microsoft windows(tm) onecare
Microsoft has announced that it will begin testing their anti-everything product/service that protects users from viruses & spyware, has a new firewall and tune-up tools as well as other services. Now correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't Microsoft create the problem that they are only now trying to fix? Had Windows been a safe, secure and stable environment for general computing, would we have had to install all of these third party programs that "fix" or prevent the problems that Microsoft "unwittingly" programmed into their software? Would Microsoft even have to spend time and money on this if it had made Windows correctly in the first place? And why is the buck passed down to the consumer when the problem originates from Microsoft itself??
Ok, I have programmed before and I do understand that programming an operating system or environment is a huge undertaking and requires thousands of man hours plus all of the testing that is required. But the commercial software industry seems to be all backwards, selling products that are not even close to bug free and then expecting us to pay for support. I refuse to pay extra for something that I should be getting when I buy the original product, especially when I am investing hundreds of dollars in it.
Why can't it be tested thoroughly enough before being released into the general public as a consumer product? It all reeks of internal corporate pressure to reap profits as quickly as possible at the consumers' expense. The irony of it is that they make even more money by resolving bug issues after the fact and consumers are duped into paying extra for something that they should've had in the first place. The solution is an open source model.
Why there are virtually no viruses, spyware or other malicious threats that we hear of on MAC or LINUX machines??
posted by Lester T. at 10:28 AM
2 Comments:
i'm a skeptic when it comes to microsoft. i just figure they have lots of money, so reporters are compelled to write about them.
i actually just pay attention to bill and melinda's philantrophic activities.
msft's product activities bore me; their vision/strategy is hardly anything to write home about: monopoly. that's the only strategy at play.
1:32 PM
when you're that rich and have that much money, you may as well give some of it away. otherwise, it just goes to the government. i don't know them well enough to comment on their on-going commitment to charity or their personality, but it was my impression that charity was an afterthought for them. perhaps bill's company's persona is coloring my image of him but the net result is that many charities benefit from their philanthropy so it's all good. whether bill's image is a result of microsoft or msft's image is a result of bill or both is another story. personally, if i were the recluse everybody claims him to be, my donations would have been anonymous. the media is compelled to write about msft because they're the only game in town. the media is compelled to write about bill because he has a lot of money. as a result, bill & melinda bore me. i'm interested in msft because as much as i try to not let it affect me, it always finds a way to make my life more difficult. all of this is a direct result of their boring vision & strategy because of the lack of competition. they are indeed a monopoly so there is all the more need for the consumer to be aware and hold the company accountable.
and because of this long, drawn out comment, i probably bore a lot of people...
1:47 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home