Thadeus

 

[Rhys666]

Thadeus, You are of course correct and everything is relative. As we are talking an emotive and highly subjective area here, we're all entitled to our relative opinions of whether two is or is not in fact 'many'.

But enough of this and onto something far more interesting, what is hasenpfeffer actually like?

Rhys
"A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation..."

""Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.

 

[CajunCenturion]

It depends on who makes the hasenpfeffer. If Micro$oft makes it, there may not be much hare in it, but lots of pepper to make you sneeze. And when it is served will depend on how often you have to reboot the stove.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Rhys666]

But if it's made by anyone else it'll only be enjoyed by the technical elite, or those with the savvy to build the stove themselves whilst the masses starve.

Wow, it's amazing the direction these thing's can go and I may just be being a little pedantic at the moment ;-)

Rhys
"A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation..."

""Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.

 

[strongm]

>Actually the definition of multiple is "more than one"

That's just one of the 10 definitions provided in Merriams, which contrarily also includes "something in units of more than one or two". The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "very many of the same type" or, in their American English volumes, as "consisting of or involving many things or types of things"

I put it to you that:

"The explosion caused multiple fatalities"

and

"The explosion caused two fatalities"

invoke two very different images in peoples mind - which is why I voiced my original objection

 

[skiflyer]

The hare has been split!

Please can we keep the splittings to hairs? The poor bunny did nothing wrong.

 

[Stella740pl]

Did anyone besides me notice that the discussion of this thread is quickly moving from Microsoft toward linguistics, which is covered in another forum, "Making an Impression"?

 

[Dimandja]

and then throwing in a jab at me personally ("You need to go out more").

You forgot to include the smiley in that quote - it changes the meaning significantly.

Oh, and yes, saying that your opinion is wrong or inaccurate - and then proceeding to show you exactly why that is so - is part of a free exchange of ideas. Too bad I didn't readily agree with you about converting me to an MS fan. <- Should you quote me, please include the smiley)

About exactly how many objections I had about your post, my first stab at it included more than a handful, but I thought using only two of those was plenty enough - unless plenty starts at three?

Just so you understand, I use MS products, quite extensively in fact. I have also extensive knowledge of non-MS products. That's why I can evaluate and critisize them - because I know those products quite well. I have used and developed software for almost 10 years before MS came into existence: meaning I have had a chance to sample other products before the competition products were mostly unfairly snuffed out - and replaced with mediocre (my pet peeve) "security" patches.

I am telling you this so you know my opinions of MS are quite educated indeed, not borne out of some sort of lunacy or hatred. As somebody here said, MS is already rich enough to withstand criticism from me or others here. Between the banks and the marketing rooms, they are not losing any sleep over this.

 

[monkeylizard]

Been out for a while, so might as well just jump into the deep end...

International Trade Laws aside, isn't it a little disconcerting that MS does have that level of power in the OS/desktop market that they could conceivably cripple (probably not destroy) the economy of an entire continent if they made it a EULA violation to use MS in Europe? I don't mean just the EU governments, but ALL users.

Doesn't that bring about perceptions of "Monopoly" if not in fact/law?

(Back to Redmond/Detroit analogy)
I do think that MS has made a pretty comfortable mini-van. There are faster, bigger, more reliable, more efficient vehicles, but the MS mini-van will get your kids to soccer, get groceries, and do fairly well for most people's needs/wants.

However, it's a problem with competition when there's a new MS minivan pre-installed in the house you just bought and you have to be an engineer to replace said vehicle with one that might meet your needs:

ON THE FLIP SIDE:
Outside of us geeks in these forums, NOBODY knows ANYTHING about ANY other OS that's available.

My question then is this:

Is that due to unfair business practice from MS or is it from others' lack of marketing their products to create awareness?

Many people think they NEED MS Office to type a letter. Not true, but they don't KNOW about alternatives.

Monkeylizard
-Isaiah 35-

 

[jsteph]

Microsot fell into (with 90% luck and 10% business savvy) a 'natural monopoly':
The IBM PC took off when the cloning started—and MS Dos and Windows were on the Standard—the IBM PC.

So it was beneficial to develop software for the leader. And the more software the app developer's sold, the cheaper it was to make it. And the cheaper to make, the more software sold, and all the more incentive for other (new) pc users to want that same application.. So they buy a machine that can run that app--a machine with Windows. So more sales for Windows, which generates more desktops for app developers, which generate more demand for Windows, which generates more demand for windows apps, and on and on and on.

Now, that alone isn't necessarily wrong--but I believe that's a 'natural' monopoly and those should be regulated. But MS went further—that wasn’t good enough—and they engaged in highly illegal tactics like the strongarming of distributors and the crippling of the public api's. Here's an analogy that ties in with other 'natural monopolies' that are regulated:

Take Con Ed electric company--which is required by regulation either to charge a lower fee set by the government, or allow other electric distributors to lease it's power lines (because logistics are obviously such that we can't have 4 or 5 sets of power poles blotting out the sky like floating spaghetti) at a reasonable, regulated cost.

But suppose that somehow by the time the power that got to you it was only 60 volts. And nobody could look into the power lines and see if they were intentionally crippled or not. So all the TV's, VCR's, Refrigerators, lamps, and everything else you use in your house don't work. You either spend a tremendous amount trying to find a 60 volt refrigerator ("Oh sure--they're out there--it's fair, there's competition" NOT) or you find a ‘voltage converter’ at tremendous cost and hassle.

OR…you tell your electric distributor that you are dropping them and going with Con Ed as the distributor, since all your apps (that's 'apps' for appliances) will only work with the Con Ed power.

Would all of you "Microsoft can do no wrong" types feel the same about Con Ed? "Con Ed provides 'innovative' electricity—you naysayers are just bashing them because you're jealous of their success" "There are numerous other competitors out there--so what if you have to get a 60 volt TV to use their power--it's a free country after all"

Somehow I don't think you'd be saying anything like that, at least I hope not. But I hope this sheds light upon how many people see Microsoft.

 

[strongm]

<sigh>

 

[craigsboyd]

I simply find it distracting

That pretty well sums up the way I feel about those monetary symbols being used when referring to Microsoft. I realize that those who choose to use them are passionate in their beliefs and I can respect that passion. I'm not so sure it has the desired result however. Perhaps the desired result is to remind me that MS is greedy, shady, and no good. Then again, maybe it's intended as "A Call to Arms". Or, it could even be a well intentioned protest against the unfair (real or perceived) practices that one of the world's most powerful companies is engaged in. But in the end, for me (and I'm only speaking for myself here), it's a distraction when reading.

Still speaking for myself: It hasn't a prayer of ever changing anything. I'm all for change...change is a good thing. And, I'm all for people who are willing to take the world by the tail and make something better of it. But to just go around adding monetary symbols to a company's name in order to somehow besmirch them, doesn't seem like a good use of one's time. Isn't that what you ultimately want...to change things? ...to have a viable option to MS? ...to see wrongs righted and progress made? How does typing M$ instead of MS or Micro$oft instead of Microsoft serve your purpose? Do you realize that it alienates the very same people you would like to convince? Can you see how it weakens your position instead of strengthens it?

That's why I say, I don't get it. There must be something I'm missing. There has to be a reason that those $'s are added with painstaking care whenever referring to Microsoft. The $'s have to be just one tiny part of a much bigger plan, a much broader and effective effort to unseat MS, right? Or at the very least you have spoken with Microsoft and written letters and filed petitions and contacted your congressperson and worked at some length to make certain that these egregious acts MS has perpetrated, time and again, aren't allowed to stand?

I realize that my last paragraph was patronizing, blatantly sarcastic, and bating (not to mention foolish). It's an attempt to make a point. If you alienate the people you are trying to convince you have only hurt your cause. You've done worse than wasted your breath, you've actually helped the other side. By tipping your hand and wearing your bias pinned to the front of your lapel you're not going to get anyone to listen to you or join your way of thinking. Reducing any debate to taunts, jeers, and name calling only ensures that you have made yourself look the fool and presented your position in the poorest light possible.

Having said that, there were some valid facts put forth in the posts above and even a source or two cited. Opinions are valid...no matter what they be. They are just so much more powerful to me when they are backed up by more than a cheap $hot.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[jsteph]

Craig,
How distracting is the hyperlink added to Microsoft and almost any keyword in tek-tips and other sites? The $ should be no more distracting than that--and the $ prevents the hyperlink from being made. I know it's unintended, but it is a mitigating factor.

Also, how much of a change do you thing political bumper stickers and candidtate yard signs have? Please don't accuse those who put candidate lawn signs or use $ in the spelling of Microsoft of being blind idealistic fools who falsely believe they will change the world by that lille token. I think it's more telling of a person's character when they let something little like that get them riled up.

Note that you could look in any posts of mine on Tek-tips, and I have never (unless it was as an example) used a $ sign in my spelling of Microsoft, I let my diatribe's speak my opinion, but I see no problem when people do use that.
--Jim

 

[sleipnir214]

Your sarcasm misses the mark. Were Mi[&cent;]ro$oft's day-to-day transgressions illegal, then the whole "petitions and congresscritters" comment would have been more apropos. Since most of their activities are unethical, you should have used a "pitchforks and torches at the gates" image.


But spelling the word "Mi[&cent;]ro$oft" certainly does no more harm than those apologists who call any criticism of the company, no matter how well-founded that criticism might be, "bashing" or "cheap shots".




Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[craigsboyd]

Please don't accuse those who put candidate lawn signs or use $ in the spelling of Microsoft of being blind idealistic fools who falsely believe they will change the world by that lille token.

I find the analogy between yard signs for political candidates and "$" a bit of a stretch. It's a known fact that name recognition alone has a very large impact on voting. I do not believe the same type of thing can be said about the "$" regarding it's impact on consumers choosing MS over competing products.

I appreciate the points you've made and your right to an opinion that differs from my own. It was not my wish to accuse anyone of being a blind idealistic fool, though I can see how that conclusion was reached. I merely wanted to explore the use of "$" and the possibility that it was wholely ineffective if not detrimental in some respects to the cause it appears to represent. It is not the "cause" that I find to be invalid or lacking merit in some respects...it is quite simply the use of the "$" and the content that so often accompanies it. Unlike an unitentional hyperlink, the "$" is intended (if I'm understanding this right) to make a statement regarding MS's unethical practices in the pursuit of the almighty buck. It's the statement that I find distracting as it is usually completely out-of-context (obviously not in this thread). The fact that it is usually followed by some real pearls of wisdom, such as "MS Sucks! Go get Linux" also adds to the distraction I experience (not fair to hold that little $ completely responsible for this, but I do). If I were part of this apparent movement, I would want to distance myself as much as possible from the inane babbling that so often accompanies the use of "$". As you never use the symbol in your spelling of Microsoft, very little if any of what I've said speaks to you directly and if I've offended in anyway, you have my sincerest apologies.

Your sarcasm misses the mark. ...you should have used a "pitchforks and torches at the gates" image.

That made my day. Thanks. <g>

But spelling the word "Mi¢ro$oft" certainly does no more harm than those apologists who call any criticism of the company, no matter how well-founded that criticism might be, "bashing" or "cheap shots".

As you've used "cheap shots" in your statement, I will take it that it was a direct response to my use in the post above. Clarification: It is not the well-founded criticism that I regard as a cheap shot. It is the use of "$" in spelling Microsoft. I do not fancy myself an apologist, however I may very well be.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[Dimandja]

SP2 is now squatting in my PC. I have a devil of a time trying to figure out what happened to my computer. Presumably MS knows best... in an obscure way.

Quite predictably, yet another mediocre MS product.