This is my official Why I Hate Windows post. From now on, if you assume I hate Windows because it's the latest trend, you are being stupid.

Parts of Windows are not bad. There are random little annoyances, like the user-friendly at the expense of power interface, but as an OS it's not bad. However, as a corporation it is really awful. The Wikipedia criticism section shows more about what I'm saying, but basically:

Trusted computing--This puts ultimate control of the machine in the hands of the manufacturers, not the owner. Security "features" are implemented at the hardware level by manufacturers, and hence the computer is secured, but the owner does not have override power.

Also, Microsoft's attitude towards open source software is annoying. It has recently accused Linux of violating patents ^[1] which may well have existed in Linux/Unix before MS patented them.

I will add more as I think of it.

EDIT:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/who_owns_your_c.html

Some links to more data about Trusted Computing.

Most amusing. I feel so lifted to have been in the presence of your paramount humor.

Probably offtopic, but re: >,----------[++++++++++>,----------][<][.>]

Why do the second and third loops ever enter if the first one has exited? I could understand a case for:

>,----------[++++++++++>,----------]<[<]>[.>]

But, you know, I may misunderstanding.

I was quite upset when I heard about trusted computing a few years ago, and posted a few rants here on the matter.

But a few things happened. Microsoft released Vista, which has been widely criticised as bloated and slow. I suspect that much of the problem is the DRM they've added to it at every level, necessary to enforce trusted computing. However, there's no real way to know for sure.

And then things seemed to turn around. Companies started selling music DRM-free. The OASIS document format started gathering momentum, many governments around the world decided that their documents should be saved in an open format. The EU hit Microsoft with hundred-million-dollar fines for preventing competitors from competing with them. (This was years ago, and Microsoft still hasn't complied with the judgement, and is still paying hundred-million-dollar fines). And Vista uptake was slow, with many people preferring to stay with XP.

Vista has everything Microsoft needs to take complete control of your computer. But if Microsoft were to turn the "Trusted Computing" switch to on, there would be a tremendous public outcry. Vista would be perceived as crippled. Maybe Microsoft could have gotten away with this five years ago. But too much has changed, IMO.

Trusted computing remains Microsoft's wet dream. But I no longer see it working out for them.

IMAO, those who do business (either buying products or working in their employ) are aiding and abetting a truly harmful element of the information technology world. I'm a bit of a hypocrite in this, since I'm trying to make a game for Winduhs (to get the $$$) which if successful would entrench Winduhs ever deeper, however immeasurably small an amount. I'll go kill myself now...

Replace your sig with a link to this thread, no one will ever have to ask you why you hate Microsoft.

Please elaborate.

So open source stuff is exempt from laws and rules? You can bet your ass if someone over at Linux had a patent that MS was violating, they'd be the first ones to go after them.

I personally do not see where Vista is that bloated. There isn't DRM everyplace like people seem to think, in fact, I haven't seen any type of DRM that wasn't present in XP.

This book by Richard Stallman pretty much sums up my ideas about the subject. It's available for download as PDF.

Oh GNU propaganda. Sorry, I don't buy into their viral pushing of their ideals on everything that comes close to the products they've stolen anymore than you buy into Microsoft.

Don't get me wrong, I like open source. As long as it has a sane license.

Stolen?

Elaborate, please. And how is GPL not "sane"?

Examples of licenses I'd consider sane are the MIT license and the BSD license. Hell, when I release open source stuff I usually use one of those two licenses.

Open Source steals stuff? Such as? I admit they re-use ideas such as spreadsheets, telnet, cp or whatever, but they're coding their own versions instead of simply using the source or binaries of other companies. The viral aspect comes from they're being leery of M$ (and others) from grabbing their stuff like they did Word Perfect or Stacker. The programming guidelines for GNU stuff specifically mention how to make a "clone" quite different from the original Unix program, mention how to make sure the programmers are "clean" (haven't seen original source) etc.

If you don't like the GPL don't use GPL licenced software. It really is that easy.

Its only viral if you're physically forced to use the software.