# Windows 7 'sins'



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2009)

With the release of Windows 7 around the corner, folks at the Free Software Foundation have taken up a campaign in the hopes of bringing awareness to folks about their rights as a user, and why stuff from Microsoft (and many other big corporations) is not very good:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137119/Free_software_group_attacks_Windows_7_sins_

Here's a quick cut/paste of the "7 sins" of Windows - some ofthese are bang-on, heh (taken from the Windows7sins.org site):

*1. Poisoning education:* Today, most children whose education   involves computers are being taught to use one company's product:   Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing   to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of   computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an   avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.

*2. Invading privacy:* Microsoft uses software with backward names   like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users'   hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept   before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do   this without warning.

*3. Monopoly behavior:* Nearly every computer purchased has   Windows pre-installed -- but not by choice. Microsoft dictates   requirements to hardware vendors, who will not offer PCs without   Windows installed on them, despite many people asking for them. Even   computers available with other operating systems like GNU/Linux   pre-installed often had Windows on them first.

*4. Lock-in:* Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its   users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office,   and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means   having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet   the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.

*5. Abusing standards:* Microsoft has attempted to block free   standardization of document formats, because standards like   OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over   users via proprietary Word formats. They have engaged in underhanded   behavior, including bribing officials, in an attempt to stop such   efforts.

*6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM):* With Windows   Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media   companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into   their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC,   Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording   television shows that they have the legal right to record.

*7. Threatening user security:* Windows has a long history of   security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and   allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in   spam-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are   dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems -- but Microsoft has   its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.

Discuss.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 27, 2009)

This is one of those Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch schtick eh?

And I lol at number 4. Especially since they actually feature the ability to save in older formats.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 27, 2009)

@ToeClaws: They are pretty valid points (granted, not yours), but the sad part is, it's old news for anyone who's spent enough time using computers and not sucking on Microsoft or Apple's eye-candy like a mindless addict.

Also: Guys, play nice. Don't turn this nice thread into another 'holy war'.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 27, 2009)

Discuss? There's nothing TO discuss. Your average layperson isn't going to dick around with making a custom PC or even bothering with Linux or an alternate OS. When it comes to computers, so long as the computer has word processing and internet capabilities, chances are that's all they'll want. Everything else is just icing on the cake.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2009)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> And I lol at number 4. Especially since they actually feature the ability to save in older formats.



I think their point of contention on that one is broader than just document formats.  For example, if you have Windows XP (which most people do) you cannot upgrade to DX10 (or the soon to be released DX11).  Similarly, they did this Windows 2000 where IE7 was not available for 2000 even though, at the time, the OS was still under extended support.  Those moves force people to leave one platform for another when it could be avoided with a less rigid release of updated programs.



Carenath said:


> @ToeClaws: They are pretty valid points (granted, not yours), but the sad part is, it's old news for anyone who's spent enough time using computers and not sucking on Microsoft or Apple's eye-candy like a mindless addict.



Agreed - a lot of those points have been a problem for a LONG time.  About the only new one of the lot is the DRM stuff, which though it's been around for years, took on a much more prominent role in Windows Vista.



Carenath said:


> Also: Guys, play nice. Don't turn this nice thread into another 'holy war'.



Heh, also agreed - these are not MY points, nor do I control the FSF.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 27, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Agreed - a lot of those points have been a problem for a LONG time.  About the only new one of the lot is the DRM stuff, which though it's been around for years, took on a much more prominent role in Windows Vista.


You might find these papers interesting if you've not read them already:

Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Cyberinsecurity: The Cost of a Monopoly
http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 27, 2009)

It's a choice between two heaping piles of shit, with Linux and the like off to one side going "LOL" and dancing about like retards.

Microsoft are only dominant because they are for stupid.


----------



## Sassy (Aug 27, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> It's a choice between two heaping piles of shit, with Linux and the like off to one side going "LOL" and dancing about like retards.
> 
> Microsoft are only dominant because they are for stupid.


See, people tend to try and say Mac's are "for stupid". Why aren't they dominant, then? Windows is what people expect. It works.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 27, 2009)

@AlexInsane: Sounds like just the thing for a Linux-based notebook with Firefox and OpenOffice.org on it.  Oh, wait, there's this to consider:

The only OEMs who sell Windows PCs as well as PCs without Windows... Unless they're hugely powerful names like Dell, they pay Microsoft full retail price with every system and have no choice but to pass it on to the consumer.  Meanwhile, the big names, locked in by Microsoft to selling Windows-only PCs, enjoy steep per-system discounts allowing them to undercut everyone else.

Edit: Ninja'd by sensibility.



WolfoxOkamichan said:


> This is one of those Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch schtick eh?



Oh, we watch, all right.  The only things not seriously wrong with Seven that were seriously wrong with Vista was stability and feeling of completeness.  Everything else remains: absurdly unnecessary hardware requirements, bloat fully fivefold (nearly sixfold) above its previous version, unnecessary and ineffective anti-piracy measures.  It's still a 64-bit port of a 32-bit shell for a 16-bit operating system meant for an 8-bit computer with a 4-bit CPU by a 2-bit company that after all these years still can't stand 1-bit of competition.



WolfoxOkamichan said:


> And I lol at number 4. Especially since they actually feature the ability to save in older formats.



Have you ever seen what different versions of Office actually do to each version of the format?  There are rendering differences and inaccuracies, minor and unnoticeable in simple documents, but heaven help the poor sap whose job depends on an Office feature that isn't cross-version compatible.

There's also the matter of the version upgrade mandating a complete hardware replacement cycle.  Windows XP is still the end of the Microsoft road for many still-perfectly-good computer systems out there.

Also, Microsoft bought ISO's certification of OOXML in a way illegal in some member countries and clearly unethical in every other member country.  Also, Office Open XML is neither XML nor open nor Office compliant.  Yes, anyone who uses OOXML to the letter still won't be fully compatible with Office 2007.  Meanwhile, those who use ODF to the letter are compatible.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 27, 2009)

Sassy said:


> See, people tend to try and say Mac's are "for stupid". Why aren't they dominant, then? Windows is what people expect. It works.



Windows is what people expect because people don't know what the fuck a computer is actually capable of. It also is to Window's advantage that people don't have high expectations to begin with.

Most people are stupid. This is a well established fact, especially when it comes to technology like computers. Your average person couldn't tell you what purpose is of a motherboard. No wonder Windows is cleaning up; nothing sells better than an appeal to ignorance combined with flashy packaging.


----------



## Sassy (Aug 27, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> ..an appeal to ignorance combined with flashy packaging...


So why does Apple not have #1 market-share?


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2009)

Carenath said:


> You might find these papers interesting if you've not read them already:
> 
> Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
> ...



The first one I remember reading shortly after it came out.  Originally, the guy really got a lot of flak for it as being a biased article, but I see he's added a debunk section to the bottom that does a good job of debunking people's statements of bias.

The second one I'd not seen, so I read through it as time allowed, and find that one to be really interesting for both content, but also time.  It was written in 2003, which in the world of computers, is long enough ago that significant changes have altered some of the context of the article.  

Microsoft's market share has slipped since 2003, and a great number of open-source and/or alternative software has presented new ways of doing things that were also not available (or not well known) in 2003.  So in terms of software, there is far better flexibility now.

What has not much changed is that many businesses remain locked into the mindset that they have no choice, or that making changes would be too difficult.  What would really benefit an article like that would be a couple working-transition examples of companies that did endeavour to move to more open source standards (no necessarily moving away from Windows so much as changing what they run _on_ Windows).  But overall, that article makes some very strong points.



			
				Sassy said:
			
		

> So why does Apple not have #1 market-share?




Largest single reason?  Price.  On average, it costs considerably more to move to an Apple platform than to the equivalent Windows platform.  Even though the Apple stuff tends to be much better quality (IE, you get what you pay for), for a lot of people, it's price that sells.

Other factors that are common would be gaming, unfamiliarity (with the OS and applications), incompatibility concerns (though apparently Macs re compatible with Alien spacecraft in case you need to upload a virus... if you believe Independence Day).


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 27, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> The second one I'd not seen, so I read through it as time allowed, and find that one to be really interesting for both content, but also time.  It was written in 2003, which in the world of computers, is long enough ago that significant changes have altered some of the context of the article.
> 
> Microsoft's market share has slipped since 2003, and a great number of open-source and/or alternative software has presented new ways of doing things that were also not available (or not well known) in 2003.  So in terms of software, there is far better flexibility now.
> 
> What has not much changed is that many businesses remain locked into the mindset that they have no choice, or that making changes would be too difficult.  What would really benefit an article like that would be a couple working-transition examples of companies that did endeavour to move to more open source standards (no necessarily moving away from Windows so much as changing what they run _on_ Windows).  But overall, that article makes some very strong points.



It's still a very strong cautionary tale, so strong in fact that one of its authors, a co-founder and CTO of a computer security firm, was fired for penning his name.  I remember news of this being plastered everywhere, including news that his termination came so quickly after the paper's release that it could not have possibly been for any reason other than Microsoft ordering AtStake to fire him, under penalty of losing Microsoft as an AtStake customer.



ToeClaws said:


> Largest single reason?  Price.  On average, it costs considerably more to move to an Apple platform than to the equivalent Windows platform.  Even though the Apple stuff tends to be much better quality (IE, you get what you pay for), for a lot of people, it's price that sells.



Apple did once have a monopoly in the school computer market, but it was essentially price that destroyed that: local governments simply didn't have the budget to afford the same number of Macs as they could Windows PCs, and it's almost always the lowest per-seat bidder who wins.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> It's still a very strong cautionary tale, so strong in fact that one of its authors, a co-founder and CTO of a computer security firm, was fired for penning his name.  I remember news of this being plastered everywhere, including news that his termination came so quickly after the paper's release that it could not have possibly been for any reason other than Microsoft ordering AtStake to fire him, under penalty of losing Microsoft as an AtStake customer.



Yes, I saw that.  It's really too bad it didn't happen in a state or province with better human rights laws where he could have sued the pants off of them for it.  But in the same light, the fact that he _did_ get canned also shows just how damaging that information really is on the Microsoft side of the world.



ArielMT said:


> Apple did once have a monopoly in the school computer market, but it was essentially price that destroyed that: local governments simply didn't have the budget to afford the same number of Macs as they could Windows PCs, and it's almost always the lowest per-seat bidder who wins.



Hehe, yes I do remember that time.  When I was a kid, back when schools first started getting computers, every school I knew of had Apple's.  In the case of my Elementary school, they had two Apple II's initially - one in the office, and one they would wheel around to the classrooms.  Apple's prominence continued into the first Macs, but seemed to fade quickly after that.  Honourable mention goes to Commodore, 'cause there were also a lot of PETs in the schools then too.


----------



## Neybulot (Aug 27, 2009)

Sassy said:


> So why does Apple not have #1 market-share?



And that's one reason you see Windows on educational computers. Most people know what it is and have experience with it. That and not all educational stuff can run on Macs without some form of Windows. Maybe if people made more native educational software for it, it'd grow to be more accepted. As for Linux, forget that. Too complicated for your average Joe to fix.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 28, 2009)

Neybulot said:


> As for Linux, forget that. Too complicated for your average Joe to fix.



Like Windows.

Sorry, but this Internet help desk and PC repair shop respectfully disagrees.  I have Linux-using customers, some of whom are admittedly computer illiterate, and the only Linux-specific trouble calls I ever took were configuring Thunderbird and Kmail on Ubuntu.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 28, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Like Windows.
> 
> Sorry, but this Internet help desk and PC repair shop respectfully disagrees.  I have Linux-using customers, some of whom are admittedly computer illiterate, and the only Linux-specific trouble calls I ever took were configuring Thunderbird and Kmail on Ubuntu.



Seconded.  When Windows really screws up, the complexity of the problem can be so vast that NO ONE, not even top tier support folk at Microsoft, have any clue of what's going on.  

When I attended a SANs institute security course in 2007, the instructor, Ed Skoudis, put it very well.  He said "Windows is not a simple piece of engineering, in fact, it's one of the most complicated, bloated and mind-boggling pieces of code anyone has ever seen.  That it even boots up when you turn it on is incredible!"

I have fixed lots of machines over time, and the Windows ones are the pain.  In fact, I have a rule now - if it will take more than an hour to "fix" the problem with the Windows box, then I just reinstall, 'cause if you haven't found the fix in an hour, it make take many more or you may never find it.

By contrast, a Linux or Unix box may have an issue that seems more cryptic at first, but because everything ultimately comes down to files and editable settings, you can fix anything.  More importantly though, problems tend to rarely come up in the first place.  The number one call for Linux help that our Helpdesk receives is how to get on the secure wireless network.


----------



## webkilla (Aug 28, 2009)

1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.

*This is called good business. Of course they'll give free versions of their software to schools and universities, its their only real way of getting people to want to use their software later in the private sector. This is how A LOT of companies earn their daily bread*

2. Invading privacy: Microsoft uses software with backward names like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users' hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do this without warning.

*inspect people's hard drives? Meh... if they want to peek at my over 9000 gigs of porn, go nuts*

3. Monopoly behavior: Nearly every computer purchased has Windows pre-installed -- but not by choice. Microsoft dictates requirements to hardware vendors, who will not offer PCs without Windows installed on them, despite many people asking for them. Even computers available with other operating systems like GNU/Linux pre-installed often had Windows on them first.

* see nr. 1*

4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.

*i'm sorry that they wont issue any more updates for windows 98, but that OS is over TEN YEARS OLD NOW. It is standard practice to stop making and supporting old stuff and make new stuff instead. that this just happens to 'force' people to upgrade their hardware and software... oh my gods... its a big conspiracy to force peopel to use modern and up to date software! The fiends!*


5. Abusing standards: Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats, because standards like OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over users via proprietary Word formats. They have engaged in underhanded behavior, including bribing officials, in an attempt to stop such efforts.

*Most OS can read a .doc or a .docx file these days. I dont see the problem*

6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM): With Windows Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording television shows that they have the legal right to record.

*Well, its a bit like ThePirateBay... microsoft is 'asked' by the record companies and whatnot to ensure that their products and services cannot be used to download/pirate things that most people usually has to pay for to access - otherwise microsoft gets sued*

7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems -- but Microsoft has its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.

*I have to LOL here. you obvious dont know anything about statistics. If one million people use one OS, and only 1 person use another, which OS do you think is going to show the most bugs? the one with the most users most likely, because statistically its more likely that someone will do something on their computer that'll expose that bug, or security vulnerability... it has nothing to do with the products being worse than the less used OS*

now try again, and see if you can come up with anything actually 'sinful' about windows 7.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 28, 2009)

webkilla said:


> 1. Poisoning education: *This is called good business. Of course they'll give free versions of their software to schools and universities, its their only real way of getting people to want to use their software later in the private sector. This is how A LOT of companies earn their daily bread*



There's a difference between good business practices resulting in becoming a monopoly and (often illegally) abusing a monopoly in one market to obtain a monopoly in another.



webkilla said:


> 2. Invading privacy: *inspect people's hard drives? Meh... if they want to peek at my over 9000 gigs of porn, go nuts*



This isn't about the media.  It's about a company invading your computer, policing it to make sure you're still permitted to use it.  The image could be completed by a stranger in a Soviet-era uniform demanding, "Papers please," every time you turn on your computer.  Not only do privacy invasive programs hold your computer to a hidden list of tests to remain on their good list, they are far less than 100% accurate.  Result: legit and licensed Windows users are routinely locked out of their own computers, while Windows pirates still get off scott free.

Sources: Microsoft Windows Genuine Advantage Forums and Microsoft Presspass.



webkilla said:


> 3. Monopoly behavior: * see nr. 1*



See #1.



webkilla said:


> 4. Lock-in: *i'm sorry that they wont issue any more updates for windows 98, but that OS is over TEN YEARS OLD NOW. It is standard practice to stop making and supporting old stuff and make new stuff instead. that this just happens to 'force' people to upgrade their hardware and software... oh my gods... its a big conspiracy to force peopel to use modern and up to date software! The fiends!*



Way to miss the point.  What about Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista?  I'm admittedly pleased to see the latter go, but the point still stands.  Also, what about Microsoft Office, Microsoft Exchange, and Microsoft IIS?  Do some more research; you'll find evidence of absolutely unnecessary vendor lock-in on Microsoft's part exceptionally easy to find.



webkilla said:


> 5. Abusing standards: *Most OS can read a .doc or a .docx file these days. I dont see the problem*



But can they read them accurately?  And why should the entire world be required to upgrade to the newest version of Office, for no reason except nothing but the newest version can read that version's default format?

Most OS (as you're content to call them) still can not read .docx files unless they're upgraded to the absolute latest version of Office, never mind that previous versions of Office are still supported.

Send me the money needed for an upgrade I don't need or want.  $300 for a copy of Microsoft Office, and $800 for a half-decent laptop with Windows Seven preinstalled so I can run it.  Thanks.



webkilla said:


> 6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM): *Well, its a bit like ThePirateBay... microsoft is 'asked' by the record companies and whatnot to ensure that their products and services cannot be used to download/pirate things that most people usually has to pay for to access - otherwise microsoft gets sued*



So Microsoft folds under the pressure instead of telling the record companies what they can go do with themselves.  This isn't a grandmother with a smart granddaughter, this is the single largest corporation in history.



webkilla said:


> 7. Threatening user security: *I have to LOL here. you obvious dont know anything about statistics. If one million people use one OS, and only 1 person use another, which OS do you think is going to show the most bugs? the one with the most users most likely, because statistically its more likely that someone will do something on their computer that'll expose that bug, or security vulnerability... it has nothing to do with the products being worse than the less used OS*



You obviously don't know anything about statistics.  Windows serves around half the Internet, which means the other half of the Internet is served by Linux and Unix.

Linux may be a tiny target in the home computer market, but the exact same OS is a freaking huge target in the server market.

With your logic, the odds of a Linux server being compromised ought to be the same as the odds of a Windows server being compromised.  The truth is drastically different: Windows servers are compromised through the OS so much more frequently than Linux servers that it's not even news anymore.

It has everything to do with one OS being a worse product than another OS, not just one being an apparently larger target than the other.



webkilla said:


> now try again, and see if you can come up with anything actually 'sinful' about windows 7.



News is out there.  Go read, please.  TIA.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 28, 2009)

Webkilla - first important thing to mention before saying anything else, *I didn't write any of those points* - the FSF did, I just quoted them on the page from the FSF website for folks to see/discuss.



webkilla said:


> *This is called good business. Of course they'll give free versions of their software to schools and universities, its their only real way of getting people to want to use their software later in the private sector. This is how A LOT of companies earn their daily bread*



While you are correct, that does not make the practise an ethical one, which I believe is the argument of the FSF.  People should not be mislead to a narrow-minded way of thinking by free corporate handouts.  People are also resistant to change once familiarity sets in with something.  Using the education system as an example, corporations use this knowledge to offer low-cost or free versions of their products to students so that the students become familiar with them.  There is then a greatly reduced chance that they will want to migrate away from that product once out in the work world because they will not want to relearn things.  

Corporations are able to do this because they have large marketing engines and assets that can be made available to push their product on many levels.  Open source alternatives are always available, but without the huge financial drive behind them, they cannot offer the same sort of incentives, or provide teachers a clearly laid out educational platform.

So, for my own personal point of view on this point, while I agree that the corporate push is unethical, I also recognize that if corporations were not allowed to do so, it would be much harder for educational facilities to come up with Open Source and/or free alternatives since they would be left much more to their own abilities.



webkilla said:


> *inspect people's hard drives? Meh... if they want to peek at my over 9000 gigs of porn, go nuts*



Heh... probably would be the last time they tried.   The privacy issue is an odd one in that for some people, it's a horrible moral offence that stabs at their very soul, and for others, it's met with more of a shoulder-shrug.  Privacy laws vary considerably from nation to nation, but a general consensus is that apart from a police warrant, others should not be able to look at any type of potentially private and personal information.  

My opinion on this one: Does WGA breech privacy?  By definition of what it does, no.  Do I trust that Microsoft is not looking at anything else via undocumented features while in my system?  No.  It's that "unsure" quality of what they're up to that makes me uneasy about them.  I'm a pretty private individual, and as far as I'm concerned, the company behind the OS has only the obligation to patch it while it's officially supported, and nothing more.  If what they're doing abides by that, then I'm fine with it.



webkilla said:


> *see nr. 1* (on Monopoly behaviour)



This point is just a statement of fact - Microsoft is a monopoly, and very, very big one at that.  If that in of itself were the only part of the truth, that'd be fine, but there is merit to the second part of the point where they use this status to influence vendors.  They afford healthy discounts, even grants to vendors who agree to preinstall their product, and while this benefits the vendors, it can frustrate, confuse or brainwash the consumer.

My opinion on this one: I don't care that Microsoft is huge and popular - I mean, good for them.  Let's put this into perspective here... This is Microsoft in 1978.  They went from that, to the biggest damn tech company EVER.  So I'd say they did pretty good from such humble (and fugly) beginnings.

What I do have a problem with though is that they use that power now to press more influence than they should.  When you go and buy a new laptop or PC, there's about a 98% chance it comes with Windows of some flavour preinstalled.  You don't even have to ask for it.  Microsoft has most vendors tucked neatly in their bed by offering exceptionally cheap OEM copies of their product under the agreement that it will be preinstalled.  Now admittedly, most customers want it there anyway, but to first assume that is always the case, and second, conceal the fact that it is a separate entity (and cost) from the hardware is dishonest.

The "norm" should be that all customers should have to choose to purchase the OS.  Even if the vendor still offers it at the same price, and still gets the big OEM discount from Microsoft, it would more honest to visually present the fact that the OS is _not_ part of the system they're ordering, and does have a monetary value that they are paying for the privilege of using it.   

I doubt it would make much of a difference, but at least it gets an ethical thumbs up. 



webkilla said:


> *i'm sorry that they wont issue any more updates for windows 98, but that OS is over TEN YEARS OLD NOW. It is standard practice to stop making and supporting old stuff and make new stuff instead. that this just happens to 'force' people to upgrade their hardware and software... oh my gods... its a big conspiracy to force peopel to use modern and up to date software! The fiends!*


You do have a point here - partially.  I do get irritated when people complain that there's no support for something that is obsolete.  You're correct in that no company should be required to support something that's pretty far gone.

Where it does become an issue though is when a product is still under support and use (especially if it's wide use).  XP is the best example of that.  XP remains the most used consumer OS in the world.   As of the end of last month, Windows XP still sits on 67% of the world's desktops, and that distribution is closer to 80% in the gamer world.  Given that statistic, when Microsoft announced a bit over 2 years ago that they were not porting DirectX 10 to XP, it was a bit of a shock.  XP was still under normal support, and at that time represented about 75% of all desktops, and about 95% of gaming systems.  

I think that's what the FSF is trying to point out - Microsoft intentionally ignored what was an indisputably flagship consumer OS in favour of trying to lure people to a newer one, even though the current one was _not_ yet obsolete.  

Not supporting obsolete products makes perfect sense, but ignoring current products (especially at such overwhelming statistics) in an effort to push people to another product is what underlines the argument the FSF is trying to make.

My personal opinion on this one: Microsoft should have done one of two things when it came to XP - either pulled support for it long ago (as it is nearly 10 years old), or swallow their pride and continue supporting it fully until the majority of people are on a newer OS.  The limitations of XP would have eventually made people switch to another OS anyway.



webkilla said:


> *Most OS can read a .doc or a .docx file these days. I dont see the problem*



A .doc file yes, .docx not so much so.  But the problem is not so much in whether an OS can read it or not, as it is the legal implications behind making changes to that document.  If it cannot be saved back to that format, then it can cause some legal issues.  There are also some advanced features of .docx that are not supported in anything other than Microsoft's products right now.

Microsoft also holds onto some formats with a death grip, such as Visio.  There are no open source programs available that can read a Visio diagram, so companies (like my own) that rely on them for topology diagrams are stuck having to buy expensive Visio licenses unless we want to redo all the diagrams in an Open Source program.

Open Document standards encourage the use of document formating that is freely available and supported by multiple applications across multiple operating systems.  Microsoft currently does not fully support the open document formats.

My personal view: Microsoft is backed into a bit of a corner here.  They know their Office Suite isn't the top dog anymore.  It's still good, and a big player, but it's next biggest competitor holds a major advantage: it's free.  Open Office, for example, may not be quite as fancy over all, but it does do most of the MS Office stuff, plus does a few extra things considerably better.  Microsoft is holding onto the hopes that their Office suite will continue to be used based on the incorrect notion that it assures the best compatibility for existing formats.  As for Visio, well, they _know_ no one else can use the format right now, so I would expect they will keep it in a death grip as long as they possibly can.

What I don't get is why MS doesn't implement full Open document support in Office, because if they did so, it would certainly cut down on the complaints from folks like the FSF about them not using it, and would likely help (not hinder) their product sales. 



webkilla said:


> *Well, its a bit like ThePirateBay... microsoft is 'asked' by the record companies and whatnot to ensure that their products and services cannot be used to download/pirate things that most people usually has to pay for to access - otherwise microsoft gets sued*


I disagree here.  Microsoft is providing an Operating System and some applications on which media can be played.  Providing the means by which to do something is not the same as the action of doing it.  Case in point: they don't put guns in prison for shooting people, they put the people behind the guns in prison.  The gun was nothing but a tool.

Microsoft was in a very unique position in that they were much bigger and much more influential than any of the media-rights firms that approached them. When firms like the RIAA asked if Microsoft would support their DRM initiatives, Microsoft could have (and should have) said "No, we do not believe in policing what people do in private.", and the RIAA (and others) could have doing NOTHING to make them.  In fact, a refusal that big would have likely killed the DRM movement altogether.  Instead though, MS agreed (even though it was of little benefit to them), and it's that agreement that started to put a bad taste in people's mouth.

DRM is a very complicated issue, and it doesn't take much searching on the Internet to find pages and pages of debates, concerns, legal blabber and so on, so trying to summarize it all here would be very difficult.

So... I'll just skip to my opinion here: DRM is, to me, is a form of policing that is undertaken by people who have no business doing so.  Also, and OS should not make decisions beyond is base function, which is running applications that you want to run.  All my media is legit, so I'm not saying this because it would affect my ability to do anything.  I'm saying I don't like it based on the implication that it's okay to let someone else decide _for_ me what I can and cannot do with _my hardware_. 



webkilla said:


> *I have to LOL here. you obvious dont know anything about statistics. If one million people use one OS, and only 1 person use another, which OS do you think is going to show the most bugs? the one with the most users most likely, because statistically its more likely that someone will do something on their computer that'll expose that bug, or security vulnerability... it has nothing to do with the products being worse than the less used OS*



I agree so far as to this being one of the weakest of the FSF points.  You're right that the bulk of Window's security problems actually stem from the fact that it is the most used OS.  If you're a hacker and you want to write a program to compromise a system for your own gains, are you gonna target the OS that's on 80% of the world's systems, or are you going to target Linux, which is on about 2% of them.  You don't have to be math ace to figure that one out.

Now, design-wise, Linux and Unix (and by proxy the Mac OS) are a little more secure by nature of how certain parts are built.  It doesn't mean they're immune - and the rather large increase in the last year of Mac viruses and hacks are starting to illustrate the relation to malware vs. OS popularity.

In my opinion: I think this was far more true 10 years ago when Microsoft really did leave some gaping holes in their security/design.  Of late, they have been much more aware of making their products secure, and most of the compromises now are a result of bad code more than overlooked security requirements.  The bad code is a result of over-size development teams and poor company practises.  That's something I doubt will ever improve.



webkilla said:


> now try again, and see if you can come up with anything actually 'sinful' about windows 7.



Heh, like I said... I didn't write the FSF points, just saw them and had a chuckle at them.  I think it's good that groups are trying to bring awareness to the fact that there are alternatives, and that current corporate practises are not necessarily very good. You made some good points, but also had flaws in your arguments as well.  Personally, I don't see either side as being completely right 'cause each side will take the argument to an extreme, and also because a lot of the end-user acceptance comes down to personal preference and opinion.  Like most things, all one can do is know the facts and make educated calls.

*Edit:* oops... in the time it took me to type it all up between work, I see Ariel has pretty much said the same thing.


----------



## SnowFox (Aug 28, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> This is Microsoft in 1978



Not one of them looks like they should ever be allowed near kids.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 28, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Not one of them looks like they should ever be allowed near kids.



LOL! No ^^;


----------



## ZentratheFox (Aug 28, 2009)

This is quite amusing. I don't have the time to go over each one, but I did want to point out this:



> *6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM):* With Windows Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording television shows that they have the legal right to record.


Have you heard of iTunes?


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 28, 2009)

ZentratheFox said:


> This is quite amusing. I don't have the time to go over each one, but I did want to point out this:
> 
> 
> Have you heard of iTunes?



Yeah I know - the more we discuss it, the more I'm wondering why the FSF is focusing this so much on Windows 7... which it really has nothing to do with Windows 7, or even Microsoft in general at times.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 28, 2009)

To say that rms tends to be a little extreme would be an understatement.  However, given the opposite extreme of the elephant in the living room, I can see how he got that way.  All seven points are valid even though some are weak, and it's hard to pass up an opportunity to give criticisms a memorable name.

(He did write the enemy product of the holy editor wars, after all...)


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 28, 2009)

I disagree.


----------



## Darkwing (Aug 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I disagree.



Me too, during my time with Windows 7 beta, I thought it was a fucking awesome OS (And it is).

I never had any problems with it, it is faster than Vista, and it is much more convenient, my type of OS, I really recommend it once it hits the shelves.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 28, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Me too, during my time with Windows 7 beta, I thought it was a fucking awesome OS (And it is).
> 
> I never had any problems with it, it is faster than Vista, and it is much more convenient, my type of OS, I really recommend it once it hits the shelves.



Regarding completeness, responsiveness, stability, and usability, Windows 7 is so much better than Windows Vista.  There's no way anyone in his right mind could deny that.

But that's not what this list is denying.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 28, 2009)

So basically they failed with Vista and then tried harder with Windows 7?

Honestly the only real problem is point two and Six.

7 is trival since not in a looong time you'll have 100% fool proof OS that appeals to the masses.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 29, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Regarding completeness, responsiveness, stability, and usability, Windows 7 is so much better than Windows Vista.  There's no way anyone in his right mind could deny that.
> 
> But that's not what this list is denying.



*nodsnods* The FSF posting actually has nothing to do with Windows 7 - I think they just chose that name because it would get attention, but in so doing, distracts from their actual point which is more of an arguement against unethical corporate behaviour.


----------



## Night-Leopard-800 (Sep 10, 2009)

Come to think of it, I've known about most of these issues for a long time but never thought about a lot of them. Another reason I prefer the free, secure, well-supported, informative Ubuntu.


----------



## Stensca (Sep 12, 2009)

Oh FSF.  You may not be accurate, but you're good for a laugh, if nothing else.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 12, 2009)

Stensca said:


> Oh FSF.  You may not be accurate, but you're good for a laugh, if nothing else.



How is the FSF not accurate?


----------

