I'm not talking about oil, I'm talking about computers and software. Do you know what that difference is? Oil goes in your daddy's car, a computer is what you are typing on in your mom's basement.
Yes, Microsoft was found to infringe on anti-trust law; for doing the same thing that other companies do. Microsoft's "crime" was being successful. And I do not believe that every "judge that's ever served" agreed with that ruling. And you would be dumb to listen to an argument? Ok, you're mind is already made up, I won't try to confuse you with those irritating little facts. Judges in your world are apparently perfect, like the judges who ruled that people can be property, or that innocent people can be sold to private juvenile facilities for a nice kick-back.
And where did I take a 100% definition? My claim is that there has always been freedom of choice. Whether or not Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices (they did), they never were able to exert the same control that Apple does.
I can understand how you might (incorrectly) think that I am stupid, but how am I a liar? Where am I making a statement that I know to be false? Or do you just consider me a liar because I disagree with you?
Again, my point was just that Apple does not need anything in order to be the "new Microsoft". They always have been.
I would say that the market was dictated by choice. And I didn't want to get into an argument over the definiton of monopoly. Apple already behaves like a monopolist; they always have. How different would desktop computing have been if Apple had sold their operating system to run on x86 hardware? Or if Apple had allowed a variety of manufacturers to produce compatible hardware? Apple wanted to, and continues to want to, limit the consumers freedom of choice. When Microsoft released Windows 95, what if they had said that you could only run software that you bought from them? On hardware that you bought from them? And if you wanted to sell software, Microsoft had to approve it, and get a 30% cut? And they get a cut of transactions that are performed within the software?
My point was that Apple doesn't need anything to be the new Microsoft. They are worse than Microsoft, and they always have been.
If that's what they choose to do, that's their choice. There was plenty of freedom of choice. There was never a "monopoly". There were even "Desktop Computers" that could not run Windows.
What other market share? They have 100% of the iPad market. Any time you arbitrarily define a market, you can define it in such a way that someone has a monopoly. Just like the false claim that Microsoft had a "monopoly". There were many CPU architectures that Microsoft did not even work on. At the same time that Apple refused to let other companies produce hardware that their operating system could run on. There was always plenty of options to choose other than Microsoft. Apple is far, far more malicious than Microsoft ever was.
Office 2007 (usually Word, sometimes Excel, always Outlook)
World of Warcraft
IE
Azureus
Windows Media Player
Visual Studio Team Suite
KOTOR II
Just whatever I needed to use. Worked perfectly fine. WoW was tricky and required a new $99 video card, but that was for WoW not Vista, Vista was fine with the onboard video.
I obviously didn't run everything at the same time. I almost always had Outlook open, usually had IE open. If I was playing WoW then there probably wasn't anything else open, other than outlook and IE.
If I was running VSTE then I probably wasn't running WoW, but I would be running SQL Express, ASP.NET development web server, multiple instances of IE, Outlook, Word, and Visio.
Vista Ultimate ran just fine on my Compaq Presario SR1710NX. The whole machine was less than $400 (actually think it was $399 at Fry's). It was already old hardware before Vista came out.
Why can't I blame the post office for the junk mail I receive? Well over 90% of my mail, by volume, is unsolicted commercial mail. I keep a trash can by my mailbox, I keep the 1 or 2 real pieces of mail I receive and throw the other handful directly into the trash. Why can I not tell the post office to not deliver mail to "resident"? If someone doesn't know my name, I don't want to hear from them. Blocking unsolicited mail would reduce the volume of useless trash and waste, and would reduce the workload of the post office. It would also reduce the revenue of the post office, which is exactly why it won't happen.
Hmm, maybe Microsoft should include a clause in their contracts with PC retailers that prevents them from installing any non-Microsoft products on the computers.
By saying "he should become a fool," the Apostle Paul is referring to faith in God.
Hmm, and since "[t]he fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalms 14:1) I guess that Paul is saying that I should shouldn't believe in god, that I should be corrupt, that I should do abominable works, and that I should do no good. Sweet, I'm on the right path!
Each of these computers only cost $300, and that was 1 1/2 and 2 years ago. The $300 machines that are currently offerred outclass my computers. Granted, there is no authoritative body that determines which computer is equivalent to a "Honda Civic", but I'd say that a $300 discontinued computer is pretty entry-level.
I'm certainly not "throwing a ton of hardware". I've demonstrated that Vista runs quite acceptably on low-end hardware that was discontinued prior to Vista's release.
Re:XP is _still_ better then linux and it's 7 year
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
sort of nagates the whole post
Actually, I think it negates the post. Irony is beautiful.
I'm writing this on my computer that has been running 64 bit Vista Ultimate since November. My computer is a Compaq SR1710NX. It runs beautifully and World of Warcraft runs beautifully on it. I fail to see the "7000 punds of brick".
I also have a SR1610NX that's running 32 bit Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2. I always have at least 3 virtual machines running, all running Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition. One is a domain controller running Active Directory, one is running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, and the other is running Microsoft SQL Server 2005. Depending on what I'm working on at the time I will also have up to 4 other virtual machines running with Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and Ubuntu. Runs beautifully.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you go into a store in Sydney and buy a Samsung Galaxy 10.1?
I'm not talking about oil, I'm talking about computers and software. Do you know what that difference is? Oil goes in your daddy's car, a computer is what you are typing on in your mom's basement.
Yes, Microsoft was found to infringe on anti-trust law; for doing the same thing that other companies do. Microsoft's "crime" was being successful. And I do not believe that every "judge that's ever served" agreed with that ruling. And you would be dumb to listen to an argument? Ok, you're mind is already made up, I won't try to confuse you with those irritating little facts. Judges in your world are apparently perfect, like the judges who ruled that people can be property, or that innocent people can be sold to private juvenile facilities for a nice kick-back.
And where did I take a 100% definition? My claim is that there has always been freedom of choice. Whether or not Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices (they did), they never were able to exert the same control that Apple does.
I can understand how you might (incorrectly) think that I am stupid, but how am I a liar? Where am I making a statement that I know to be false? Or do you just consider me a liar because I disagree with you?
Again, my point was just that Apple does not need anything in order to be the "new Microsoft". They always have been.
I would say that the market was dictated by choice. And I didn't want to get into an argument over the definiton of monopoly. Apple already behaves like a monopolist; they always have. How different would desktop computing have been if Apple had sold their operating system to run on x86 hardware? Or if Apple had allowed a variety of manufacturers to produce compatible hardware? Apple wanted to, and continues to want to, limit the consumers freedom of choice. When Microsoft released Windows 95, what if they had said that you could only run software that you bought from them? On hardware that you bought from them? And if you wanted to sell software, Microsoft had to approve it, and get a 30% cut? And they get a cut of transactions that are performed within the software? My point was that Apple doesn't need anything to be the new Microsoft. They are worse than Microsoft, and they always have been.
Coward.
If that's what they choose to do, that's their choice. There was plenty of freedom of choice. There was never a "monopoly". There were even "Desktop Computers" that could not run Windows.
And you could run a variety of operating systems on "Desktop Computers".
My point exactly.
What other market share? They have 100% of the iPad market. Any time you arbitrarily define a market, you can define it in such a way that someone has a monopoly. Just like the false claim that Microsoft had a "monopoly". There were many CPU architectures that Microsoft did not even work on. At the same time that Apple refused to let other companies produce hardware that their operating system could run on. There was always plenty of options to choose other than Microsoft. Apple is far, far more malicious than Microsoft ever was.
I enjoy listening to music from recording artist "Q-Tip" on my Droid. I usually use a cotton swab to clean my ears before using my earphones.
Power corrupts; and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely!
What if they don't have the code? What if it was developed by a third party under contract?
Or the rational thing to do is to not use software with a viral license.
their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/24/gmail.crash/index.html
At least I have 2 Senators.
Just whatever I needed to use. Worked perfectly fine. WoW was tricky and required a new $99 video card, but that was for WoW not Vista, Vista was fine with the onboard video.
I obviously didn't run everything at the same time. I almost always had Outlook open, usually had IE open. If I was playing WoW then there probably wasn't anything else open, other than outlook and IE.
If I was running VSTE then I probably wasn't running WoW, but I would be running SQL Express, ASP.NET development web server, multiple instances of IE, Outlook, Word, and Visio.
Vista Ultimate ran just fine on my Compaq Presario SR1710NX. The whole machine was less than $400 (actually think it was $399 at Fry's). It was already old hardware before Vista came out.
S. Bumfuckville, NH? That must be near Jaffrey.
Sweet! Since I have to deal with EBCDIC every day from the IBM mainframe that our .NET apps integrate with, this would be very useful!
Why can't I blame the post office for the junk mail I receive? Well over 90% of my mail, by volume, is unsolicted commercial mail. I keep a trash can by my mailbox, I keep the 1 or 2 real pieces of mail I receive and throw the other handful directly into the trash. Why can I not tell the post office to not deliver mail to "resident"? If someone doesn't know my name, I don't want to hear from them. Blocking unsolicited mail would reduce the volume of useless trash and waste, and would reduce the workload of the post office. It would also reduce the revenue of the post office, which is exactly why it won't happen.
Hmm, maybe Microsoft should include a clause in their contracts with PC retailers that prevents them from installing any non-Microsoft products on the computers.
Hmm, and since "[t]he fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalms 14:1) I guess that Paul is saying that I should shouldn't believe in god, that I should be corrupt, that I should do abominable works, and that I should do no good. Sweet, I'm on the right path!
That depends on when you perform rounding and what the values were prior to rounding. 1+1 does in fact eqaul 3, for sufficiently large values of 1.
I'm certainly not "throwing a ton of hardware". I've demonstrated that Vista runs quite acceptably on low-end hardware that was discontinued prior to Vista's release.
Actually, I think it negates the post. Irony is beautiful.
I'm writing this on my computer that has been running 64 bit Vista Ultimate since November. My computer is a Compaq SR1710NX. It runs beautifully and World of Warcraft runs beautifully on it. I fail to see the "7000 punds of brick".
I also have a SR1610NX that's running 32 bit Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2. I always have at least 3 virtual machines running, all running Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition. One is a domain controller running Active Directory, one is running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, and the other is running Microsoft SQL Server 2005. Depending on what I'm working on at the time I will also have up to 4 other virtual machines running with Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and Ubuntu. Runs beautifully.