Having had to adjust to Vista and Windows 7, I don't feel too bold in saying that switching from Windows to Linux with Gnome 2 or Gnome 3 wouldn't be a stretch for anyone. Windows typically frustrates me, the new Office Ribbon whatever crap is HORRIBLE, etc.
New? It's been around for 5 years, and once you've used it for a few weeks it is actually better (faster and more productive than the old menus). I'm not just saying that, I still use XP because I find it better than Vista or 7, but I much prefer Office ribbon to the pre ribbon days (although I did have the same frustrations as you for the first few weeks)
Really, Windows to Gnome 2 isn't a big deal. With Ubuntu or Fedora, pretty much no problems: everything hardware works out of the box or it will never work. More software works out of the box (more file formats work immediately on Linux than Windows, more stuff is installed, etc).
This is a well worn argument, but one that doesn't carry much weight. MS offers an integrated business and home solution. Linux doesn't.
Once you include AD, DNS, DHCP, File, Print, RAS, RDS, IIS, Exchange, SQL, Office, Visio etc there simply are no alternatives that come even close. Yeah some kludged home brew linux tools can do all those things, maybe, but nowhere as easily or as integrated. I work in a large IT dept with dedicated Linux, Windows and Mac teams. The Linux guys argue the server reliability, the Mac guys argue consumer and cool factor, but none of them even try to compete with MS's dominance in the back office infrastructure space. And this is without going into all the customised ERP and CRM integration and compatibility that works out of the box with an MS desktop.
Since MS will rule the enterprise for at least the next few years, they have automatic leverage into the home since familiarity and support will be no-brainers. As a user why would I risk a no-name un-marketed product that won't run all my apps that I use at work?
Windows is only the "best" desktop environment for business purely because most business use MS Office. Those businesses that DON'T use MS Office (and there a a surprising number, which is increasing with each "improvement" in Office releases), funnily enough would say that Windows is NOT the "best" desktop environment for business.
Crap. Window is the best because Microsoft offer a complete suite of products catered to integrating all the common back office functions. Directory, file, print, email, proxy, database, web and Office (and a whole bunch of other stuff too long to list here) all integrates seamlessly out of the box. I've seen plenty of MS haters attempt to replicate this functionality with a bunch of bespoke home brew 'free' solutions that are undocumented, unreliable and impossible for another employee to figure out what is going on.
My standard is that if it's the equivalent of standing at the end of your driveway on the sidewalk and you're standing on a soapbox with a microphone, amp, and speaker, shouting your opinions to the world, don't expect people to ignore you. This is what you do when you post on Facebook, Usenet, or Slashdot.
You've completely missed the point. It's not about how it is, it's how it should be.
I should be able to send a note to my friend online and not have that message broadcast to the entire world. Just because it's possible, and can happen easily, and there's no law to stop it, doesn't make it right.
When I go to the end of my driveway and chat to my neighbour, I should have some expectation that that conversation is not going to be heard by everyone in the whole world. As I said earlier, privacy is not boolean.
Again, you have problems distinguishing between public and private communications. I suggest you evaluate whether you should be posting anywhere at all.
You have a problem grasping the non boolean nature of privacy.
To re-iterate, I'm quite aware of how it is, since the advent of the internet privacy has become boolean. But that don't make it right.
I should also mention, if I go over the cap there is no charge, they throttle the speed down to dial up speed. So I'm not sure where these obscene profits are that you speak of.
For a 1st world country having the caps they do is pretty pathetic. There is little excuse for it, and "people in the know" should do something about it.
I live in Australia. My current plan is $50/month for 30Mb/1Mb cable with a 50GB cap. I'm not sure what other people do with their internet, but even watching unlimited porn I've only ever gone over this cap once in the many years I've had it, and this was when I downloaded a ton of movies I never watched while watching a ton of porn.
I really don't get why the average Joe needs more than this?
These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common.
Really? I'm struggling to think of any other cases ever in Norway, so if by more common you mean going from zero to one, then technically you are correct. However I'd hazard a guess that these types of shootings happen more often in the US (where all the guns are) than all other western countries combined. Down in here in Australia, I can only think of one case of mass shooting ever and that was about 20 years ago. So for us they are becoming less common (going from one to zero).
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
Restricting gun ownership is hardly 'punishment' for reasonable people. I've lived in a few countries that all had "gun control". All of them had lower crime rates than the US and all them were possible to own a gun if you were a reasonable person. I don't understand the US fascination with owning a gun, the rest of the civilised world gets by fine with sensible firearm restrictions, why can't the US?
Kudos to you for taking the time to properly interview candidates.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I merely believe that most employers would be unwilling to spend so much time interviewing candidates who likely have a lower chance of being prepared for the challenges posed by the job.
Really? It takes about 5 minutes to ask a candidate some relevant questions in context, and I'm not sure what challenges you face that require university study? Unless you're talking pure engineering, most skills required are about thinking on your feet and dealing with people, neither of which are learnt at Uni.
I've been in the position of hiring, and degrees and accreditation are meaningless to me. Show me what you have done, for-profit or not.
Same here. I've been the most senior technical person in the company for the last three places I've worked. No degree, and don't care if you have one or not. When I hire I ensure the recruitment process weeds out the wheat from the chaff. In my 20 years of experience, the degree counted for zero. The best employees either had degrees or didn't. It made no difference.
Until Facebook makes me not want to look the main page or other people's profiles, it's not going anywhere.
FB timeline is precisely that. I've already stopped looking at my friends pages since they forced that on everyone. The newsfeed is increasingly getting cluttered with ads and useless app updates about how my friends are using their lame FB apps (care factor zero). The monetization of FB will kill it as people will tire of being force fed ads.
Yes it is. Usenet is clearly a public forum, Facebook pretends to be private. You and I might know the difference, but millions of its users don't.
Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.
Again, for the IT security savvy power user this may be true, not for joe average
Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better
This is the problem with FB, it isn't aimed at people who 'know better', it is deliberately taking advantage of people who don't know better. Usenet never pretended to be a private sanctuary so the comparison is wrong.
Don't post anything in public
This is the flaw in the logic. Privacy isn't boolean. People should have a reasonable expectation maintain a certain level of privacy, even in the public domain.
eg Just because I choose to display something in public in my local street doesn't mean I am automatically handing over rights to the entire world. If I chat to my friends down the local park, it shouldn't mean you have the right to bug the park, record the conversation and then publish it in the paper.
Internet privacy laws need to respect this context. By your standard, the internet itself can be considered public so anything you do there is fair game? Email to grandma? VOIP call to your girlfriend? That email to the recruitment agent is ok to be sold to your boss? Sorry but I disagree with that logic.
Slashdot has a half decent moderation system, although by no means perfect so it can be done. I don't know if a paid system would work since you'd never get critical mass. Most off the forum I've used that work, generally have committed moderation team, and a mature user base that know how to effectively deal with trolls (ie ignore them)
On facebook almost everything is faked. My age, my location, only thing's that real is my name & my school (to reconnect with alumni).
I have one account with fake everything (name, photo, dob, school) which I connect to all my 'friends' with (I have to tell them that the fake name is me so they'll accept my invite) So even if Goog and FB know what I'm posting, no casual users will be able to connect the account with me (eg future employers). I also have another account also with fake everything which I use for signing up to apps I want to look at (like spotify) without them polluting my regular account.
It has worked out ok so far, but the effort v reward ratio is constantly being wound back on me. At this rate I'll probably be off FB by the end of the year as it the is increasingly more and more shit on there. All FB users need is an alternative (no not Goog+) and FB will die like Geocities and MySpace before it.
Facebook was never awesome, but it did have a lot of my friends and family posting interesting discussions and information. Then everyone ran out of things to say, so now they just post funny pictures.
I don't think I've ever seen an interesting discussion on there either. FB has always been just a casual keep-in-touch-with-your-greater-circle-of-acquaintances tool. It was always full of shit, but every once and a while you find out someone is having a party, going away on holiday, or got a new job etc The problem is that the signal to noise was bearable, but since the attempts to monetize the service through all the apps that feel the need to tell me what score my 'friends' got on their games, or what music they're listening too, it really is approaching a critical point of not enough value and too much crap.
At some point he had to take control of his internet identity and privacy. I have an account for that reason,
Wouldn't it be easier just to tell anyone that asks that it isn't your page and that someone faked it??
There are so many fakes out there these days on FB , Twitter etc I'm surprised the info on them carries any weight any more. The signal noise ratio is drowning itself by the sheer volume of utter useless inaccurate rubbish already on there.
Here we go again.. I'm sure I heard these same lame arguments when Windows 95 came out. Here we are 17 years on and MS is still winning and open source alternatives are still in the toilet. For those that missed it the first 37 times, Joe Average doesn't mind paying for the latest toy with the latest shiny on it. No amount of gloating about your crappy 1% market share will change this. And I thought Slashdot is supposed to be where the smart people hang out....
Ever thought that Gadget freaks are not the target market for the iPhone?!
No but gadget freaks generally lead the charge in this space.
When iPhone first came out in this part of the world, my every nerd friend I know got one. It was the best product on the market and a whole department of iPhone owners generally filtered down to techy natured regular folk, then to mainstream. Right now, I'd say 90% of those nerds are have all traded to Android. My techy natured acquaintances are about 50:50, and the regular folk are probably closer to 80:20 (iPhone's way).
Sorry that you guys aren't enjoying the iPhone, but to be fair, its all about what works for you, and the iPhone works for/most/ people.
Android works too. In fact it works for more people since more people buy Android than Apple
don't under-estimate the amount of people that/don't/ want to tweak their phone all the time!
Rooting has nothing to do with it. Android does everything Apple can plus more without rooting or tweaking, and it cost less. Don't underestimate the amount of people that want the most amount of shiny for their dollar.
but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.
I think the main difference is that Apple's model relies on having support for your device to function properly. With Android the capability exist for device support outside the official channel. So even if Google disappears overnight your hardware can still be used, can you say the same about Apple?
There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO, to work your butt off 24/7 for years to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?
I guess not.
You guess wrong.
If I invented something that made my business the most valuable company in the world, then I would expect my products to be copied and improved on. I would expect that my future success should rely on me releasing more innovative products, not by merely cashing in on my one half decent creation from a few years ago and suing everyone else who tried to compete with me.
Maybe that's why I'm not a CEO?
If you think there is no difference between people in my town knowing who I am dating and a company like Google keeping track of everything I read, watch, purchase, and say, then you are not paying attention. We are not talking about gossip here, we are talking about companies amassing power over everyone (by collecting information) without any check on that power.
I'm still to see how this is bad?
Yeah it's bad from a perspective of 'this is different to how things were when I was younger', but how is it bad from a 'this will negatively impact your life' way?
Privacy is a modern concept, maybe it isn't meant to be permanent and rather than the world ending, younger generations will simply adapt to this new reality and adjust accordingly (like we did with rock n roll music and drugs and porn and all the other major cultural shifts that we were told were the end of the world)?
I've been using MS since for about 20 years and never upgraded. Clean install is always the most reliable method of any upgrade, and now in the age of Dropbox and Skydrive etc, users are bit more backup savvy so the backup, clean install process isn't such a big deal.
It seems to me that MS is shooting itself in the foot. If I were in charge of Microsoft, I would be afraid of OS X and iOS. Once Apple starts leveraging its market share in iPhones and iPads to push people towards OS X, Microsoft is going to feel a lot of pain.
MS is no longer the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The integration of iOS and OS X is going to create an OS that has enough applications to really take off.
Er Windows 8 is the integration of phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, game console server into one interface, and they own the corporate market.
When it comes to leveraging, that carries a lot more weight than bunch of fickle teenagers who won't even know what an Apple is in 5 years
Slashdot Mirror
Having had to adjust to Vista and Windows 7, I don't feel too bold in saying that switching from Windows to Linux with Gnome 2 or Gnome 3 wouldn't be a stretch for anyone. Windows typically frustrates me, the new Office Ribbon whatever crap is HORRIBLE, etc.
New? It's been around for 5 years, and once you've used it for a few weeks it is actually better (faster and more productive than the old menus). I'm not just saying that, I still use XP because I find it better than Vista or 7, but I much prefer Office ribbon to the pre ribbon days (although I did have the same frustrations as you for the first few weeks)
Really, Windows to Gnome 2 isn't a big deal. With Ubuntu or Fedora, pretty much no problems: everything hardware works out of the box or it will never work. More software works out of the box (more file formats work immediately on Linux than Windows, more stuff is installed, etc).
This is a well worn argument, but one that doesn't carry much weight. MS offers an integrated business and home solution. Linux doesn't. Once you include AD, DNS, DHCP, File, Print, RAS, RDS, IIS, Exchange, SQL, Office, Visio etc there simply are no alternatives that come even close. Yeah some kludged home brew linux tools can do all those things, maybe, but nowhere as easily or as integrated. I work in a large IT dept with dedicated Linux, Windows and Mac teams. The Linux guys argue the server reliability, the Mac guys argue consumer and cool factor, but none of them even try to compete with MS's dominance in the back office infrastructure space. And this is without going into all the customised ERP and CRM integration and compatibility that works out of the box with an MS desktop. Since MS will rule the enterprise for at least the next few years, they have automatic leverage into the home since familiarity and support will be no-brainers. As a user why would I risk a no-name un-marketed product that won't run all my apps that I use at work?
I hope if the new iPhone 5 has NF on it...it can be easily and permanently shut off.
Hahahahahaha.... fool
Windows is only the "best" desktop environment for business purely because most business use MS Office. Those businesses that DON'T use MS Office (and there a a surprising number, which is increasing with each "improvement" in Office releases), funnily enough would say that Windows is NOT the "best" desktop environment for business.
Crap. Window is the best because Microsoft offer a complete suite of products catered to integrating all the common back office functions. Directory, file, print, email, proxy, database, web and Office (and a whole bunch of other stuff too long to list here) all integrates seamlessly out of the box. I've seen plenty of MS haters attempt to replicate this functionality with a bunch of bespoke home brew 'free' solutions that are undocumented, unreliable and impossible for another employee to figure out what is going on.
My standard is that if it's the equivalent of standing at the end of your driveway on the sidewalk and you're standing on a soapbox with a microphone, amp, and speaker, shouting your opinions to the world, don't expect people to ignore you. This is what you do when you post on Facebook, Usenet, or Slashdot.
You've completely missed the point. It's not about how it is, it's how it should be. I should be able to send a note to my friend online and not have that message broadcast to the entire world. Just because it's possible, and can happen easily, and there's no law to stop it, doesn't make it right. When I go to the end of my driveway and chat to my neighbour, I should have some expectation that that conversation is not going to be heard by everyone in the whole world. As I said earlier, privacy is not boolean.
Again, you have problems distinguishing between public and private communications. I suggest you evaluate whether you should be posting anywhere at all.
You have a problem grasping the non boolean nature of privacy. To re-iterate, I'm quite aware of how it is, since the advent of the internet privacy has become boolean. But that don't make it right.
I should also mention, if I go over the cap there is no charge, they throttle the speed down to dial up speed. So I'm not sure where these obscene profits are that you speak of.
For a 1st world country having the caps they do is pretty pathetic. There is little excuse for it, and "people in the know" should do something about it.
I live in Australia. My current plan is $50/month for 30Mb/1Mb cable with a 50GB cap. I'm not sure what other people do with their internet, but even watching unlimited porn I've only ever gone over this cap once in the many years I've had it, and this was when I downloaded a ton of movies I never watched while watching a ton of porn. I really don't get why the average Joe needs more than this?
These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common.
Really? I'm struggling to think of any other cases ever in Norway, so if by more common you mean going from zero to one, then technically you are correct. However I'd hazard a guess that these types of shootings happen more often in the US (where all the guns are) than all other western countries combined. Down in here in Australia, I can only think of one case of mass shooting ever and that was about 20 years ago. So for us they are becoming less common (going from one to zero).
There is, however, ample evidence that gun ownership rates do NOT correlate to higher murder rates.
Well right about now would be a good time to present this evidence don't you think?
I'll tell you one thing, the US owns the most guns and also has the highest homicide rate in the western world.
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place.
It's worth pointing out that every western country in the world has much lower gun violence than the US too, and they all also have stricter gun laws.
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
Restricting gun ownership is hardly 'punishment' for reasonable people. I've lived in a few countries that all had "gun control". All of them had lower crime rates than the US and all them were possible to own a gun if you were a reasonable person. I don't understand the US fascination with owning a gun, the rest of the civilised world gets by fine with sensible firearm restrictions, why can't the US?
Kudos to you for taking the time to properly interview candidates.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I merely believe that most employers would be unwilling to spend so much time interviewing candidates who likely have a lower chance of being prepared for the challenges posed by the job.
Really? It takes about 5 minutes to ask a candidate some relevant questions in context, and I'm not sure what challenges you face that require university study? Unless you're talking pure engineering, most skills required are about thinking on your feet and dealing with people, neither of which are learnt at Uni.
I've been in the position of hiring, and degrees and accreditation are meaningless to me. Show me what you have done, for-profit or not.
Same here. I've been the most senior technical person in the company for the last three places I've worked. No degree, and don't care if you have one or not. When I hire I ensure the recruitment process weeds out the wheat from the chaff. In my 20 years of experience, the degree counted for zero. The best employees either had degrees or didn't. It made no difference.
Until Facebook makes me not want to look the main page or other people's profiles, it's not going anywhere.
FB timeline is precisely that. I've already stopped looking at my friends pages since they forced that on everyone. The newsfeed is increasingly getting cluttered with ads and useless app updates about how my friends are using their lame FB apps (care factor zero). The monetization of FB will kill it as people will tire of being force fed ads.
No, it's not bullshit.
Yes it is. Usenet is clearly a public forum, Facebook pretends to be private. You and I might know the difference, but millions of its users don't.
Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.
Again, for the IT security savvy power user this may be true, not for joe average
Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better
This is the problem with FB, it isn't aimed at people who 'know better', it is deliberately taking advantage of people who don't know better. Usenet never pretended to be a private sanctuary so the comparison is wrong.
Don't post anything in public
This is the flaw in the logic. Privacy isn't boolean. People should have a reasonable expectation maintain a certain level of privacy, even in the public domain. eg Just because I choose to display something in public in my local street doesn't mean I am automatically handing over rights to the entire world. If I chat to my friends down the local park, it shouldn't mean you have the right to bug the park, record the conversation and then publish it in the paper. Internet privacy laws need to respect this context. By your standard, the internet itself can be considered public so anything you do there is fair game? Email to grandma? VOIP call to your girlfriend? That email to the recruitment agent is ok to be sold to your boss? Sorry but I disagree with that logic.
Slashdot has a half decent moderation system, although by no means perfect so it can be done. I don't know if a paid system would work since you'd never get critical mass. Most off the forum I've used that work, generally have committed moderation team, and a mature user base that know how to effectively deal with trolls (ie ignore them)
On facebook almost everything is faked. My age, my location, only thing's that real is my name & my school (to reconnect with alumni).
I have one account with fake everything (name, photo, dob, school) which I connect to all my 'friends' with (I have to tell them that the fake name is me so they'll accept my invite) So even if Goog and FB know what I'm posting, no casual users will be able to connect the account with me (eg future employers). I also have another account also with fake everything which I use for signing up to apps I want to look at (like spotify) without them polluting my regular account. It has worked out ok so far, but the effort v reward ratio is constantly being wound back on me. At this rate I'll probably be off FB by the end of the year as it the is increasingly more and more shit on there. All FB users need is an alternative (no not Goog+) and FB will die like Geocities and MySpace before it.
Facebook was never awesome, but it did have a lot of my friends and family posting interesting discussions and information. Then everyone ran out of things to say, so now they just post funny pictures.
I don't think I've ever seen an interesting discussion on there either. FB has always been just a casual keep-in-touch-with-your-greater-circle-of-acquaintances tool. It was always full of shit, but every once and a while you find out someone is having a party, going away on holiday, or got a new job etc The problem is that the signal to noise was bearable, but since the attempts to monetize the service through all the apps that feel the need to tell me what score my 'friends' got on their games, or what music they're listening too, it really is approaching a critical point of not enough value and too much crap.
At some point he had to take control of his internet identity and privacy. I have an account for that reason,
Wouldn't it be easier just to tell anyone that asks that it isn't your page and that someone faked it?? There are so many fakes out there these days on FB , Twitter etc I'm surprised the info on them carries any weight any more. The signal noise ratio is drowning itself by the sheer volume of utter useless inaccurate rubbish already on there.
Here we go again.. I'm sure I heard these same lame arguments when Windows 95 came out. Here we are 17 years on and MS is still winning and open source alternatives are still in the toilet. For those that missed it the first 37 times, Joe Average doesn't mind paying for the latest toy with the latest shiny on it. No amount of gloating about your crappy 1% market share will change this. And I thought Slashdot is supposed to be where the smart people hang out....
Ever thought that Gadget freaks are not the target market for the iPhone?!
No but gadget freaks generally lead the charge in this space. When iPhone first came out in this part of the world, my every nerd friend I know got one. It was the best product on the market and a whole department of iPhone owners generally filtered down to techy natured regular folk, then to mainstream. Right now, I'd say 90% of those nerds are have all traded to Android. My techy natured acquaintances are about 50:50, and the regular folk are probably closer to 80:20 (iPhone's way).
Sorry that you guys aren't enjoying the iPhone, but to be fair, its all about what works for you, and the iPhone works for /most/ people.
Android works too. In fact it works for more people since more people buy Android than Apple
don't under-estimate the amount of people that /don't/ want to tweak their phone all the time!
Rooting has nothing to do with it. Android does everything Apple can plus more without rooting or tweaking, and it cost less. Don't underestimate the amount of people that want the most amount of shiny for their dollar.
but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.
I think the main difference is that Apple's model relies on having support for your device to function properly. With Android the capability exist for device support outside the official channel. So even if Google disappears overnight your hardware can still be used, can you say the same about Apple?
There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO, to work your butt off 24/7 for years to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?
I guess not.
You guess wrong. If I invented something that made my business the most valuable company in the world, then I would expect my products to be copied and improved on. I would expect that my future success should rely on me releasing more innovative products, not by merely cashing in on my one half decent creation from a few years ago and suing everyone else who tried to compete with me. Maybe that's why I'm not a CEO?
If you think there is no difference between people in my town knowing who I am dating and a company like Google keeping track of everything I read, watch, purchase, and say, then you are not paying attention. We are not talking about gossip here, we are talking about companies amassing power over everyone (by collecting information) without any check on that power.
I'm still to see how this is bad? Yeah it's bad from a perspective of 'this is different to how things were when I was younger', but how is it bad from a 'this will negatively impact your life' way? Privacy is a modern concept, maybe it isn't meant to be permanent and rather than the world ending, younger generations will simply adapt to this new reality and adjust accordingly (like we did with rock n roll music and drugs and porn and all the other major cultural shifts that we were told were the end of the world)?
I've been using MS since for about 20 years and never upgraded. Clean install is always the most reliable method of any upgrade, and now in the age of Dropbox and Skydrive etc, users are bit more backup savvy so the backup, clean install process isn't such a big deal.
It seems to me that MS is shooting itself in the foot. If I were in charge of Microsoft, I would be afraid of OS X and iOS. Once Apple starts leveraging its market share in iPhones and iPads to push people towards OS X, Microsoft is going to feel a lot of pain.
MS is no longer the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The integration of iOS and OS X is going to create an OS that has enough applications to really take off.
Er Windows 8 is the integration of phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, game console server into one interface, and they own the corporate market. When it comes to leveraging, that carries a lot more weight than bunch of fickle teenagers who won't even know what an Apple is in 5 years