Microsoft's Dirty Little Secret

> Home
> Keynote
> Manifesto
> Lead Article
> Site News
> Bookstore
> BMS Forum
> Bumper Stickers
> NT Files
> Dirty Tricks
> Feature Articles
> Departments
> Site Credits

Microsoft's Dirty Little Secret

by Mitch Stone, Editor/Publisher

The vote is in: Windows 98 is a dog. The operating system that crashed hard on Bill Gates in a demonstration broadcast around the world only weeks ago wasn't so much released as it escaped.

Gates could, and did, laugh off the whole "blue screen of death" incident, muttering something about "technology not always working" knowing full well that millions of us would ignore this dark omen and willingly subscribe to yet another of Microsoft's empty promises. And something else Gates knew: product quality aside, the clone makers could be compelled to resell Windows 98. So either way, he couldn't lose.

But we certainly could.

Since its release, the complaints from frustrated Windows 98 upgrade customers have risen in an angry tide. We've heard the frightening tales of scanners and CD drives no longer working, deceased video cards, repeated crashing and unsuccessful installations, modems disabled, networks failing, hours upon hours wasted in reinstallation, hard drive corruptions, and data losses. Those lucky enough to break through the interminable busy signal at Microsoft's technical support line were indulged with the opportunity to fork over $35.00 "per incident" for support. Sometimes, the problems were even fixed.

For their part, the clone manufacturers tried to provide some solace and assistance by warning their customers to take a "go slow" approach upgrading PC hardware to Windows 98. But many of these caveats were removed from the PC maker's web sites -- under direct pressure from Microsoft. They'd rather we buy without knowing the truth.

Keep in mind, Microsoft spent three years whipping up this abomination. Three whole years. So it wasn't as if they were rushed into releasing a flawed version of Windows -- they had plenty of time, and heaven knows, plenty of money to get it right.

One wonders, is this the same product Microsoft insisted would irreparably harm the U.S. economy if government lawyers delayed its release? The very same.

What should we make of these spectacular claims of economic calamity, now that Windows 98 was clearly delivered broken? What are we to think, now that we've learned about the existence of a "service pack" (read: bug fix) in development prior to the release of Windows 98? What are we to think when we read Windows guru Brian Livingston's report of the Windows 98 installer disabling competitor's software?

Does all this countervailing evidence leave us groping for a reasonable explanation? It certainly shouldn't.

For years, Microsoft was known among the technological cognoscenti as the "just good enough" company. In a way, the consistent mediocrity of their products was almost tolerable, and after a fashion, excusable. Popularization is certainly a legitimate role for a company to play -- and we all know from personal experience that mass market products are rarely examples of excellence or innovation. And so it was with Microsoft the Popularizer.

But with the release of Windows 98, Microsoft took a bold step, away from being the arguably benign "just good enough" company, towards becoming the "not quite good enough" company. The subtle difference? A not quite good enough company mainly promotes its own agenda, even at the expense of its customers. Windows 98 may be a defective product by any reasonable definition of the term, but it suits Microsoft's purposes to a tee.

Let's face facts: Windows 98 is less an operating system than an Internet Explorer delivery device, a Netscape killer. To call it anything more complimentary would be to perpetuate a fraud. Windows 98 is the clearest evidence yet of the company's continuing evolution from Microsoft the Popularizer, into Microsoft the Monopolizer. About us, they couldn't care less. And if we don't understand this dirty little secret by now, we never will.

The next act? Microsoft has intimated that one of the main goals of the upcoming Windows NT 5.0 release is to fix the thousands of bugs in Windows NT 4.0.

They really do bank on us being utterly credulous, don't they? And now it's no longer a secret.

Published: 15 July 1998

Windows 98 Users Speak Out:

Name: JS
Location: null
Occupation: Computer Programmer

Look, I'm getting a little tired of people posting saying things like, since it worked fine on my computer, everyone who is having problems must be screwing up the install.

I have also had problems. The install looks easy, but when it comes up it has detected my 3com XL 10/100 ethernet card fine but any networking protocol I add to it doesn't load. I can add protocols fine to a dial-up adaptor, but TCP/IP, IPX/SPX don't work with that card. I had so such problems under Win95 (there were a few other problems... but not that) I tried removing all the card exept for video and ethernet, and had the same problem (thinking it might be a weird kind of resource conflict) and that didn't fix the problem. I even tried installing with only the video card (a ATI 3D Pro Turbo PC2TV if you are curious) and then adding the 3com later but had the same problem. I then tried loading the drivers I had downloaded from 3coms web site before starting this install (dated 6-11-98) and they just prevented Win98 from booting at all.

This OS does have some problems that need to be addressed. And problems with the OS are real. I admit in come cases it in hardware, in some cases it is user problems but there are real issues with the OS.

©1999 Moral Highground Productions

Boycott Microsoft

> Home
> Keynote
> Manifesto
> Lead Article
> Site News
> Bookstore
> BMS Forum
> Bumper Stickers
> NT Files
> Dirty Tricks
> Feature Articles
> Departments
> Site Credits

Microsoft's Dirty Little Secret

by Mitch Stone, Editor/Publisher

The vote is in: Windows 98 is a dog. The operating system that crashed hard on Bill Gates in a demonstration broadcast around the world only weeks ago wasn't so much released as it escaped.

Gates could, and did, laugh off the whole "blue screen of death" incident, muttering something about "technology not always working" knowing full well that millions of us would ignore this dark omen and willingly subscribe to yet another of Microsoft's empty promises. And something else Gates knew: product quality aside, the clone makers could be compelled to resell Windows 98. So either way, he couldn't lose.

But we certainly could.

Since its release, the complaints from frustrated Windows 98 upgrade customers have risen in an angry tide. We've heard the frightening tales of scanners and CD drives no longer working, deceased video cards, repeated crashing and unsuccessful installations, modems disabled, networks failing, hours upon hours wasted in reinstallation, hard drive corruptions, and data losses. Those lucky enough to break through the interminable busy signal at Microsoft's technical support line were indulged with the opportunity to fork over $35.00 "per incident" for support. Sometimes, the problems were even fixed.

For their part, the clone manufacturers tried to provide some solace and assistance by warning their customers to take a "go slow" approach upgrading PC hardware to Windows 98. But many of these caveats were removed from the PC maker's web sites -- under direct pressure from Microsoft. They'd rather we buy without knowing the truth.

Keep in mind, Microsoft spent three years whipping up this abomination. Three whole years. So it wasn't as if they were rushed into releasing a flawed version of Windows -- they had plenty of time, and heaven knows, plenty of money to get it right.

One wonders, is this the same product Microsoft insisted would irreparably harm the U.S. economy if government lawyers delayed its release? The very same.

What should we make of these spectacular claims of economic calamity, now that Windows 98 was clearly delivered broken? What are we to think, now that we've learned about the existence of a "service pack" (read: bug fix) in development prior to the release of Windows 98? What are we to think when we read Windows guru Brian Livingston's report of the Windows 98 installer disabling competitor's software?

Does all this countervailing evidence leave us groping for a reasonable explanation? It certainly shouldn't.

For years, Microsoft was known among the technological cognoscenti as the "just good enough" company. In a way, the consistent mediocrity of their products was almost tolerable, and after a fashion, excusable. Popularization is certainly a legitimate role for a company to play -- and we all know from personal experience that mass market products are rarely examples of excellence or innovation. And so it was with Microsoft the Popularizer.

But with the release of Windows 98, Microsoft took a bold step, away from being the arguably benign "just good enough" company, towards becoming the "not quite good enough" company. The subtle difference? A not quite good enough company mainly promotes its own agenda, even at the expense of its customers. Windows 98 may be a defective product by any reasonable definition of the term, but it suits Microsoft's purposes to a tee.

Let's face facts: Windows 98 is less an operating system than an Internet Explorer delivery device, a Netscape killer. To call it anything more complimentary would be to perpetuate a fraud. Windows 98 is the clearest evidence yet of the company's continuing evolution from Microsoft the Popularizer, into Microsoft the Monopolizer. About us, they couldn't care less. And if we don't understand this dirty little secret by now, we never will.

The next act? Microsoft has intimated that one of the main goals of the upcoming Windows NT 5.0 release is to fix the thousands of bugs in Windows NT 4.0.

They really do bank on us being utterly credulous, don't they? And now it's no longer a secret.

Published: 15 July 1998

Windows 98 Users Speak Out:

Name: JS
Location: null
Occupation: Computer Programmer

Look, I'm getting a little tired of people posting saying things like, since it worked fine on my computer, everyone who is having problems must be screwing up the install.

I have also had problems. The install looks easy, but when it comes up it has detected my 3com XL 10/100 ethernet card fine but any networking protocol I add to it doesn't load. I can add protocols fine to a dial-up adaptor, but TCP/IP, IPX/SPX don't work with that card. I had so such problems under Win95 (there were a few other problems... but not that) I tried removing all the card exept for video and ethernet, and had the same problem (thinking it might be a weird kind of resource conflict) and that didn't fix the problem. I even tried installing with only the video card (a ATI 3D Pro Turbo PC2TV if you are curious) and then adding the 3com later but had the same problem. I then tried loading the drivers I had downloaded from 3coms web site before starting this install (dated 6-11-98) and they just prevented Win98 from booting at all.

This OS does have some problems that need to be addressed. And problems with the OS are real. I admit in come cases it in hardware, in some cases it is user problems but there are real issues with the OS.

©1999 Moral Highground Productions