Originally posted by Unknown_K
I also think that is the same reason Amiga and mac fans hate the pc.. they just didnt grow up using one and dont use it enough to learn it (thats the reason I dont bother with linux)
Great points - everyone in this discussion has spoken a lot of sense. I'd like to target just why many other system users hate the PC and M$ however. That's why I'm quoting you Unknown, because it leads into my discussion nicely - I'm not picking on you as you've made some great points, just like everyone else!
Personally, I don't think preference for certain machines is all down to the level of familiarity we experience IF you’re a computer nut like me. I didn't grab a PC until 96, but my natural interest in computers meant I knew everything about PC's within a year. MS-DOS, Hardware, troubleshooting, how it's operating system works etc. just as I did with the Amiga, Archimedes, Atari ST and every other computer I've owned.
What I did notice after gaining this knowledge were the differences between the platforms and came to realise which were best without being brainwashed by marketing.
>>(the rest is a cut and paste from a post I made over at EMU-UK, but it seems to have absolute relevance here)<<
My dislike of M$ stems from the fact that they weren’t the innovators and pioneers of unique OS, in fact their products and hardware it ran on were rather crap in comparison to the competition.
Where they were ahead however was in marketing and targeting businesses through productive software, something that was poorly done by M$ competitors. Commodore and Acorn especially were really shite at pushing home there technological and OS advantages (especially in the business world) - read anywhere and it'll tell the same story. M$ simply exposed this weakness and became the best at integrating and then marketing other firms hard work into their own products. Considering these products had to run on PC's, I have to admit they did do a good job achieving this by the time Win 95 (anything before this OS was a joke, but well targeted and marketed) emerged but underneath it was a hell of a lot of code and CPU power disguising what was quite a poor platform overall.
Many of the same features offered by Win 95 already existed prior to it's release on superior hardware with micro (in comparison) kernels, requiring MUCH less resources and CPU power, like the Risc and Amiga OS, initially out back in 87! Due to these OS running very efficiently with the hardware, Workbench could be booted from a 800K floppy whilst Risc OS ran entirely from ROM (zero boot time)!
Overall my anger stems from the fact that M$ and the PC platform will be remembered as THE pioneers of computers and OS by most people. The truth is that inferior hardware and software came through and squashed the pioneering opposition through good marketing.
So it comes down to what you respect more - marketing skills, or innovative computer hardware and software. I respect the latter so I'm always going to have a distaste for M$ being able to successfully push an inferior product to the top back in the early nineties………….