Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products - Linux ; Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Microsoft Retaliates With 10 Reasons Not To Use Google Apps > > ,----[ Quote ] > | This, of course, brought Google even closer to rivaling Microsoft's > | Office suite, which has now spurred a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products

  1. Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:


    > Microsoft Retaliates With 10 Reasons Not To Use Google Apps
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | This, of course, brought Google even closer to rivaling Microsoft's
    > | Office suite, which has now spurred a reaction from the Redmond software
    > | giant.
    > |
    > | No, its not new software or updates for the popular productivity suite,
    > | but rather Microsoft's own reasoning on why businesses should NOT use
    > | Google Apps.
    > `----
    >
    >

    http://www.profy.com/2007/09/11/micr...e-google-apps/
    >
    > This isn't the behaviour of an abusive monopoly. It's vandalism. It's like
    > crashing the PS3 parties Sony organised. It's all orchestrated up high at
    > management level.
    >


    Ten reasons for not using MS remote apps.

    1. They are so f'ing slow (sorry, but sometimes f'ing is the only word that
    works) that users choose to avoid them, instead users pull the data local
    and then put it back. That may seem alright, but in an area of shared
    documents it isn't so kewl. Who would have believed that a bog standard
    user would rather learn how to ftp than waste time waiting for a remote
    application to come up!!! This is a new phernomenummum, erm, fur nom ee
    num, something like that.

    2. Badly implemented, they seem to load an entire Word/Excell/Outlook
    application onto the local machines. I sort of find it funny, it's like a
    poor man's idea of what a remote application should be like. UNIX/Linux
    were very much ahead of this in terms of remote applications many many
    years ago. Linux has got it right, MS have made a dogs bollocks out of it.
    (sorry, sometimes dog's bollocks is the only word that works).

    3. You think after the app has gone through the long long long
    slowwwwww download process that it will never happen ever again. It's local
    now so no need right? Wrong. It will go through this long long long
    download every day. Oh yes, I just heard a WinTroll's gears twitch, you
    were going to say that you can stop this by weakening the security level
    aren't you, and you can, but we are talking of company private data sitting
    on remote servers reaching you via an unsecure medium, only a WinDunce
    would weaken security. (Sorry, sometimes WinDunce is the only word that
    works). Particularly as we in the UNIX/Linux world know that you do not
    have to have weak security levels in order to have fast remote
    applications, all you need to do is implement it correctly.

    I've ran out of time, can someone fill out some of the other seven reasons
    please.


  2. Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products

    ____/ BearItAll on Thursday 13 September 2007 09:15 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Microsoft Retaliates With 10 Reasons Not To Use Google Apps
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | This, of course, brought Google even closer to rivaling Microsoft's
    >> | Office suite, which has now spurred a reaction from the Redmond software
    >> | giant.
    >> |
    >> | No, its not new software or updates for the popular productivity suite,
    >> | but rather Microsoft's own reasoning on why businesses should NOT use
    >> | Google Apps.
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    >

    http://www.profy.com/2007/09/11/micr...e-google-apps/
    >>
    >> This isn't the behaviour of an abusive monopoly. It's vandalism. It's like
    >> crashing the PS3 parties Sony organised. It's all orchestrated up high at
    >> management level.
    >>

    >
    > Ten reasons for not using MS remote apps.
    >
    > 1. They are so f'ing slow (sorry, but sometimes f'ing is the only word that
    > works) that users choose to avoid them, instead users pull the data local
    > and then put it back. That may seem alright, but in an area of shared
    > documents it isn't so kewl. Who would have believed that a bog standard
    > user would rather learn how to ftp than waste time waiting for a remote
    > application to come up!!! This is a new phernomenummum, erm, fur nom ee
    > num, something like that.
    >
    > 2. Badly implemented, they seem to load an entire Word/Excell/Outlook
    > application onto the local machines. I sort of find it funny, it's like a
    > poor man's idea of what a remote application should be like. UNIX/Linux
    > were very much ahead of this in terms of remote applications many many
    > years ago. Linux has got it right, MS have made a dogs bollocks out of it.
    > (sorry, sometimes dog's bollocks is the only word that works).
    >
    > 3. You think after the app has gone through the long long long
    > slowwwwww download process that it will never happen ever again. It's local
    > now so no need right? Wrong. It will go through this long long long
    > download every day. Oh yes, I just heard a WinTroll's gears twitch, you
    > were going to say that you can stop this by weakening the security level
    > aren't you, and you can, but we are talking of company private data sitting
    > on remote servers reaching you via an unsecure medium, only a WinDunce
    > would weaken security. (Sorry, sometimes WinDunce is the only word that
    > works). Particularly as we in the UNIX/Linux world know that you do not
    > have to have weak security levels in order to have fast remote
    > applications, all you need to do is implement it correctly.
    >
    > I've ran out of time, can someone fill out some of the other seven reasons
    > please.


    I can't recall the last time I produced something with Microsoft Office, but I
    think that the last time I used Word it was only to dump lots of source code
    (C+OpenGPL) into a single file and then print it. That was back in 2003. It
    wasn't even my computer. There was also a time in 2002 when I prepared some
    figure with Word because LaTeX could not put some objects together very fast.
    Of course, I could have used other tools, but didn't.

    A year and a half ago, just before I left one of my jobs, about half a dozen
    Dell boxes were dumped in my Office. They were Pentium IIIs, IIRC, which could
    no longer handle Microsoft Office at the students' clusters (that's their main
    use of PCs there). They needed to be replaced. An 'upgrade'. 2006. Pentium 3.
    Not good enough for XP+Office 2003.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Microsof(fshore)t Window(ntime)s Vista(gnating)
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 108 total, 1 running, 107 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  3. Re: [News] Microsoft Starts Smear Campaign Against Google's Products

    BearItAll wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Microsoft Retaliates With 10 Reasons Not To Use Google Apps
    >>

    > http://www.profy.com/2007/09/11/micr...e-google-apps/
    >>
    >> This isn't the behaviour of an abusive monopoly. It's vandalism.
    >> It's like crashing the PS3 parties Sony organised.


    If one short response to a competitor is "vandalism", what do you call your
    year-long, lying-spamming-diarrhea-spewing, thousands-of-anti-MS-posts
    tantrum on cola?



    >> It's all orchestrated up high at management level.


    uh oh. Another "MS insider" pipes up. You and Rex ought to get together to
    compare notes^H^H^H^H^Hfantasies.




    > I've ran out of time, can someone fill out some of the other seven
    > reasons please.


    Bored yourself silly after just 3, eh?




+ Reply to Thread