Haten the Softies...
Oct. 11th, 2005 12:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walbournMy post yesterday with a link to some article by a Ziff-Davis tech writer that through an 'alternative history' story claimed that Microsoft actually pushed the PC industry forward in terms of standards, cost reduction, and interface really hit a nerve with a couple of my friends. I never stated my opinion about the article other than it being interesting, but the assumption was that I, as a Microsoft employee and having posted the link, agreed with the content of the article.
The reaction has prompted me to make a post I've been thinking about the past year...
It is amazing to me just how entrenched the reflex to hate Microsoft is in the tech industry in particular, and even in the general world of the computer enthusiast. It seems like it is vogue to hate Microsoft, and to say anything positive about them without a lot of disclaimers makes one a "tool". Heaven forbid if you have anything negative to say about Linux or the free software movement in the process.
Growing up I never used Wintel PCs. I was an Atari-fan. I had an Atari 800, an Atari 130XE, an Atari 520ST, and an Atari 1040ST through my middle and high-school years, used a Tandy Model III and Model IV in some middle-school classes, and only used a DOS-based IBM in high-school computer science classes. It was until I got to college that I even used an IBM-clone PC running Windows, and most of my class work was on UNIX systems running "X". My first full-time job used a 32-bit DOS extender and we never even touched Windows until a few years later. My game company was using extended DOS like everyone else when we were a hobby, but our first deal coincided with the big "games for Windows" push of Windows 95 and I've used exclusively Microsoft Oses since. I did use Debian Linux to host our Internet presence, but I never used it as more than that. We shipped our first game on DirectX 3, our second game on DirectX 5, and our third game on DirectX 6.
It is certainly true that Windows 3.1 was abysmal, but X kinda sucked in its own way too--frankly I still despise it--, and the original Mac's UI was damn quirky and had to be rebooted regularly. I remember attending a conference for Windows NT 3.51, and MS was proud of some really basic stuff which all went to hell the instant they decided to go for the "Level 2" government security rating. By the time Windows 95 rolled around, it was actually a decent consumer environment. I remember that was pretty much the time when a distaste for Microsoft software in the general population started to be expressed. As an application developer who never wanted to see the 16-bit Windows API ever again, I was frustrated because it seemed like everyone ate up Microsoft products in the business world until they started getting it right. Windows 2000 was a really nice merge of the features of NT and the consumer OS support of the Windows 9x series.
I don't dispute the findings of the anti-trust case vs. Microsoft. I wasn't even employed here until years after it was settled. I don't think Bill Gates is a tech-wiz. As far as I know, the last time he wrote a single line of code was the Basic interpreter for the Altar. The sales force at Microsoft has always been 'overly aggressive', which is in large part why they gained the market share they have. Microsoft is certainly a stake-holder in the broken software patent system. And don't even get me started about Windows ME, Microsoft Bob, or the 'success' of the Xbox.
With all that, I don't understand why people still have so much anger towards Microsoft. And so much of it seems personal. Microsoft is a company that employees 50,000+ people, has been around for 25+ years, and has people spread out all over Redmond, yet people still react to every decision or statement as if it was just one entity. Nobody cuts them any slack in terms of correcting past mistakes, or doing things that improve the dominant platform for PCs, or the immense pain of a legacy support trail that encompasses the bulk of computer hardware made in the past two decades. People complain about how unstable Windows is as an OS, but if you really look at the data most of that comes from installing 3rd party spyware, crappy drivers for whacky 3rd party hardware, or faulty physical hardware. The "Intel Inside" sticker doesn't get the blame, but the Windows flag logo certainly does.
I personally have been on the receiving end of a number of anti-Microsoft rants since starting work here, largely because my job is specifically to talk to developers. It is amazing the number of times that the negativity is based primarily on a deep emotional response to the 'messenger', not the 'message'. Maybe it is just the price us new employees pay for the sins of the past. Maybe it is just impossible to overcome the desire to root for the underdog and to see the king of the hill fall.
I don't really know.
I do know that I've gained a perspective on how so many of Microsoft's decisions are arrived at, and the dynamics of the internal workings of processes. For the most part, it is a group of smart people trying to strike a balance between many different perspectives in every decision they make while working within a labyrinth of process that tries to keep old mistakes from being repeated. If there are smoky back-room discussions where people are planning how to hurt the software industry and developers the most while making a buck, I've never been party to one.
The reaction has prompted me to make a post I've been thinking about the past year...
It is amazing to me just how entrenched the reflex to hate Microsoft is in the tech industry in particular, and even in the general world of the computer enthusiast. It seems like it is vogue to hate Microsoft, and to say anything positive about them without a lot of disclaimers makes one a "tool". Heaven forbid if you have anything negative to say about Linux or the free software movement in the process.
Growing up I never used Wintel PCs. I was an Atari-fan. I had an Atari 800, an Atari 130XE, an Atari 520ST, and an Atari 1040ST through my middle and high-school years, used a Tandy Model III and Model IV in some middle-school classes, and only used a DOS-based IBM in high-school computer science classes. It was until I got to college that I even used an IBM-clone PC running Windows, and most of my class work was on UNIX systems running "X". My first full-time job used a 32-bit DOS extender and we never even touched Windows until a few years later. My game company was using extended DOS like everyone else when we were a hobby, but our first deal coincided with the big "games for Windows" push of Windows 95 and I've used exclusively Microsoft Oses since. I did use Debian Linux to host our Internet presence, but I never used it as more than that. We shipped our first game on DirectX 3, our second game on DirectX 5, and our third game on DirectX 6.
It is certainly true that Windows 3.1 was abysmal, but X kinda sucked in its own way too--frankly I still despise it--, and the original Mac's UI was damn quirky and had to be rebooted regularly. I remember attending a conference for Windows NT 3.51, and MS was proud of some really basic stuff which all went to hell the instant they decided to go for the "Level 2" government security rating. By the time Windows 95 rolled around, it was actually a decent consumer environment. I remember that was pretty much the time when a distaste for Microsoft software in the general population started to be expressed. As an application developer who never wanted to see the 16-bit Windows API ever again, I was frustrated because it seemed like everyone ate up Microsoft products in the business world until they started getting it right. Windows 2000 was a really nice merge of the features of NT and the consumer OS support of the Windows 9x series.
I don't dispute the findings of the anti-trust case vs. Microsoft. I wasn't even employed here until years after it was settled. I don't think Bill Gates is a tech-wiz. As far as I know, the last time he wrote a single line of code was the Basic interpreter for the Altar. The sales force at Microsoft has always been 'overly aggressive', which is in large part why they gained the market share they have. Microsoft is certainly a stake-holder in the broken software patent system. And don't even get me started about Windows ME, Microsoft Bob, or the 'success' of the Xbox.
With all that, I don't understand why people still have so much anger towards Microsoft. And so much of it seems personal. Microsoft is a company that employees 50,000+ people, has been around for 25+ years, and has people spread out all over Redmond, yet people still react to every decision or statement as if it was just one entity. Nobody cuts them any slack in terms of correcting past mistakes, or doing things that improve the dominant platform for PCs, or the immense pain of a legacy support trail that encompasses the bulk of computer hardware made in the past two decades. People complain about how unstable Windows is as an OS, but if you really look at the data most of that comes from installing 3rd party spyware, crappy drivers for whacky 3rd party hardware, or faulty physical hardware. The "Intel Inside" sticker doesn't get the blame, but the Windows flag logo certainly does.
I personally have been on the receiving end of a number of anti-Microsoft rants since starting work here, largely because my job is specifically to talk to developers. It is amazing the number of times that the negativity is based primarily on a deep emotional response to the 'messenger', not the 'message'. Maybe it is just the price us new employees pay for the sins of the past. Maybe it is just impossible to overcome the desire to root for the underdog and to see the king of the hill fall.
I don't really know.
I do know that I've gained a perspective on how so many of Microsoft's decisions are arrived at, and the dynamics of the internal workings of processes. For the most part, it is a group of smart people trying to strike a balance between many different perspectives in every decision they make while working within a labyrinth of process that tries to keep old mistakes from being repeated. If there are smoky back-room discussions where people are planning how to hurt the software industry and developers the most while making a buck, I've never been party to one.
