At some point almost everyone has cursed Microsoft for some perceived problem with their code. One organization is planning on doing more than just cursing. The Committee To Fight Microsoft, founded by Andy Martin, is demanding that Microsoft not release Windows Vista until Microsoft offers a "general and unconditional warranty to purchasers that the program does not include 'bad code.'"
The Committee goes on to say that Microsoft sells defective products and accuses them of "mass consumer fraud." Let me take a moment to compose myself; I'm laughing too hard to continue. While I'm doing that, let's examine this quote from Andy Martin himself, shall we?
"Windows 95 was a disaster; it took three years to correct the major deficiencies. But the 95 fix, Windows 98, only created new vulnerabilities, and required yet another round of fixes for Windows 98. On and on it goes. No other company in America gets away with selling defective products and then expecting its customers to wait years for proper product operability."
Windows 95 certainly had its share of problems, and Windows 98 even saw a Second Edition, but to call them flat out defective is going a tad far. While Windows 95 made the term "BSOD" commonplace, it achieved a number of milestones. It brought preemptive multitasking and protected memory to the mainstream market years before Apple, while maintaining backwards compatibility with 16-bit Windows applications, and even most DOS programs. Andy Martin appears to be a few cards short of a full deck. Either that, or he's looking for some limelight. I wonder if his gubernatorial bid for the State of Illinois has anything to do with that.
As to Martin's claim that Microsoft is unique in their problems, it would seem as though hyperbole is one of his strong points.
"It is unacceptable corporate behavior. Over four (4) years after Windows XP was released I still receive regular 'updates' and 'bug fixes,' which reflect a product that was originally scandalously defective."
Correct me if I am wrong Mr. Martin, but can't the same thing be said for Apple and Linux users? Or is just that Microsoft is an easier target? Microsoft certainly has seen more than its share of problems, and the company has been scrambling to close holes and wage a PR war against their image, but if there's a good ping to be made against Microsoft, monthly updates isn't it.
But wait, there's more! Not only do you get defective products and mass consumer fraud, we'll throw in an underpowered computer scam, absolutely free!
"Two other unacceptable scams that Microsoft has used over and over again are to encourage people to 'upgrade' unsuitable old computers, and to encourage manufacturers to sell underpowered computers. XP was authorized for 128 RAM, which was clearly inadequate. Who would buy an inadequate TV set? Or an inadequate stove, that didn't get warm enough? Or an inadequate refrigerator that didn't get cold enough? No one. Why should someone buy or 'upgrade' an inadequate computer on Bill Gates' say-so? The Committee to Fight Microsoft is launching a legal action effort to bar such practice, in advance, for Windows Vista. Bill Gates, you are on notice."
I ran Windows XP on 64 MB of RAM (which happens to be the minimum supported configuration) for two years and had no problems. The performance was less than stellar, and I wouldn't recommend it in 2005, but in general, most software applications perform much better above their "minimum requirements" than at them. Why would Windows XP be any different?
This author is launching a commonsense awareness campaign to bar frivolous legal action. Andy Martin, you are on notice.
soruce:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050809-5191.html
_____________________________________
Personally i think that the first part of this where they talking about win 98 being a patch for 95 is completely true. i mean look at it its identical nothing new just a few visual improvements. nothing to justify its price tag. and the same goes for xp.. xp was a sp5 for 2000 only with allot more added features... but still did not reflect its 400 price tag.. (now its reasonable.. 80 bucks) but im not sure about vista ill have to try it.. from the sounds of it they started from scratch and built there way up to what they think will replace xp... all of that remains to be seen..
Will Vista be a huge patch for xp? first impressions are no
Have there been patch's in the form of a OS? Yes in fact there have been 5 of them.
ah. but lets not forget the rest of the story....
Windows 95 started a new era in computing however it had many bugs... and then there was the windows NT... which is still used by many corporate offices.. and businesses.. so MS decided why the heck should we do all this patching for free?? So here comes windows 98 yet another disaster... well the same thing happened and here comes windows 98 2nd edition... and the 2 where identical visually..
oh but hold on there's more..
Were gonna come out with another one! Windows 2000.. Despite its 4 SP's it was the stablest windows to date in my opinion and ran on hardly nothing. but then they couldn't wait to mess up something so they came out with Windows ME.. This was a complete disaster... it was nothing more than windows 2000 only with added bugs and a new logo... And now we are up to there current mess Windows XP which is somewhat stable but still quite buggy and started a new era in visual impressiveness.. windows 95 - 2000 where quite plain.. and with the original price tag of 400 bucks i wouldn't bother upgrading IF you had 2000 but now with its $80 price tag i feel that is fair... we have to pay them for the development time on all these patches...
im not not saying that i wouldn't use any of these because i have used/use all of them and can make every one spin like a top and i am very efficient if fixing them... but couldn't MS actually do something right for a change?