> Downsize Microsoft
>
> The following appeared in Madison PC Users Group's Bits & PCs,
> Vol.17, No.12, December 1998:
>
> From Love to Hate: Fifteen Years of Microsoft Products
> by Daniel Brandt
> January 1998
>
> While I have only a modest amount of experience with Unix and
> Windows programming, already I find myself asking whether
> Microsoft merely evolved into their clumsy approach to Windows
> application development, or whether there is something more
> sinister going on. Why wouldn't it be possible to design Windows
> so that the time-sharing of processor power and peripheral
> resources is invisible to the applications programmer? Why does
> it have to be so difficult (and expensive) to write a Windows
> application? Is it possible that there are slicker ways to write
> Windows applications, but that Microsoft has reserved these for
> in-house programmers, with the intention that they will be able
> to outperform competitors? In other words, was Windows
> programming made intentionally difficult? Is Microsoft evil, or
> just plain lazy, or are they stupid?
>
> Microsoft is exactly the opposite of the friendly ham down the
> street. Bill Gates keeps leveraging his advantage, keeps raising
> the price of admission, and keeps lowering the productivity of
> computer users everywhere, while contributing little or nothing
> that's innovative or educational. If we downsize this blight on
> our future, someday 14-year-olds around the world may thank us
> once again.
>
> The same can be said for Windows. The more one uses Windows, the
> more one suspects that at some point, Microsoft engineers gave up
> trying to track down the source of quirky or bizarre behavior, or
> even outright crashes, and instead left it to the user to recover
> as best he could. After all, what's the user going to do? Switch
> to another operating system? (One hears chuckles from the
> Microsoft boardroom.) After 14 years of development, Microsoft's
> Notepad, a plain text editor, still can't open a file that's
> larger than about 60 K. (Let them eat Word, chuckle, chuckle.)
>
> Anyone who claims that Microsoft is innovative is 1) incredibly
> stupid or inexperienced in microcomputing, or 2) getting paid by
> Microsoft, perhaps secretly, or 3) all of the above.
>