Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard Erlacher <>
Date: Mon Jan 15 14:22:43 2001


The language you use clearly indicates that you won't be persuaded by the

While it would be nice if there were something that the masses liked better,
the seeming monopoly, (others have clearly pointed out that it isn't one)
that Microsoft has enjoyed is, as I've pointed out, the result of the fact
that people have to buy SOMETHING to use as an OS, and MS WINDOWS is the
most frequent choice. Now that many people are finding out what you and
your fellow MS-haters have seemingly found, I hope people will quit buying
yet another unsastisfactory product from the same vendor, whichever one that

So long as people keep buying the next release instead of insisting that the
vendor provide fixes BEFORE they buy another product from that vendor, we're
all screwed! New computers will always be supplied with what amounts to the
least costly OS, and the one that's more popular, particularly if they're
the same. Availability of a newer, perhaps better, but probably not, OS
doesn't mean we all have to run out and get it. Now that hardware sales
have dropped significantly, perhaps the voice of the users who have been so
frustrated with the unfortunate interactions between applications and the OS
will be heard. If the auto industry expperience is any indication, however,
it's not likely. The problem with perpetuating the current situation is
that it will spread into other vendors' products, until the OS you love to
hate becomes the benchmark.

Until software vendors are held to a standard where their products, any one
erroneously placed bit of which could make the whole system come tumbling
down like a house of cards, be made to predict, precisely, the sesponse of
their product to any potential combination of memory/disk contents to a
depth of whatever the minimal OS configuration is, will be when faced with
any combination of inputs, to a depth equal to the permutaions and
combinations of 2^n such inputs where n is the word width, and the
executives and managers of the company be held personally liable to refund
3x the purchase price to each and every customer who paid for the product,
this situation will persist. Until the software vendors are held to the
standard that their products must be PERFECT in EVERY WAY, with respect to
their own characterization, however, it's the purchasers' fault that their
products aren't what they want.

Since YOU own an alternative to Windows that you hold to be better, YOU
should use that and not buy Windows. If you use Windows knowing that
there's something you like better, you get what you deserve.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tapley" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Nuke Redmond!

> Richard,
> >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:30:01 -0700
> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <>
> >
> >Sir, you damage your credibility with statements like some you've made
> >While it's true that the Microsoft products may not be the "best" thing
> >thos of us who are inclined to fuss and fiddle with our computers,
> >WAY better for those who can't, won't, or shouldn't.
> There are errors of commission and errors of omission. You make one
> of the latter here. While it is true that Microsoft packages its OS's and
> Applications in such a way that they are easier to install, configure, and
> use than most similar unix software, it is also true that Apple packages
> its OS's and Applications so that they are *much* easier to install,
> configure, and use than Microsoft software.
> Mac OS software is far superior to equivalent Windows anything (as
> well as to Unix anything in my experience) for those of us not inclined to
> fuss or fiddle with our computers. This I know from personal experience
> with MacOS, Windows 95/98, NeXTStep (a variant of unix), Solaris, and AIX.
> I cannot speak for Linux, and there may be other OS/Application sets
> (Amiga?) on either end of the spectrum that are pertinent here but not
> familiar to me.
> >They enable a whole range of people who, 15 years ago, wouldn't have been
> >allowed in the same room with a computer to accomplish useful work,
> >something which FEW of us do, computer design, programming, and
> >all being overhead rather than useful work in most environments. They
> >enable people to use resources such as the internet, who otherwise might
> >never have that experience, never mind that they use it primarily to save
> >trip to the convenience store to buy a magazine in a brown wrapper.
> Although the market has disagreed horribly with me for many years,
> I can see no valid argument for choosing the Microsoft middle ground
> between Macintosh ease of use and unix power, security, and flexibility.
> (The most-cited argument, lower cost of underlying hardware, has been
> repeatedly to be invalid in most cases because of the time typically
> spent/lost trying to get Windows and its applications to play nice
> together, fighting viruses, configuring networks, etc.; I'll admit that
> competent power users like you and Allison can probably circumvent that
> make Windows systems essentially as cost-effective as MacOS or linux
> systems.)
> As always, if the application you need is available on only one OS,
> that OS is the best for you and there's no valid argument against that,
> whatever the other characteristics of the OS. But for people who wouldn't
> have been allowed in the same room with a computer, or who just want to
> access the internet, Microsoft is a *long, long* way behind Apple and its
> third parties for ease-of-use.
> >I would exhort you to eschew reiteration of other people's falsehoods
> >instead, search for a solution to the problems you so clearly perceive.
> >Squandering bandwidth on matters that most of the computer world doesn't
> >perceive as a problem will only hasten the day when we have to pay for
> >internet use by the bit.
> My solution is maintaining a Microsoft-free zone at home and
> minimizing use of Microsoft at work. This is not only because I dislike
> their products (excepting Excel, which has merit IMO), but because I
> regret and fear what their illegal business practices have done to the
> industry in many areas, including file interchange standards, expected
> reliability and pre-release testing of software, customer support, etc.
> >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:06:10 -0700
> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <>
> >...
> >Both Windows and the popular varieties of LINUX are pretty easy to
> >these days. However, Windows suffers greatly from the fact that it has
> >tried to maintain the usefulness of those applications that were written
> >and bought concurrently with much earlier versions of the OS.
> >...
> I must point out that MacOS has the same "burden" - and bears it
> *much* better, as "antique" Mac software is far more likely to run on a
> Mac system than same-vintage Win/DOS software on a Windows machine. (I
> *hate* to think I may have accidentally brought this back on-topic...)
> >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:20:43 -0700
> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <>
> >
> >It's just the American way of doing business. Detroit's been doing it
> >50 years. Get over it!
> By definition, it's not the American way if it violates US
> antitrust laws. MS was convicted in court of criminal practices
> (anticompetitive actions) essentially victimizing me, the consumer. Am I
> going to willingly send them more money? Is this a trick question? Based
> their record, I believe that if they can find a legal or illegal way to
> decrease Linux' effectiveness, they will do it immediately.
> I'd much rather see Linux reduce MS to a footnote. CorelSuite,
> AppleWorks, NetScape, Adobe, Filemaker, and StarOffice would all still be
> there, I'd still be able to get my work done - and file standards would
> stay a lot more standard.
> - Mark
Received on Mon Jan 15 2001 - 14:22:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:47 BST