5 ms·
you're aware that most of us didn't get that bias by accident, right? microsoft has a long, LONG history of being not a good company to rely on or work with. th
by allenbrunson 17y ago
you're aware that most of us didn't get that bias by accident, right? microsoft has a long, LONG history of being not a good company to rely on or work with. therefore, anything coming from them has to be especially compelling before people here are going to get excited about it.
- jimbobimbo 17y agoOh, please. It's not A that have completely unpredictable app store approval process, or not G that may release a free version of your beloved startup anytime they feel the urge to get more eyeballs for their properties. It's definitely more reliable than M, yeah.
- fnid 17y agoI'd say Microsoft's history is quite the opposite. The oft cited example is that Visicalc, from the 80's still works! I'd say that's a pretty reliable platform. How many apple products from the 80's run on Leopard? And on the other side, lots of google products are already defunct and they aren't even half M's age.
- rbanffy 17y agoYou define "reliable" as "can run Visicalc". I am not sure this is a good one. For me, reliable is "works every time the way I expect it to work". According to this, Windows is pretty reliable. The trick is in my expectations.
- allenbrunson 17y agohow about asking the guys at stac electronics how reliable they think windows is! that's the kind of thing i'm talking about.