Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to
Permalink for comment 545647
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

I see you've resorted to the "if you can't counter argument, then change the argument" method of trolling the interwebs.

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

You're now moving the goal posts as 'de facto standard' isn't the same as 'open standard'. You were arguing about open standards.

Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list:

ODF support was one second to MS's own proprietary formats. So if Microsoft cared about open standards, then they'd have switched to an established and widely supported format instead of creating their own one from scratch.

C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.

Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.

However that's besides the point as you're now arguing about the quality of the IDE, which absolutely nothing to do with the open standards of languages.

What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

I guess if you've only ever used MS technology then you're bound to be ignorant to the rest of the IT industry and their established standards ;)

KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the conversation.

You're hardly one to comment on the relevance of example given the number of times you've changed the argument to suit your bias.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.

2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.

What's more, you're just picking two arbitrary specifications chosen specifically because IE happened get there first. However when you look at the overall performance (eg using ACID as a benchmark), you'll see that IE was consistently one of the last browsers to meet standards (and that's even excluding Opera!)

Reply Parent Score: 10