|
HOME TOPICS ABOUT ME |
technofile Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983 Why weather Windows' crashes? Fight for a recall!July 8, 2001 By Al Fasoldt Copyright © 2001, Al Fasoldt Copyright © 2001, The Syracuse Newspapers When General Motors makes a mistake and you end up driving it, GM does its best to make things right. It recalls your car or truck. Recalls are a way of life in the auto business ? and in the tire business, too, as we've learned from Firestone's recall of the tires it made for the Ford Explorer. But they're unheard of in the field of software. When you buy bad programs ? or, perhaps more to the point, when bad programs are already installed on a computer you've purchased ? you're stuck. You can badger the store for a refund, but you'll be watching grass grow if you expect to get anything more from the store or the company that made the software. They won't compensate you for your lost time or pay you for the files you've lost. The biggest offender is that easy target known as Microsoft. The illegal monopoly Microsoft created in the software business, in which it has cornered 90 percent of the market for operating systems, keeps it from even the appearance of caring about how well its software works. You need look no further than Windows Me, the version of Windows forced on nearly everyone who buys a PC, to see what happens when consumers don't count. Windows Me is the most unreliable version of Windows ever produced ? something Microsoft itself knows ? yet the company that is making billions of dollars selling inferior software is not about to do its best to make things right. This is not hyperbole. You don't need to look far to see how little Microsoft cares about doing things right. When Microsoft came out with Windows 95 in the mid-1990s, the new computer operating system was plagued with bugs. It crashed and locked up the computers it was running on regularly. In the late'90s, Microsoft introduced a new version called Windows 98. If you'd believed in sweetness and light the year Windows 98 was introduced, you probably thought Microsoft had revised Windows to make it better. That's what I thought. How could I have been so silly? Windows 98 was even more troublesome than Windows 95. Microsoft had not set out to make Windows better; it had decided to make Windows flashier. And why should it have done anything different? Apart from the matter of a corporate conscience, something the company has never owned, Microsoft had no reason to make good on Windows. As long as consumers kept buying PCs and as long as Microsoft held onto its monopoly, it could do whatever it wanted. But things are different now. Consumers have better choices. Apple Computer has a new operating system for Macintosh computers that is both powerful and reliable. Consumers who already have PCs can install Linux and free themselves from crashes, lockups and Windows viruses. And our attitudes have changed. We now know that the next version of Windows, called XP, will force all users to register with Microsoft before the operating system will be allowed to run. Note well: Owners of Windows XP will have to apply for permission to use their own computers. BR> If, as a Windows XP user, you add something new to your PC, such as a scanner or CD burner, you'll have to reapply for permission to use your PC the next time Windows XP spots the change. I realize this sounds as if I'm joking. I'm not. As it now stands, Windows XP won't run unless you get direct permission from Microsoft. You'll also have to get renewed permission every time you change the hardware configuration of your PC. This is more than an example of a company out of touch. Even a Microsoft-friendly federal appeals court ruled last week that Microsoft needs to be punished for running an illegal monopoly. But you don't have to be a judge to know what Microsoft should do. Microsoft needs to recall Windows. Microsoft should be required to replace the badly designed versions of Windows with versions made to work right. No one would need to prove ownership of a Windows CD to get a replacement version, because all of us who own PCs have paid for Windows many times over. (Here's a known fact of Microsoft's monopoly: The company has forced PC manufacturers to pay it a licensing fee for every PC they make, even if some of those PCs don't come with Windows. So even if you bought a computer from a major manufacturer with Linux installed, you probably paid your tithe to Microsoft.) Can Microsoft make a version of Windows that runs right and doesn't crash? Of course. It has proven that already with Windows 2000. (Windows 2000 is the version of Windows that Microsoft refuses to advertise where consumers could see the ads. Do you see a pattern here?) Left to its own unique idea of corporate responsibility, Microsoft undoubtedly would continue to develop software that follows the XP model. I find that unacceptable. My computer is mine alone. It does not belong to a software company and should never require someone else's permission to operate. But we can change that. We can urge Microsoft to do what's right. We can demand action from our representatives in Congress. We can make it clear to everyone who will listen that Microsoft needs to recall Windows. Consumers deserve a computer operating system that works reliably. Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me are ubiquitously bad. They should be recalled and replaced by software that works. |