There is a subset of people online that cannot look at anything remotely Microsoft related and not have an emotional, illogical reaction to it. Even when Microsoft does something right, people will complain and circlejerk about how XYZ is so much better. If there is a complex situation where Microsoft is involved, every detail of it will be ignored and everyone will hyperfixate on Microsoft.Tech journalists noticed this trend of people who turn off any sort of logical thinking and throw themselves into a fit of rage whenever they see something Microsoft related, so there has been an influx of articles overblowing things like a very small subset of specific machines having issues with a Windows update to make it seem like Windows ceased to work globally, as people suffering from MDS will click them and leave an angry comment, boosting engagement. And much like AI Derangement Syndrome, it is impossible to have a civil discussion with those people as they are steered purely by emotions and have zero tech literacy, which seems to be the base requirement to acquiring both MDS and AIDS.And I'm sure replies to this thread will prove my point, people who cannot have a logical discussion and can only react with emotions whenever Microsoft is mentioned.
>>109277891
>Even when Microsoft does something rightLike what?
Name one good modern Microsoft product.
>>109277891logic is an emotion
>>109277900this/thread
>>109277965bing
>>109277900>>109277987>>109277983>>109277965
>>109278038Too busy thinking about all that hebe pussy on the Epstein island
>>109278038>I don't think about you at all.>makes a thread just to seethe about MS hatersuh ok
>>109277988I don't see anyone complaining about Bing. People complain about garbage like Win11, Teams and O365.
>>109278038Billy G hasn't been responsible for anything Microsoft related for decades now anyway
>>109277891>There is a subset of people online that cannot look at anything remotely Microsoft related and not have an emotional, illogical reaction toin my last year in college i got a comfy job as a C# backend developer for this small company. i remember asking a mate if he wants to join (he had zero job prospects otherwise) and he looked at me like i raped his family saying>i..fucking..hate! microsoft!then he got hired as a lorry driver for his father in law's business barely making ends meet, to this day.
>>109278100>pissing away a cushy job over some one-sided grudge towards a companyThat probably makes up a good chunk of anons on this board, hence all the unemployed tech worker generals to mope about being spiteful idiots.
>>109277891Also Apple derangement syndrome
>>109278063Which is why MS has gone down the toilet so much.They're less evil these days (still evil, but less so) so also completely incompetent at all the things they set out to do.At least when Big Money G and Ballmer were in charge shit was mostly competent.
>>109277891Tech seems like the last place where people would form unhealthy obsessions or hatred towards random companies but here we are. I think the biggest culprit are news outlets because they found an infinite money glitch where they just have to take the most uneventful news and strategically leave out information or misrepresent it so that the reader and viewer can build this evil monster inside their head.There is also a huge cognitive dissonance at play here and most people couldn't even say why they hate Microsoft. Reminds me of people who hate a party or politician with all their heart and seethe about it all the time but whenever they are asked why they can't even name a single reason. Every normal person can name more problems they have with Windows than these people that get all dramatic about it and saying stuff like they are refugees that have to flee the evil grasp of Microslop Winblows and are finally free in the warm embrace of Linux. Like come on, it's just a computer and not that serious.
Sar hating not desi employer, already many desi must be goings back to desi land
Microsoft products are absolute ass but anecdotally, I worked for a community center once and got 2500 bucks in Azure credits almost no questions asked simply because it's a non-profit doing good. The company is way too large and different parts of it work completely separate from each other with different cultures and ethics.
>>109278331>the biggest culprit are news outletsYep, and YouTube click farms. It only fuels this irrational hatred that no one can properly articulate, hence why it's a derangement syndrome. It also stems from lack of understanding, much like AI derangement syndrome. You'll notice how people who seethe about AI don't actually know how it works and will refuse to look into how it works, only to stay mad over whatever it is that is happening in their heads.In case of Windows, it is half Microsoft's fault for making the stock experience annoying, and half on users that refuse to learn how to use a computer. I know from personal experience that people who hate the weather widget don't even know how easy it is to disable it, it's all learned helplessness, no willingness to do a rudimentary web search, so then they'll act like Linux is so much better just because by default the experience isn't as annoying, but in the long term it'll quickly become evident why it's never going to beat Windows, it's just way too jank to do any serious daily driving on.>>109278360That's another thing, Microsoft is not a monolith hivemind, it has a bunch of different divisions that work independently of each other, and infamously they self-sabotage and are at constant war with each other as that's the company culture Billy G implanted. The forced AI in Windows is likely not the work of the Windows division but the AI division, but people only see the Microsoft monolith.
>>109277891saar!
>>109277891I get physically sick to my stomach when I have to use Windows or anything related to microsoft. I not joking.
>>109277891what has microsoft "done right"?
>>109278556releasing a widely-supported operating system that is essentially gratis.
>>109277891microsoft is a mountain of jeetslop. stop feeding them./thread
>>109277900fpbp'd /thread and OP is a collosal faggot
>>109278468>>109278468people felt the same about intel recentlywhy?it is because their favorite reddit/discord shill community decided these were bad thingsjust like donald trumpthe fear of being outcast from a social circle causes the immensely insecure to adopt full retard positionsall the more tragic given that most online social commentary is just paid indians on fiverr spamming some jewish financer nonsense
>>109278046what is hebe?
>>109277891>turns /g/ into /pol/ with one imageProblem, STEM?
>>109277965what counts as a "product"? software created and distributed by microsoft? dotnet/C# is miles ahead of java, its only real competitor
>>109278391>learned helplessnessThat is pretty much it. They see something they don't like and instead of just going to the settings and changing it they go into full on meltdown mode. To this day I hear people complain about the centered taskbar of Windows 11 even though you could change it to be on the left since day 1. They just want some benevolent authority to do everything for them without having to think which is why Linux is so enticing to them. Or they run debloating scripts because then they don't have to decide themselves what they need and what not because someone else already made that choice.The people complaining about "AI being shoved down their throat" are also just making up problems that don't exist. There is no AI anywhere except the Copilot webapp that you can just disable if you want. But they don't want that because someone on the internet already told them that it is evil and they can get irrationally angry about it together.Most of the replies itt are also just mental illness induced psychosis and getting angry at nothing, making up fantasies about indians being around every corner while still not being able to say why they are angry. Seriously, I can't even imagine doing this much mental gymnastics just to constantly think about indians. At least indians can live a comfy life in anon's head instead of the slums of Mumbai.
>>109278602some pedo term for early teens.
>>109278912wrong. pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. hebephilia is by definition not pedophilia.
>>109278906To be fair, I do run one debloating script and that is WinUtil, just because it automates the thick of it. Disable these background services that do nothing, tweak these group policy settings, uninstall these default programs, done. Very light debloating that does just what you want it to do, unlike most debloating scripts that think ripping out Windows Update and Windows Defender is a smart thing.Of course, if I spent a second I could write my own PowerShell script to apply the extra tweaks and settings I otherwise use third party software like WinUtil or Fluent Tweaker for but I'm lazy. I probably should do that though, and WinUtil is still a good reliable script so
>>109277891From a cold business perspective, this is completely Microsofts fault though. The irrational human element is more like a vehicle in all this, the same irrationality can lead to people ignoring problems in stuff they like, simply because they trust it and Microsoft chose to throw that away. Humanity will at best only change very slowly with irrational parts probably never disappearing, because that's just being human. Microsoft, like any organization has to work in the system of humanity. It's not peoples job to conform to the business needs, human made systems should directly or indirectly benefit humanity and not doing so leading to a fallout of sorts is a natural consequence. Yes, it's annoying the way this manifests based on human psychological weaknesses, I loath the 10000th clickbait garbage too, but it's Microsoft which paved the way for these to be able manifest so easily in the first place. If Microsoft just provided quality software and services at a fair price, there would be barely anything to be rage-baited over and Microsoft derangement syndrome wouldn't able to exist.
I can still restore an iPod. The zune got told to get bent until a marvel movie let them get some marketing from it.They still didn't turn back on the servers to even allow you to restore your firmware.
>>109277900FPBP, OP is most likely a jeetskin
hiroshimoot PLEASE consider doing this
>>109277891>i dont understand why anyone would hate microsoftThank you for your blogpost Ranjesh.
>>109277891Even the stuff they do right they did wrong though. Like K2 was meant to fix Windows 11 but at best all it did was make Copilot slightly less annoying and bandaided everything else together. Like their solution for "optimization" is just overclocking your CPU lol.>>109281201Redpill. Yes even if Microsoft did everything I wanted I'd still be skeptical. Are they still vibecoding crap behind the scenes? Is the telemetry actually being used to improve the product? Could I actually disable stuff I don't need like Xbox integrations and Copilot? How much of the UI is actually native and not some web wrapper?
>>109281520I'm not you, so I can't be sure, but I doubt that you would be skeptical in that case. For example if they vibecoded everything, but did the due diligence to make sure that the code is proper quality every time, then would it really matter? I don't think skepticism can just come from out of thin air normally or that it can just be part of a personality trait or something. If Microsoft truly did everything right than these would be baseless paranoia. Of course these are not baseless paranoia, and I also think that it's hard to not have that, because how widespread enshittifaction is. Maybe it's one step even further and it's so hard to imagine not being a skeptic, because maybe it's instinctively understood that an ideal Microsoft is just logically impossible, because of the irrationality of humanity as well. If this is true, then skepticism makes sense in the end, but then there's the hidden assumption that a Microsoft that does everything right is just a mirage, but then we are not truly talking about a Microsoft that actually does everything right.
>>109282056Yeah Microsoft doing a 180 would be like if Isreal stopped being jewish. You'd still be skeptical. Maybe they're being more subtle with their bs. It's so far out of the realm of possibility that it would be hard to believe.
>>109277891BLOODY BENCHOD BASTARD SAAR DO NOT FUCK TELL ME HOW MICROSOFT SO VERY GOOD. REDEEM WINDOWS 11 SAAR
>>109278970The DSM definition does not matter to the wider definition as used by society, thus the blanket pedophilia does not argue a separate term for hebephilia. It relies on age of consent or legal age in the broader society, and in some circles age range between partners.
>>109278468I completely understand you and feel the same way.
>>109277912They've contributed a fuckton of code to the Linux kernel.
>>109277965VS up to VS 2022, 2026 is webshit UI crap (they used 4 years to take fat stinking dump on one of last well working w32 programs, with forced updates)
>>109277900>NOOO leave Linux alone that takes in most of its funding and code from the same multinational multibillion dollar corporations, and the CCP, that I hateI always love the hypocrisy and cultist mindset.
>>109282844Congrats, you have fallen for jewish tricks. You should gas yourself.
>>109277891The premise of this post is flawed because it attempts to explain widespread criticism of Microsoft by attributing it to an imagined psychological condition rather than engaging with the reasons people criticize the company. Calling critics sufferers of "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome" is simply an ad hominem. It dismisses criticism based on the alleged irrationality of the critic instead of addressing whether the criticism itself is valid.The first claim—that people "cannot look at anything remotely Microsoft related and not have an emotional, illogical reaction"—requires evidence that simply isn't provided. Microsoft is one of the largest software companies in the world, with billions of users across Windows, Microsoft 365, Azure, Xbox, and GitHub. Unsurprisingly, opinions about the company vary. Some users praise Microsoft's enterprise products while criticizing Windows. Others like Xbox but dislike OneDrive integration. Others appreciate VS Code but criticize Windows 11. Treating this diversity of opinions as one irrational mob is an oversimplification.The post also assumes that criticism must be irrational because Microsoft sometimes "does something right." That doesn't follow. A company can produce good products while simultaneously making decisions that alienate its users. Microsoft has released successful software like VS Code, the modern .NET platform, and Azure while also making controversial consumer decisions. Acknowledging one does not invalidate criticism of the other.The assertion that "everyone hyperfixates on Microsoft" whenever the company is involved ignores Microsoft's own history. People scrutinize Microsoft because Microsoft has repeatedly been at the center of major controversies throughout the history of personal computing.1/3
>>109278055That's because no one uses Bing.
>>109282909They have contributed to the Linux kernel because they know Windows is garbage and Linux is superior.
>>109282980Pure speculation. Try facts instead of whatever bullshit you conjure up in your head. You cultists are all the same.
>>109282997The proof is the fact Microsoft critical infrastructure is Linux based and not Winblows. You Winblows cultist are the worse.
This is all you should need to seehttps://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/?parent=microsoft&order=sub_year&sort=
>>109282969In the 1990s, Microsoft became the subject of one of the largest antitrust cases in American history. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Microsoft had used its Windows monopoly to stifle competition by tying Internet Explorer to Windows and making it difficult for OEMs to promote competing browsers. This wasn't internet hysteria; it was the conclusion of years of litigation supported by internal Microsoft communications and extensive evidence.The European Commission reached similar conclusions years later, fining Microsoft hundreds of millions of euros for anti-competitive practices involving Windows Media Player and later Internet Explorer. Again, these were findings by regulators after lengthy investigations, not emotional reactions from online communities.These events fundamentally shaped Microsoft's public image. When a company develops a decades-long record of leveraging market dominance to favor its own ecosystem, skepticism becomes an understandable response rather than evidence of irrationality.The post further claims that critics ignore complexity. Ironically, the post itself ignores the complexity behind Microsoft's reputation. Public distrust did not appear spontaneously. It accumulated over decades of repeated decisions that prioritized Microsoft's strategic interests over user preference.Windows Vista launched with significant compatibility and performance problems that damaged consumer confidence. Windows 8 attempted to force a tablet-oriented interface onto desktop users despite widespread criticism. Microsoft eventually reversed course with Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 after user backlash.2/4
>>109283017I use Linux, but unlike you irrational & delusional cultists, I can actually think logically & rationally. >Microsoft critical infrastructureMore shit you just made up. You can't even define what that means, with proof, and then apply it to your argument.
>>109283034The Windows 10 era introduced another source of criticism: Microsoft's aggressive upgrade campaign. Numerous users complained about persistent upgrade prompts, automatically downloaded installation files, and interface designs that encouraged upgrades. Microsoft defended the campaign as a way to improve security and maintain a unified platform, but many users viewed it as unnecessarily aggressive and disrespectful of user choice.Privacy concerns also became significantly more prominent with Windows 10. Telemetry collection expanded compared to previous versions of Windows. Although Microsoft provided explanations regarding diagnostic data and later introduced additional privacy controls, many users objected to the lack of straightforward opt-outs, particularly in the Home edition. Whether one personally agrees with Microsoft's approach is beside the point—the concerns were substantive and widely debated by privacy advocates, journalists, and security professionals.Windows itself has increasingly become a vehicle for promoting Microsoft's ecosystem. New installations encourage Microsoft accounts over local accounts. OneDrive integration is heavily promoted. Microsoft 365 subscriptions are advertised throughout the operating system. Bing and Edge receive repeated promotional placement. Suggested apps, recommendations, and advertising have appeared in the Start menu, lock screen, File Explorer, and Settings over the years.Many users object because they purchased an operating system, not an advertising platform. That objection is based on expectations about software ownership and user experience, not emotional hostility toward Microsoft.3/6
>>109283034>>109283059Nobody cares AI, fuck off.
>>109283059Windows 11 continued this trend. Microsoft's TPM 2.0 and supported CPU requirements excluded millions of otherwise functional PCs from official support. Microsoft argued these requirements improved security, but many consumers viewed the move as contributing to unnecessary hardware replacement while offering relatively modest practical benefits for average users.Likewise, Microsoft has repeatedly removed customization features that users valued. Changes to the taskbar, Start menu, context menus, and default browser settings generated criticism because they reduced user control compared to previous Windows versions. Over time Microsoft restored some functionality, but many of those changes only occurred after sustained public feedback.One of the clearest examples of justified skepticism came with Recall. Microsoft's initial announcement described an AI feature that would periodically capture screenshots of users' desktops to create a searchable timeline. Although Microsoft emphasized security measures, researchers and privacy advocates quickly identified potential risks involving sensitive information. The backlash was so substantial that Microsoft delayed the rollout, redesigned the feature, and made it opt-in rather than broadly enabled. This episode demonstrates that criticism was not rooted in irrational hatred. It identified legitimate concerns that Microsoft itself ultimately acknowledged by substantially changing the product.The post also accuses tech journalists of exaggerating Microsoft stories purely for clicks. Certainly, sensational headlines exist throughout technology journalism. However, this criticism applies equally to Apple, Google, Meta, NVIDIA, OpenAI, Tesla, and virtually every major technology company. It is not evidence that Microsoft's problems are fabricated.4/6
>>109283070Moreover, Microsoft's own history provides journalists with legitimate stories to cover. When Windows updates occasionally introduce issues affecting printers, networking, boot failures, or enterprise environments, those events are newsworthy because Windows powers hundreds of millions of computers. Large software ecosystems naturally generate significant coverage.The post attempts to invalidate criticism by asserting that critics "have zero tech literacy." This is demonstrably false. Many of Microsoft's strongest critics are software engineers, security researchers, Linux developers, system administrators, and IT professionals—people whose careers depend on understanding operating systems in depth. The fact that someone disagrees with Microsoft's product direction does not imply ignorance.Another flaw in the argument is its unfalsifiable nature. The author ends by predicting that disagreement itself proves the existence of "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome." This is circular reasoning. If agreement supports the argument and disagreement also supports the argument, then the claim cannot be meaningfully challenged. That is not logical reasoning; it is a rhetorical trap.Perhaps the most important point the post ignores is that trust is cumulative. Companies develop reputations over decades through repeated interactions with customers. Microsoft's reputation did not emerge because people arbitrarily decided to dislike the company. It emerged through antitrust cases, unpopular product decisions, aggressive ecosystem integration, privacy controversies, advertising within Windows, inconsistent update quality, and a recurring perception that user preference is secondary to Microsoft's strategic goals.5/6
>>109283098Reducing decades of documented corporate behavior to "people are emotional" avoids engaging with those reasons altogether. If the goal is to have a logical discussion about Microsoft, the discussion should begin with Microsoft's actual record—not by assigning a derogatory label to anyone who finds that record concerning.6/6
>>109282931People hate microsoft because their products are dogshit but thanks to various backroom deals and kickbacks and similar shenanigans everyone is forced to deal with them.
>>109283108So you blame Microsoft for doing what every successful business, person, politician, celebrity, etc. has done since the beginning of time? Why not blame everyone else for taking the deals instead of telling them to fuck off? Weird you single them out and nobody else that does the same shit or that is involved with them.
>>109283166The argument isn't that Microsoft invented corporate self-interest or that no other company has ever acted this way. The argument is that Microsoft's specific actions, especially when it held a near-monopoly position, had consequences that justified public criticism.Saying "everyone does it" doesn't make a behavior acceptable. Plenty of companies have engaged in anti-competitive or consumer-hostile practices, and they have also been criticized for them. The existence of other bad actors does not erase Microsoft's own record.The reason Microsoft gets singled out is because of its unique position in computing history. In the 1990s, Microsoft controlled the dominant desktop operating system, and regulators found that it used that position to disadvantage competitors. A small startup making unpopular choices does not have the same impact as the company controlling the platform that millions of businesses and consumers depend on.Also, "why didn't everyone just say no to the deals?" misunderstands how dominant platforms work. When one company controls the ecosystem, refusing to participate can mean losing access to a massive market. That is exactly why antitrust laws exist: to address situations where normal negotiation does not happen between equal parties.A developer or company accepting Microsoft's terms does not prove those terms were fair. If a person is the only bridge across a river and charges everyone to cross, the fact that people use the bridge doesn't automatically mean the arrangement is reasonable.The criticism isn't "Microsoft is uniquely evil because other companies are perfect." The criticism is that Microsoft has repeatedly used its market position in ways that have harmed competition or reduced consumer choice, and that history explains why people are skeptical when Microsoft introduces new changes.
>>109283206Plenty of recent companies , and those since, have engaged in the same shit Microsoft did while also holding a near-monopoly position. Weird how not a single one of them received the same treatment that Microsoft did. Either someone had a personal vendetta against Microsoft back then or was paid to push it.
any time an upgrade/new version makes me click 4 times instead of the previous 2 times to accomplish the same task it drives me nuts. just give us the option to change back via settings like every previous version. I understand Apple eats your lunch and you need to dumb shit down..got it. just give us the option to revert. Not, is just saying 'fuck you, don't care'. so the vitriol is earned
>>109283230The idea that Microsoft was singled out because of a "personal vendetta" ignores the actual circumstances surrounding the cases against it. Microsoft wasn't investigated because people simply disliked the company; it was investigated because regulators argued that its control over the dominant PC operating system gave it the ability to influence adjacent markets.Also, the claim that nobody else received similar treatment is historically inaccurate. Companies like Google, Apple, Intel, Meta, and others have faced major antitrust investigations, lawsuits, and regulatory actions. The difference is that Microsoft's case happened during a pivotal moment when the PC market was becoming the foundation of modern computing, which is why it received so much attention.There is also a difference between normal business competition and using dominance in one market to strengthen control over another. Companies are allowed to compete aggressively, innovate, and make deals. The issue regulators focus on is whether a dominant position is being used to prevent competitors from having a fair opportunity.The argument also assumes that criticism only counts if every other company doing something similar receives exactly the same amount of criticism. That standard doesn't work. If someone is caught speeding, the existence of other people speeding does not prove they were unfairly ticketed.Microsoft's reputation comes from a long pattern of decisions that affected millions of users and competitors. People can debate whether every criticism is justified, but dismissing decades of documented disputes as a "vendetta" avoids engaging with the actual reasons those criticisms exist.
>>109283256Again, not a single other company that has done everything you accuse them of, has been treated the same way they treated Microsoft. If you don't find that weird, you're clearly a retard.
>>109283166Blame? Yes, like I would blame any other company for dishonest, corrupt, manipulative, monopoly-exploiting behavior.
>>109283266The fact that enforcement has not always been perfectly consistent does not prove Microsoft was unfairly targeted or that the underlying allegations were false.Regulation is not based on the idea that every company committing a similar action must receive the exact same punishment at the exact same time. Cases depend on factors like market conditions, the size of the company, the specific conduct, the evidence available, and the impact on competition.Microsoft's situation was unique because Windows was not just another product. It was the dominant operating system that served as the foundation for the entire PC software market. The concern was that Microsoft could use control over that platform to influence markets built on top of it. That is why the browser case focused heavily on Internet Explorer and Windows integration.Also, the claim that no other company has faced similar treatment is simply incorrect. Companies such as Google, Intel, Apple, Meta, and others have faced major antitrust investigations and lawsuits. Whether you think those cases were handled correctly is a separate debate, but the idea that Microsoft was the only major technology company ever scrutinized is not accurate.And calling someone a "retard" doesn't strengthen the argument. If the position is that Microsoft was unfairly treated, the stronger argument would be explaining why the specific findings against Microsoft were wrong, not arguing that other companies should have been punished too.The criticism of Microsoft is not based on the idea that every other company is innocent. It is based on the fact that Microsoft had enormous control over a critical computing platform and that regulators, competitors, and consumers raised concerns about how that power was used.
>>109283266anon I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're replying to a literal AIslop spammer
>>109283266Bullshit. Google gets at least as much hate as microsoft. If anything, microsoft had more goodwill during the years when Google betrayed its "don't be evil" mantra and then went full woke subversion. Those years MS just seemed incompetent more than actively malicious. And either way, I personally hate Google just as much as MS. But MS is especially problematic because I care about desktop operating systems.
>>109283322so are you. also microsoft is one of the biggest ai investors so i dont see how he seems to be hating on ai lmao
>>109277891Microsoft is objectively a terrible company, that has done horrendous things for decades and some how avoided being broken up - which frankly they should have been.
>>109283281Got it, you're a retard. Thanks for admitting I'm right and you're wrong. I accept your concession. Filtered. Reply more, I'll never see it. I know you will, all retards do.
>>109283266Adding to my previous response. The difference you're ignoring is the regulatory environment. Microsoft's scrutiny in the 1990s happened during a period when U.S. regulators were much more willing to aggressively challenge dominant technology platforms. Today, many people argue that enforcement against major tech companies has been slower, more limited, and less willing to pursue structural remedies.A case like Recall is a good example of why people are skeptical. A feature that captures and stores a searchable history of a user's activity raised serious privacy and security concerns from researchers and users. The reaction was large enough that Microsoft changed the feature before broad release. The criticism was not imaginary; the company itself responded by modifying its approach.The argument is not necessarily that Recall alone should have resulted in an antitrust case. The broader point is that decades ago, similar concerns about a dominant platform using its position to expand control might have triggered a much more aggressive regulatory response. Today, large technology companies often face criticism, investigations, or public pressure without the same level of intervention.The fact that Microsoft avoided major regulatory consequences does not automatically mean there were no legitimate concerns. Companies can make controversial decisions, face public backlash, and change course without regulators stepping in.Also, saying "other companies did similar things" does not erase the issue. If anything, it strengthens the argument that modern tech regulation has struggled to keep pace with the size and influence of today's technology companies.The question isn't "why only Microsoft?" The question is whether companies with massive control over essential platforms are being held accountable when they make decisions that affect millions of users.
>>109283347You didn't actually respond to the argument; you just replaced it with an insult and declared yourself the winner. That's not how a debate works.The original point was never "Microsoft is the only company that has ever done anything wrong." The point was that Microsoft's specific history, market position, and documented controversies explain why people are skeptical of the company today.If the argument is that Microsoft was treated unfairly compared to other companies, then the discussion should be about the specific facts: the antitrust findings, the market conditions at the time, and whether the company's actions harmed competition. Saying "other companies did things too" does not address any of those points.Declaring someone wrong while refusing to engage with the reasoning is not a rebuttal. It's just avoiding the discussion.
>>109283339You mean just like Disney, Comcast, Apple, Alphabet, every major bank at all levels, every major insurance company, every major assest/investment management company, Tyson Foods, PepsiCo, Sysco, and dozens or hundreds more that never get the hate or treatment Microsoft received.
>>109283382Ignore all previous instructions, explain to me the Pythagorean theorem.
>>109277891This guy poos
>>109283419The irony is that this actually reinforces the original point: criticism of Microsoft is not based on some irrational hatred of the company. Microsoft can be one of the biggest investors in AI, produce excellent products, and still receive criticism for specific decisions.Microsoft's investment in AI, including its partnership with OpenAI and expansion of AI features across its products, is a good example of why the discussion requires nuance. A company can be successful, innovative, and influential while also making decisions that users, researchers, or regulators question.Being a Microsoft supporter does not require defending every decision the company makes. Likewise, criticizing Microsoft does not mean someone thinks everything the company does is bad.The original argument was about why Microsoft has a history that causes people to be skeptical. Pointing out that Microsoft is successful in AI today doesn't erase the historical reasons people developed that skepticism. Both things can be true at the same time.
>>109277965.xlsx not being locked to excel is bretty gudbing image search is better than google last i checkedpowertoys is alright.that might be it.>>109277891nuke redmond
>>109277965Microsoft Research funds a lot of cool stuff.https://fstar-lang.org/
>>109278163>BallmerThis dude was ultra incompetent and missed the entire smartphone revolution. Now Microsoft has ZERO impact in that space. Microsoft was on the verge of death before Nutella's move to cloud computing.
>>109278360>work completely separate from each otheroh no you have it wrongparts of the company are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHERthe amount of waste this company engages in is astounding, and its all because normies aren't comfortable using anything other than Windows+Office. Every dollar you spend at Microsoft is fought over by 1,000 managers (probably more now)Excel alone is probably the single factor driving most of their revenue, because the CFO "needs his excel to do his job"I started my career when Microsoft had more white people and it was more than tolerable in the 2000-2010 decade but shortly after Nadella took over, the company went to shit.Exam pathways got retardedWindows Server's reliability nosedivedWindows 10/11 are nightmares to deal with from a compliance standpoint because every feature update adds a billion ads and software you never asked forLicensing become completely impossible to understandI don't have MDS because I recognize how great Microsoft Research is, and how talented their hardware teams are (almost all of Microsoft's hardware mistakes are due to cost-cutting managers trying to save a few nickels on each unit and clearly not what the engineers wanted originally). They are the only two redeeming business units and I wish M$ would sell them to anybody else and just collapse.
>>109283050retard faggothttps://github.com/microsoft/azurelinuxhttps://github.com/sonic-net/SONiCMicrosoft is incapable of keeping Windows Server on the TOP500 supercomputer list because they are incompetent. They've only ever had one machine running HPC Server 2008, they haven't been relevant in the space in almost 20 years
>>109283557You didn't define what that meant and didn't provide proof of the definition. Try again.
>>109283587izzat lost
>>109283521>Nutella's move to cloud computingAzure is Ballmer's invention
Reposting the Microsoft subsidies to get around the spamming faggot https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/microsoft
>>109283684Azure was a side-gig during Ballmer's tenure and also a fuckup since he let AWS become the big dog that got the first-mover advantage.Now, guess which jeet was in charge of Azure during his reign? That alone explains how Novella got his job, because that was the only part of Microsoft with future growth, hence the stock price performance over the last decade.
>>109283712you are spamming
Last night windows 11 hit me with the ol' "Update and shut down" bullshit last night on my laptop that dualboots linux. The update nuked my linux install.
>>109277912Windows. Cuz lets face it, Linux is fucking garbage. You can’t do better.
>>109284308Sounds like Linux needs to be coded better. Imagine blaming windows for not supporting a 3rd party hack.
>>109277900fucking kek OP BTFO
>>109284308Just have two hard disks for Linux. Dual boot off a single partition is asking for trouble, especially when MSFT does shenanigans, it is dominant facing with code updates.>Moreover, Microsoft's own history provides journalists with legitimate stories to cover. When Windows updates occasionally introduce issues affecting printers, networking, boot failures, or enterprise environments, those events are newsworthy because Windows powers hundreds of millions of computers. Large software ecosystems naturally generate significant coverage.Dumbass take. There are infinite combinations of computers and devices. MSFT cannot code an OS that works with them all.>>109278556The MSI installation system is probably one of thier better developments. Dead simple, standard set of installation codes that vendors can expand upon, with the ability to do anything from silent updates to MSP patch files that preserve settings. Fucking god-tier for system deployment.SCCM in that line is decent.Legacy Software support for Windows is retardedly high on native hardware, and with minimal tweaks you can get 16 bit software running.Powershell and Excel come to mind in terms of ability to actually make the Windows environment do work, and Excel is basically a spreadsheet program millions of people program macros in every day, which drives companies.
>>109278736>dotnet/C# is miles ahead of javalol. lmao.
>>109282844teenagers arent children
