It'll be a race to the bottom for Win8 PC prices now. That's the only way they'll get them off the shelves.
You mean it wasn't a race to the bottom earlier? PCs have always been about cutthroat lower prices. Don't expect to see them too cheap though, we don't see Chromebooks around for $50 even though they sold about the same as the Kin.
First, the signature live of PCs are not at a $100 premium. That's the cost if you take your PC that you bought somewhere else to them for cleaning up.
Second, Windows 8 does not "come with so much crapware". Some OEM PCs do. For example, Vizio machines have zero crapware and so does any PC that is sold at the Microsoft Stores. So, you are making this stuff up.
Perhaps you should share your VM's configuration or check out if there are updates to your VM software. There might be something wrong with the hardware emulation. I've been running Windows 8 and previews from a year on my 6 year old HTPC and it has 100% uptime except for reboots for updates. Anyway, my point stands, that bluescreens were much more of a problem in XP/ME/Windows 98 than now and almost all are because of things like bad hardware/RAM/drivers etc.
Windows 8 is the definition of bloated. It adds a ton of new features that make tablet use more appealing, but most people aren't running it on a tablet. Thus, you are carrying around all of this tablet crap when all you want to do is use your desktop/laptop.
Can you quantify the effect of this so called bloat in Windows 8 in an objective or reproducible way compared to Windows 7?
All the benchmarks and real life usage I have seen show Windows 8 to boot faster and be as fast as Windows 7 at worst. How is that more bloated?
Does anyone have any objective benchmark or reference for this? This is not true at all on the 4 machines I used daily (Work PC/Home Desktop/Laptop/HTPC). The last OS that slowed down with more patches and usage was XP.
Also, XP didn't start off fast for me. It was slower than ME on the machines at the time. Of course, Vista was much more bloated in the beginning though.
Your objection can't take away the fact that this really is the rule: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away." The rule is not just about performance - it's also about freedom to use your own data.
Even with all your rant about your deep knowledge of MS, the fact remains that my 6 year old AMD Dell HTPC(a hand me down from work) that originally came with Vista speeded up quite a bit with Windows 7 and then even more with Windows 8. All this only one 1 gig of RAM but I upgraded it to 2 after getting a stick free from work. It boots faster, plays 1080p videos out of the box, even Divx/Xvid avi files and mp4 files, so I don't see the point about taking away the freedom to use my own data.
As I said, get real with your criticisms and perhaps actually use a Vista era machine with Windows 8 before spouting some armchair speculation nonsense about people/managers at Microsoft or whatever as if you're an insider. Which kind of own data is Microsoft preventing you from using or locking you out from on Windows?
I am pretty sure making a few tens of thousands of machines(lets be real about demand for such a device) with the all the above features will cost much much more than the $500+ per each machine you're offering.
WTF? Slashdot is referencing a comment on Geekwire as a basis for people installing Linux? How low can it go? Idiot submitters like theodp and symbolset are turning Slashdot into a anti-Microsoft tabloid rather than any place for serious discussion. Not surprising that people with half a brain are ditching Slashdot in droves in disgust.
Not true since Vista. Slashdot is full of folks who've last used Windows more than 10 years ago and thus complain of things like bluescreens, bloat etc. which makes them look like idiots.
Get with the times and at least update your hate machine.
Symbian was even worse. They had different branches of code for each phone and they were each run by middle managers who were always at loggerheads with each other and refused to merge code from their competing teams. Not to mention they always tried to scuttle any move away from Symbian.
Do you really think that the makers of an operating system which requires 3rd party AV to correct its own security shortcomings devised secure boot to protect users from malware?
You mean the Linux folks designed UEFI Secure boot?
I repeat it again, If you want to secure the bios put a jumper before the write pin of the eprom/flash memory/whatever. Those who can't open the case and locate it are surely not qualified for a bios upgrade. I made one firmware upgrade in the last 15 years on my machines, and that upgrade was necessary only if I wanted 64bit linux.
Secure boot is not about the BIOS, it is about bootkits. You don't know what you're talking about and still get modded +4 interesting, typical Slashdot, really. See below for an example.
TDL4 is the most recent high tech and widely spread member of the TDSS family rootkit, targeting x64 operating systems too such as Windows Vista and Windows 7. One of the most striking features of TDL4 is that it is able to load its kernel-mode driver on systems with an enforced kernel-mode code signing policy (64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista and 7) and perform kernel-mode hooks with kernel-mode patch protection policy enabled.
When the driver is loaded into kernel-mode address space it overwrites the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the disk by sending SRB (SCSI Request Block) packets directly to the miniport device object, then it initializes its hidden file system. The bootkit’s modules are written into the hidden file system from the dropper.
The TDL4 bootkit controls two areas of the hard drive one is the MBR and other is the hidden file system created at the time of malware deployment. When any application reads the MBR, the bootkit changes data and returns the contents of the clean MBR i.e. prior to the infection, and also it takes care of Infected MBR by protecting it from overwriting.
The hidden file system with the malicious components also gets protected by the bootkit. So if any application is making an attempt to read sectors of the hard disk where the hidden file system is stored, It will return zeroed buffer instead of the original data.
The bootkit contains code that performs additional checks to prevent the malware from the cleanup. At every start of the system TDL4 bootkit driver gets loaded and initialized properly by performing tasks as follows: Reads the contents of the boot sector, compares it with the infected image stored in hidden file system, if it finds any difference between these two images it rewrites the infected image to the boot sector. Sets the DriverObject field of the miniport device object to point to the bootkit’s driver object and also hooks the DriverStartIo field of the miniport’s driver object. If kernel debugging is enabled then this TDL4 does not install any of it’s components.
TDL4 Rootkit hooks the ATAPI driver i.e. standard windows miniport drivers like atapi.sys. It keeps Device Object at lowest in the device stack, which makes a lot harder to dump TDL4 files.
All these striking features have made TDL4 most notorious Windows rootkit and it is also very important to mention that the key to its success is the boot sector infection.
Another bit:
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where it monitors for write operations. In case of write operation targeted at the MBR sector, it is changed to read operation. This way it is trying to bypass repair operation by Security Products.
If someone is able to partition their hard disk to carve out a Linux partition, one would expect them to be able to tweak a BIOS setting. Already for many PCs you need to change the boot order in the BIOS to boot a Linux CD.
>This is about making life more difficult for non-MS OSes, and reverting the mistake that was the open x86 platform.
Not really, there are some nasty bootkits that load even before Windows and any antivirus can, and then hook themselves to the filesystem to hide themselves.
Press Win + D to show the Desktop, then press Alt+F4 to show the shutdown dialog, and finally, press Enter to shut down.
>(The other peeve: forcing me to have an email address tied to the Windows 8 install)
You can use a local account instead, it's a little hidden during the install but doable. You can also remove association with your Microsoft account at anytime and use it as a local account.
Or his various hate filled diatribes on Google and Android? Or how he stated that Android would never overtake the iPhone? And then how he tried to muddy the waters by adding the iPad numbers to claim iOS' superiority? After even that failed, he(and his chums like Siegler) resorted to calling the Apple winner over Android because it takes 80% of the mobile profits! Like how MS wins the server OS market and the web server market and the IDE market with Windows Server, IIS and Visual Studio over Linux, Apache/nginx etc.
For proof of his partisanship see his analysis of Apple's forced 30% cut of in-app purchases over which it kicked out a number of apps.
Summary: Apple does it because it can and people complaining are doing so because they're jealous they can't do the same thing.
In short, he's nothing but a partisan hack. Actually anyone would be, if they could earn $3000 per RSS ad while lounging around in pyjamas looking for tidbits of news and "analysis" to post pandering to the typical type of audience he attracts.
Metro design elements date back to at least 2006 with the Zune and evolved in 2008 with the new Xbox 360 UI. The font Microsoft uses for Metro is Segoe and dates back to 2004. Seriously, I know Slashdot is anti MS, but this is just getting ridiculous... first a post about how only 25% of Windows 8 prefer the OS to other versions of Windows, when 74% of those polled say they never even used Windows 8, and now this?
If you want to see some Slashdot comedy gold, you should go back and read some of the past anti-Microsoft stories and comments on Slashdot.
Every version of MS Office from 2000 onward supports the new XML formats if the Compatibility Pack is installed
Customers send doc files and expect you to read them since almost everyone else uses Office. Sending a reply back to your clients or people at other companies saying, "Hey, install this addon and send it back in DOCX format" will only make *you* seem to be incompetent and a waster of time compared to your competition using MS Office.
You can convert the doc and xls files locally, but isn't the whole point of using Google Apps to avoid having to have a copy of Microsoft Office? If you need to purchase a copy of Office to read the old formats anyway, you might as well not go the Google Apps route at all.
Thanks for a better response, though I don't agree completely with you. Apple painted itself into the DTP corner neither by design and nor by choice. They just couldn't deal with the tsunami of IBM-PC clones from Compaq, Dell, HP etc. that MS very cunningly licensed DOS/Windows to. Apple's computers were general purpose computers able to run any applications, but they failed to attract developers like MS was able to and the prices kept it within the reach of only graphic designers and not the general public. In that sense, they were and are competing with Microsoft. A college kid goes to Best Buy and looks around for a laptop, and might just pick the Macbook Air instead of an Asus Ultrabook. Not only DTP users use Macs, and that's especially true nowadays.
They also make an OS which is a miserable failure. The only reason Microsoft is still in existence is due to anti-competitive behavior and vendor lock-in. Microsoft is currently trying to recast itself as a company capable of being in competition with Apple once again. They have failed miserably for the simple reason that they cannot possibly do it. They are incompetent morons
While MS did have luck like IBM picking DOS for the OS, they did make software in those times which was simply better than the competition. Office Word, Excel, Powerpoint etc. lagged behind their competitors like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. but by the typical 4th version or so, they were just better in objective ways and thus won the market. Did you ever try using Lotus Notes? Try it, you'd pay a million to run screaming to Outlook or Pine within a day. IE 4 and 5 were similarly better than Netscape 4 while Netscape didn't have a major version for 3 years smack in the middle of the dot com boom while implementing a new version.
Windows 95 was similarly better than any competition out there, and still OpenOffice or whatever Exchange/AD clone don't have the features and polish of MS Office/Exchange/AD.
The LAMP stack had success on the server side, but OpenOffice, Zimbra, OpenLDAP etc. have nothing on the competition. While I do agree that lock-in etc. played a role, you're underestimating the mis-steps made by competitors and that MS' software was actually better at the time it beat the rivals.
You're pathetic, treally. No one wanted to compare Apple then and now, the question was "Was and is Apple a competitor/rival to Microsoft Windows then and now". And your retarded answer was no, and then you try to work around that bs with nonsense rationalizations and personal attacks. People's choices while wanting to buy computers for the past 25 years is not quantum physics You still cannot answer my question "What almost killed Apple? Was it not Microsoft?".
Someone told me Slashdot is mostly left with retarded circlejerking karmawhoring anti-MS zealots who mod each other up and that people with half a clue about reality have already left. Maybe I should just leave you and others in peace here and agree with you, you're beyond retarded. Just continue with your stupid karmawhoring posts like a frog in a well.
You failed to explain why Apple *almost* died when it didn't have any competition, and you then implied that 'but Apple didn't die' is a valid rebuttal to me asking you what almost killed Apple. That shows your lack of reading comprehension. Again, what almost killed Apple if not Windows?
Try telling any decent tech folks you meet that Apple does not compete with Microsoft Windows because it makes hardware. Then watch as they laugh out loud and talk behind your back about your mental retardation.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be a race to the bottom for Win8 PC prices now. That's the only way they'll get them off the shelves.
You mean it wasn't a race to the bottom earlier? PCs have always been about cutthroat lower prices. Don't expect to see them too cheap though, we don't see Chromebooks around for $50 even though they sold about the same as the Kin.
He said "better".
First, the signature live of PCs are not at a $100 premium. That's the cost if you take your PC that you bought somewhere else to them for cleaning up.
Second, Windows 8 does not "come with so much crapware". Some OEM PCs do. For example, Vizio machines have zero crapware and so does any PC that is sold at the Microsoft Stores. So, you are making this stuff up.
Perhaps you should share your VM's configuration or check out if there are updates to your VM software. There might be something wrong with the hardware emulation. I've been running Windows 8 and previews from a year on my 6 year old HTPC and it has 100% uptime except for reboots for updates. Anyway, my point stands, that bluescreens were much more of a problem in XP/ME/Windows 98 than now and almost all are because of things like bad hardware/RAM/drivers etc.
Windows 8 is the definition of bloated. It adds a ton of new features that make tablet use more appealing, but most people aren't running it on a tablet. Thus, you are carrying around all of this tablet crap when all you want to do is use your desktop/laptop.
Can you quantify the effect of this so called bloat in Windows 8 in an objective or reproducible way compared to Windows 7?
All the benchmarks and real life usage I have seen show Windows 8 to boot faster and be as fast as Windows 7 at worst. How is that more bloated?
>7 slowed down on the first SP.
Does anyone have any objective benchmark or reference for this? This is not true at all on the 4 machines I used daily (Work PC/Home Desktop/Laptop/HTPC). The last OS that slowed down with more patches and usage was XP.
Also, XP didn't start off fast for me. It was slower than ME on the machines at the time. Of course, Vista was much more bloated in the beginning though.
Your objection can't take away the fact that this really is the rule: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away." The rule is not just about performance - it's also about freedom to use your own data.
Even with all your rant about your deep knowledge of MS, the fact remains that my 6 year old AMD Dell HTPC(a hand me down from work) that originally came with Vista speeded up quite a bit with Windows 7 and then even more with Windows 8. All this only one 1 gig of RAM but I upgraded it to 2 after getting a stick free from work. It boots faster, plays 1080p videos out of the box, even Divx/Xvid avi files and mp4 files, so I don't see the point about taking away the freedom to use my own data.
As I said, get real with your criticisms and perhaps actually use a Vista era machine with Windows 8 before spouting some armchair speculation nonsense about people/managers at Microsoft or whatever as if you're an insider. Which kind of own data is Microsoft preventing you from using or locking you out from on Windows?
I am pretty sure making a few tens of thousands of machines(lets be real about demand for such a device) with the all the above features will cost much much more than the $500+ per each machine you're offering.
Thanks for the standard, karmawhoring typical Slashdot drivel.
WTF? Slashdot is referencing a comment on Geekwire as a basis for people installing Linux? How low can it go? Idiot submitters like theodp and symbolset are turning Slashdot into a anti-Microsoft tabloid rather than any place for serious discussion. Not surprising that people with half a brain are ditching Slashdot in droves in disgust.
Not true since Vista. Slashdot is full of folks who've last used Windows more than 10 years ago and thus complain of things like bluescreens, bloat etc. which makes them look like idiots.
Get with the times and at least update your hate machine.
Which Surface keyboard do you want me to look at? There's a Touch Cover and also a Type cover if you want keyboard travel.
Typical kneejerk Slashdot ignorance.
>An unmodifiable bios is safe without bothering with encryptions schemes.
An unmodifiable bios is still vulnerable to the bootkit I posted the details about. Secure boot is not.
Symbian was even worse. They had different branches of code for each phone and they were each run by middle managers who were always at loggerheads with each other and refused to merge code from their competing teams. Not to mention they always tried to scuttle any move away from Symbian.
Do you really think that the makers of an operating system which requires 3rd party AV to correct its own security shortcomings devised secure boot to protect users from malware?
You mean the Linux folks designed UEFI Secure boot?
http://www.rootkit.nl/projects/rootkit_hunter.html
I repeat it again, If you want to secure the bios put a jumper before the write pin of the eprom/flash memory/whatever. Those who can't open the case and locate it are surely not qualified for a bios upgrade.
I made one firmware upgrade in the last 15 years on my machines, and that upgrade was necessary only if I wanted 64bit linux.
Secure boot is not about the BIOS, it is about bootkits. You don't know what you're talking about and still get modded +4 interesting, typical Slashdot, really. See below for an example.
TDL4 is the most recent high tech and widely spread member of the TDSS family rootkit, targeting x64 operating systems too such as Windows Vista and Windows 7. One of the most striking features of TDL4 is that it is able to load its kernel-mode driver on systems with an enforced kernel-mode code signing policy (64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista and 7) and perform kernel-mode hooks with kernel-mode patch protection policy enabled.
When the driver is loaded into kernel-mode address space it overwrites the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the disk by sending SRB (SCSI Request Block) packets directly to the miniport device object, then it initializes its hidden file system. The bootkit’s modules are written into the hidden file system from the dropper.
The TDL4 bootkit controls two areas of the hard drive one is the MBR and other is the hidden file system created at the time of malware deployment. When any application reads the MBR, the bootkit changes data and returns the contents of the clean MBR i.e. prior to the infection, and also it takes care of Infected MBR by protecting it from overwriting.
The hidden file system with the malicious components also gets protected by the bootkit. So if any application is making an attempt to read sectors of the hard disk where the hidden file system is stored, It will return zeroed buffer instead of the original data.
The bootkit contains code that performs additional checks to prevent the malware from the cleanup. At every start of the system TDL4 bootkit driver gets loaded and initialized properly by performing tasks as follows: Reads the contents of the boot sector, compares it with the infected image stored in hidden file system, if it finds any difference between these two images it rewrites the infected image to the boot sector. Sets the DriverObject field of the miniport device object to point to the bootkit’s driver object and also hooks the DriverStartIo field of the miniport’s driver object. If kernel debugging is enabled then this TDL4 does not install any of it’s components.
TDL4 Rootkit hooks the ATAPI driver i.e. standard windows miniport drivers like atapi.sys. It keeps Device Object at lowest in the device stack, which makes a lot harder to dump TDL4 files.
All these striking features have made TDL4 most notorious Windows rootkit and it is also very important to mention that the key to its success is the boot sector infection.
Another bit:
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where it monitors for write operations. In case of write operation targeted at the MBR sector, it is changed to read operation. This way it is trying to bypass repair operation by Security Products.
If someone is able to partition their hard disk to carve out a Linux partition, one would expect them to be able to tweak a BIOS setting. Already for many PCs you need to change the boot order in the BIOS to boot a Linux CD.
>This is about making life more difficult for non-MS OSes, and reverting the mistake that was the open x86 platform.
Not really, there are some nasty bootkits that load even before Windows and any antivirus can, and then hook themselves to the filesystem to hide themselves.
With only keyboard, you can do this:
Press Win + D to show the Desktop, then press
Alt+F4 to show the shutdown dialog, and finally, press
Enter to shut down.
>(The other peeve: forcing me to have an email address tied to the Windows 8 install)
You can use a local account instead, it's a little hidden during the install but doable. You can also remove association with your Microsoft account at anytime and use it as a local account.
http://www.walkernews.net/2012/08/20/how-to-setup-windows-8-to-use-local-account-and-not-microsoft-account/
http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-tip-convert-local-account-microsoft-account-143456
You mean read his stupid crap snarky sneering comparisons on Amazon's earnings vs. Apple's ?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/07/27/amzn-profit-correction
Or calling Apple's competitors turds?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/01/nokia-nail-polish
Or his various hate filled diatribes on Google and Android? Or how he stated that Android would never overtake the iPhone? And then how he tried to muddy the waters by adding the iPad numbers to claim iOS' superiority? After even that failed, he(and his chums like Siegler) resorted to calling the Apple winner over Android because it takes 80% of the mobile profits! Like how MS wins the server OS market and the web server market and the IDE market with Windows Server, IIS and Visual Studio over Linux, Apache/nginx etc.
For proof of his partisanship see his analysis of Apple's forced 30% cut of in-app purchases over which it kicked out a number of apps.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent
Summary: Apple does it because it can and people complaining are doing so because they're jealous they can't do the same thing.
In short, he's nothing but a partisan hack. Actually anyone would be, if they could earn $3000 per RSS ad while lounging around in pyjamas looking for tidbits of news and "analysis" to post pandering to the typical type of audience he attracts.
Metro design elements date back to at least 2006 with the Zune and evolved in 2008 with the new Xbox 360 UI. The font Microsoft uses for Metro is Segoe and dates back to 2004. Seriously, I know Slashdot is anti MS, but this is just getting ridiculous... first a post about how only 25% of Windows 8 prefer the OS to other versions of Windows, when 74% of those polled say they never even used Windows 8, and now this?
If you want to see some Slashdot comedy gold, you should go back and read some of the past anti-Microsoft stories and comments on Slashdot.
For example take this one http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/2259257/Draconian-DRM-Revealed-In-Windows-7
If these kind of retarded stories were run on some other company, it would be called a FUD campaign secretly sponsored by some evil corp.
Windows Key + i
Then hit the power icon.
Every version of MS Office from 2000 onward supports the new XML formats if the Compatibility Pack is installed
Customers send doc files and expect you to read them since almost everyone else uses Office. Sending a reply back to your clients or people at other companies saying, "Hey, install this addon and send it back in DOCX format" will only make *you* seem to be incompetent and a waster of time compared to your competition using MS Office.
You can convert the doc and xls files locally, but isn't the whole point of using Google Apps to avoid having to have a copy of Microsoft Office? If you need to purchase a copy of Office to read the old formats anyway, you might as well not go the Google Apps route at all.
Thanks for a better response, though I don't agree completely with you. Apple painted itself into the DTP corner neither by design and nor by choice. They just couldn't deal with the tsunami of IBM-PC clones from Compaq, Dell, HP etc. that MS very cunningly licensed DOS/Windows to. Apple's computers were general purpose computers able to run any applications, but they failed to attract developers like MS was able to and the prices kept it within the reach of only graphic designers and not the general public. In that sense, they were and are competing with Microsoft. A college kid goes to Best Buy and looks around for a laptop, and might just pick the Macbook Air instead of an Asus Ultrabook. Not only DTP users use Macs, and that's especially true nowadays.
How many of these kids are DTP users? http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/Voodoogoon/big-mac-class.jpg
http://osxdaily.com/2010/08/05/70-of-college-freshman-use-macs/
They also make an OS which is a miserable failure. The only reason Microsoft is still in existence is due to anti-competitive behavior and vendor lock-in.
Microsoft is currently trying to recast itself as a company capable of being in competition with Apple once again. They have failed miserably for the simple reason that they cannot possibly do it. They are incompetent morons
While MS did have luck like IBM picking DOS for the OS, they did make software in those times which was simply better than the competition. Office Word, Excel, Powerpoint etc. lagged behind their competitors like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. but by the typical 4th version or so, they were just better in objective ways and thus won the market. Did you ever try using Lotus Notes? Try it, you'd pay a million to run screaming to Outlook or Pine within a day. IE 4 and 5 were similarly better than Netscape 4 while Netscape didn't have a major version for 3 years smack in the middle of the dot com boom while implementing a new version.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Windows 95 was similarly better than any competition out there, and still OpenOffice or whatever Exchange/AD clone don't have the features and polish of MS Office/Exchange/AD.
The LAMP stack had success on the server side, but OpenOffice, Zimbra, OpenLDAP etc. have nothing on the competition. While I do agree that lock-in etc. played a role, you're underestimating the mis-steps made by competitors and that MS' software was actually better at the time it beat the rivals.
You're pathetic, treally. No one wanted to compare Apple then and now, the question was "Was and is Apple a competitor/rival to Microsoft Windows then and now". And your retarded answer was no, and then you try to work around that bs with nonsense rationalizations and personal attacks. People's choices while wanting to buy computers for the past 25 years is not quantum physics You still cannot answer my question "What almost killed Apple? Was it not Microsoft?".
Someone told me Slashdot is mostly left with retarded circlejerking karmawhoring anti-MS zealots who mod each other up and that people with half a clue about reality have already left. Maybe I should just leave you and others in peace here and agree with you, you're beyond retarded. Just continue with your stupid karmawhoring posts like a frog in a well.
Thanks for the typical obligatory karma whoring post full of snark.
Meanwhile, they did figure it out to the extent it can be.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/03/21/scaling-to-different-screens.aspx
Meanwhile, Apple has similar issues with their retina display:
http://blog.macsales.com/14111-15-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-lessens-web-experience
http://www.robertotoole.com/2012/06/17/macbook-pro-retina-display/
Meanwhile, let the anti-MS bashfest continue.
You failed to explain why Apple *almost* died when it didn't have any competition, and you then implied that 'but Apple didn't die' is a valid rebuttal to me asking you what almost killed Apple. That shows your lack of reading comprehension. Again, what almost killed Apple if not Windows?
Try telling any decent tech folks you meet that Apple does not compete with Microsoft Windows because it makes hardware. Then watch as they laugh out loud and talk behind your back about your mental retardation.
I said "almost died". Shouldn't have expected more from someone who posts like they've failed reading comprehension.