You don't see it because you're not a Linux user. Especially when you step outside Slashdot, the Windows fanboys start howling up a storm over Ubuntu's "success."
Well, they are trying to trick people by getting you to buy an OS (Vista Basic) that lacked quite an astounding array of features that made Vista worth upgrading, if there were any. So hopefully MS made some changes to that scheme, because Basic isn't worth the disc it's printed on. That's what he's asking here.
But, see, Microsoft hasn't added any new features worth tooting about, and they're making us pay for poor performance. Other than advanced GUI nonsense, Win7 really offers nothing more than XP did, and at a (mandated) price.
My schools uses IE6 on everything. They refuse to let you install Firefox and even block it in their firewall. Are they asking for viruses? It's such a pain to use a browser that doesn't have tabs (though the huge, screen eating tabs in IE7 didn't help much).
I used Windows 7. There are no advantages. It runs slower than XP, and supports much less (as of beta, anyway).
It's not that Windows 7 is bad, it's just that there's no real reason to love it. If we can't love it, then what's the point in spending a hundred dollars to upgrade to what is basically Vista SP2?
Web 2.0 = NEED MORE CLICKS.
The article has it right. That model may be nice and all, but in execution, it's not something that will make money in the long term, at least not to the amount that corporations are hoping. They won't "die," (the revenue is usually enough to be self-sustaining) but the buzz around them will fall slowly off when people realize, "Hey, this won't make me a million dollars."
When you first start up Windows 7, it has a little task list for you, like "Get Anti-Virus" and whatnot, in the bottom right corner. They could very easily make a little app that downloads a browser for you, and remind you to "download a browser - click here."
Because it was cheap (only $5) and you could share it with your friends (CC). People like both. People buy both. Are the music labels even listening? It works!
Mint is Ubuntu with a whole bunch of crap taped on that nobody needs or wants. MEPIS is the new Kubuntu, but for those who don't mind Gnome it's kind of a "me too" situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Because 20 or 30 textbooks are expensive ($80 a pop!) and get outdated in five years.
You've got the burden of proof here.
You don't see it because you're not a Linux user. Especially when you step outside Slashdot, the Windows fanboys start howling up a storm over Ubuntu's "success."
Well, they are trying to trick people by getting you to buy an OS (Vista Basic) that lacked quite an astounding array of features that made Vista worth upgrading, if there were any. So hopefully MS made some changes to that scheme, because Basic isn't worth the disc it's printed on. That's what he's asking here.
But, see, Microsoft hasn't added any new features worth tooting about, and they're making us pay for poor performance. Other than advanced GUI nonsense, Win7 really offers nothing more than XP did, and at a (mandated) price.
I'm running Firefox 3.0.5 with Adblock on under Xubuntu and I got 71. I didn't test it without the plugin, though.
Ubuntu 8.04 shipped with Firefox 3.0 beta.
My schools uses IE6 on everything. They refuse to let you install Firefox and even block it in their firewall. Are they asking for viruses? It's such a pain to use a browser that doesn't have tabs (though the huge, screen eating tabs in IE7 didn't help much).
You would care if those three movies that were all similar if those were the only three movies that year.
MSNBC tried being the opposite of Fox, and failed. I'm talking as a somewhat liberal fellow here.
I ran it. It's boring as hell, and not worth my money. I'll stick with Ubuntu/XP, thanks. Nice try.
What does the "average consumer" have to do with this?
What if a computer of yours dies? You can't exactly go out a buy an XP machine anymore; well, not without a price. That's worth complaining about.
I used Windows 7. There are no advantages. It runs slower than XP, and supports much less (as of beta, anyway). It's not that Windows 7 is bad, it's just that there's no real reason to love it. If we can't love it, then what's the point in spending a hundred dollars to upgrade to what is basically Vista SP2?
Web 2.0 = NEED MORE CLICKS. The article has it right. That model may be nice and all, but in execution, it's not something that will make money in the long term, at least not to the amount that corporations are hoping. They won't "die," (the revenue is usually enough to be self-sustaining) but the buzz around them will fall slowly off when people realize, "Hey, this won't make me a million dollars."
But even though both KDE and Gnome have browsers, nobody uses them. They're free to not include them. When's the last time you've used Epiphany?
When you first start up Windows 7, it has a little task list for you, like "Get Anti-Virus" and whatnot, in the bottom right corner. They could very easily make a little app that downloads a browser for you, and remind you to "download a browser - click here."
Because it was cheap (only $5) and you could share it with your friends (CC). People like both. People buy both. Are the music labels even listening? It works!
"You can't "break" an MP3 like a scratched CD." Unless you're running an unpatched Windows 7 beta. http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/05/warning-windows-7-beta-could-corrupt-your-mp3s
Excuse me, I think the correct term for that would be "Japanimation."
Mint is Ubuntu with a whole bunch of crap taped on that nobody needs or wants. MEPIS is the new Kubuntu, but for those who don't mind Gnome it's kind of a "me too" situation.
I couldn't delete something = not ready for desktop...? Then no OS is ready for the desktop, I guess...
Television just allows Darwinism to flourish.
The FSF don't even want you *suggesting* to download non-free stuff. Debian tries to be as close to free as they'll get.
All Debian ships with on CD1 is a clean GNOME with all the little apps included. I uninstall all that crap too.