CLASSIC: Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion?
Derek Currie
Posted by Michael Singer, May 11, 2007 05:36 PM
InformationWeek
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/05/why_doe
snt_micr.html>
> Apple has one. So does the Java community, Oracle, IBM, and Google. Lord
> knows anyone who uses Linux or free and open source software is dedicated to
> spreading the gospel of St. Linus Torvalds and St. Richard Stallman. But does
> anyone really worship the Gods of Redmond?
>
> . . .
>
> How many e-mails have you received (or written) because someone bashed your
> favorite operating system or software application? Chances are that you were
> defending something that wasn't made or acquired by Microsoft.
>
> . . .
>
> My biggest surprise was that Mary Jo Foley (of Microsoft Watch and ZDNet
> blogging fame) was standing right there and she validated the theory that
> customers and developers are just not that into Microsoft. Her take on it was
> that even Microsoft people she's spoken with acknowledge that developers and
> users have a lackluster passion when it comes to Microsoft products.
>
> . . .
>
> Rob Enderle, principal analyst and founder of the Enderle Group, suggests
> Microsoft did have a religion and a passionate audience up until 1995, but
> Microsoft never really nurtured them and they died off.
>
> "Now Windows is just part of the PC," Enderle said. "There are still those
> that admire the company and Gates, but the passion that exists around
> FreeBSD, Linux, and Apple simply has no analog in Windows. Great products
> come from passion -- when Windows lost that, it lost its heart."
Personal Comments:
I always found that applying the term 'religion' to computer
technology was one of the stupidest metaphors of all time. What
idiot started it? It may well have been Apple for all I know with
its 'evangelist' marketing approach. :-P******
Anyway, clearly what we DON'T have with Microsoft users is
advocacy.
Really!
Check out the number of posts every week here at
comp.sys.mac.advocacy. There are ALWAYS several hundred posts
here every single week. My newsreader, with its current settings,
lists over 3,000 posts in this group right now.
Now head on over to the Windows advocacy group. Did you even know
there was one? It's called comp.os.ms-window.advocacy. Check out
the number of posts in there per week. 10? Right now my
newsreader says there are 30 posts total in that group.
-> 11 of them are: "Windows should add Linux c vga.h graphics
interface to its programmer options."
0> 12 of them are: "Boycott Vista in the UK.
-> I found one (1) single piece of advocacy there: "Microsoft
posts a net profit of $4.93 billion (Thank you Vista), beating
expectations"
Conclusion: As Michael Singer at InformationWeek asks, where is
the enthusiasm for Microsoft?
Here we Mac advocates are, with our 'tiny' (troll quote) market
share, managing to have literally one of the busiest newsgroups
in all of Usenet. And the Microsoft advocates, where are they?
And no, I don't consider the trolls who come over to this Mac
Advocacy newsgroup to be Microsoft advocates at all. No way.
Instead, they are merely Apple haters. There is a MASSIVE
difference. And you know the old formula:
He who hates himself, hates those around him, especially those
who are actually content with themselves.
Remember this little formula next time you read a troll rant.
Trolls deserve more of your pity than your intellectual attention.
Smile: You own a Mac.
:-Derek
--
Fortune Magazine 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been
equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool,
not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software
engineering in 1975.]
Dr. zara
"Derek Currie" <derek...@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:derekcurrie-CEB0...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
>
We view computers as appliances, not extensions of ourselves.
We view Bill Gates as a corporate entity - not a god.
That's the difference between Windows users and maccies.
Phoon Hencman
> Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion?
Because they SUCK.
Simple really.
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
by-itself isn't compelling.)
Hardware at the state-of-the-art of industrial design (Venders selling
inexpensive low powered machines make MS OSs slow and unstable)
UNIX command line (Still uses DOS. Telnet windows still suck.)
Innovative roll in music and video industries (MS is a new comer)
Easy to use software.
I wonder, why would anyone want to get excited about MS CONSUMER
products?
Jim
"Dr. zara" <D...@macciesuck.ney> wrote:
yup. Don't assess a situation, think and then act. Just do in the manner
of lemmings. Right on ZERO.
George Graves
(in article <Drt1i.873$nh....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>):
That's funny, zero, That's exactly how I view a computer - as a tool. And
Nobody here could possibly have escaped knowing that I certainly don't think
of Steve Jobs as a 'god'. As you must know, I don't even regard him as much
of a man. So where do I fit into your convenient pigeonholes?
Peter Hayes
> We view computers as appliances, not extensions of ourselves.
> We view Bill Gates as a corporate entity
That's because Gates puts out products for the corporate environment,
and in that he has succeeded.
> - not a god.
> That's the difference between Windows users and maccies.
Succeeding in the corporate environment doesn't mean his products are
good, they're only good enough to maintain the monopoly, and therein
lies the difference between Apple and Microsoft. Nothing to do with any
alleged "gods".
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Lawson English
Translation: Mac users have something to be enthusiastic about.
MuahMan
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:IbE1i.55657$jt2....@newsfe13.lga...
Translation. Mac are raving loonies that get joy from a computer. You guys
should try women sometime.
George Graves
(in article <0pednalEOYoQq9rb...@adelphia.com>):
What makes you think that the two interests are mutually exclusive? Sure we
are enthusiastic about our Macs, and can like women too.
MegaDave
> > Translation: Mac users have something to be enthusiastic about.
>
> Translation. Mac are raving loonies that get joy from a computer.
> You guys should try women sometime.
Your shouldn't be so "enthusiastic" about your mom, Cartman.
--
The System Has Failed
Dr. zara
"MegaDave" <megad...@invalidgmail.domaincom> wrote in message
news:L6mdnaZNG6SV39rb...@comcast.com...
You were stupid to open that door, dude. You're gonna suffer.
MegaDave
That's quite a set of e-balls there coming from someone who hasn't
entered puberty yet. Does your mommy restrict your net time at all?
She might want to install net-nanny or something.
nospamatall
> Translation. Mac are raving loonies that get joy from a computer. You
> guys should try women sometime.
Maybe you should, then you'd know that they are very different joys.
Mitch
Graves <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > We view computers as appliances, not extensions of ourselves.
> > We view Bill Gates as a corporate entity - not a god.
> > That's the difference between Windows users and maccies.
> >
> >
> That's funny, zero, That's exactly how I view a computer - as a tool. And
> Nobody here could possibly have escaped knowing that I certainly don't think
> of Steve Jobs as a 'god'. As you must know, I don't even regard him as much
> of a man. So where do I fit into your convenient pigeonholes?
You don't, because zara totally misunderstood what the article was
saying.
None of the qualities zara described were even slightly supposed in
that article. They are completely invented by zara, to be demeaning.
Zara completely missed the real and valid point the article was making,
ignored that it had one at all, and decided to throw out an dumb old
saw to try insulting someone. Again.