Microsoft piss me off. They take other people's ideas, rebadge them as their own, then market them at a high price. I don't know why Microsoft were trusted in the first place, but because they were, and are now, they have the power to cripple any other companies products. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they are shit at writing decent programs.
Microsoft have only ever made a couple of substantial releases. These were DOS, Windows 3.1 and Word 2.0. The rest of Microsoft's products, although clever and perhaps good, have not been groundbreaking or new. But Windows '95 is new, isn't it? No it isn't. The fact is that Win 95 uses a hell of a lot of 'old code' meaning that it is not new.
Certainly, it is new for the PC, but basically Windows '95 is a re-hash of the Mac System 7 and Amiga Workbench 3.0. Question: What makes windows '95 different from other Microsoft Low End OS's? It is 32-bit. The Amiga and Mac have had that for years, that was inevitable. It has windows where icons represent files, not just shortcuts... Now where have we seen that before?
The whole of Windows '95 is a seen before product. There is very little new to computing if not to PC computing, and the gruesome fact is that the industry has taken it up like a dry sponge because of Microsoft's pulling power. But on the PC, there is no serious alternative.
The bottom line is: It is a shame Microsoft has become too arrogant to release good products, because we are forced to put up with crap. But that's what happens when a company is in a monopoly position.

Matt [aka Tronix-D - mail him, see his home page.)

Send us your gripes!

Comment Index | Back to Home

Vision | News | Media