Isn't it funny that XBox fanboys are following the incredible double-standard in noticeing that PS2 had a 2-year lead when it comes to game library, but completely ignoring the 2-year advantage the XBox has when it comes to technology?
Of course XBox is more powerful than PS2. But it's still rather dissapointing for 2 years.
Actually, a game system should be so much better that it should easily outsell a 2 year old system despite smaller initial game library.
That's how it was all the time: Every new console started with a smaller library and outsold the older consoles.
Every console except XBox of course.
And if losing 1 billion/year is a huge success and only sell half of their own estimates, I want to see a normal success - I'm not even talking about a failure...
Just look at the slashdot article. "It's from Microsoft, it must be great!", "It's from Microsoft it's revolutionary!", "It's from Microsoft, whohooo".
Then add lots of pointy haired bosses with a similar attitude.
That said, I still don't think they will be successful long-term. Because it's Microsoft and it's "revolutionary", no matter how old the idea really is, so I see many morons buying it in the next months.
But! there is not much use for it. There are not really many situations in which a tablet PC is better than a PDA or a Laptop. That's why the great "revolutionary" tablet-PC has been converted into a tablet/laptop hybrid. Tablet-PCs have lots of problems. They are heavy, they are fragile, the touch-screen gets dirty fast, and the center of gravity is in the screen, not the lower unit which will make it fall over easily in laptop-mode. I'd guess that most buyers will realize that they keep their laptop-part attached all the time anyway and will buy a slimmer, lighter, faster and cheaper laptop - or a PDA - in the next upgrade cycle.
So I expect a very short tablet-PC craze which will die down soon.
Microsoft tells it's revolutionary to make an oversized, noisy and heavy PDA. Isn't that enough as a reason for you?
Seriously, I have really, honestly thought of situations in which a tablet-PC might be useful. In all cases, a currently existing, cheaper, more reliable and readily available PDA would have been better though.
The only thing I would see as a possible use is for graphic artists which might need a large touchscreen. Yeah, that's possibly nicer than with a graphics tablet (although I'm no graphics artist). But other than that, I don't see any real use.
And that's the reason why all tablet-PC attempts have failed so far.
... seems to be to desperately try to put a x86 in place of every electronic device.
Just look at XBox: Big, loud, fragile, power-consuming, sold at 150$ loss - and still behind Gamecube and Playstation.
Now the same with Tablet-PC: Isn't it just an oversized PDA? The way I see it, it combines the disadvantages from PDA and Laptop: It's too heavy and big to casually carry it around in a pocket, battery lifetime is measured in hours like with a Laptop. - But it lacks a keyboard, many interfaces and connectors.
Why should anybody choose it over a Laptop? or a PDA?
So according to your strange logic, there should be not a single car in India, because nobody could ever afford it.
Hint: Not everybody earns the same. Out of the billion of habitants, I guess there are a couple of millions who can easily afford such devices without any trouble.
You mean niche players like OS for a 65000 processor computer?
If you would have understood the GPL, you would realize that it does not prevent innovation.
With Linux, we don't need any niche players. Unless you need a radical new design (maybe a true microkernel or something else) there is no need to reinvent the wheel - just modify Linux for your needs.
Yeah, face it: They understood basic market mechanisms, while you don't.
Linux is free. Linux will remain free. Forever.
And "free" as in "freedom" is important. It guarantees a save investment and makes sure you are not trapped in vendor lock-in. It also guarantees the abcense of stuff like WPA or MSFT's new EULA.
Stuff like that is more important than what "sucks" and what has "media appeal". IBM has learned this first-hand with OS/2.
No, OS/2 did not fail because of crappy marketing. It failed because computer-makers refused to preinstall a OS from a competitor. No matter how cheap it might have been, no matter how great it was. - It would have been a stupid decision for computer makers to chain themselves to a competitor.
While some people still don't get it, EVERY major IT-company already understood that Linux is the only way to go long-term. Every major IT-company which is not trapped in Microsoft-contracts is supporting, using and/or offering Linux solutions. IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Oracle.. you name it.
All comercial Unices except Solaris are being replaced by Linux, not just AIX.
In 5 years, there will be only Linux, BSD and Solaris - with BSD and Solaris being binary and source compatible to Linux.
Linux has reunited Unix, this is a good thing because it didn't happen by monopilzation from one company. There is lot of diversity within Linux (lots of different vendors and supporters) but it's all compatible.
No, Microsoft are claiming to have the right to disable anything they choose to. This has not yet been challenged, but I find it hard to imagine a court of law that will uphold this.
So?
This is like saying "My airline printed 'No damages in case of death or injury' on the back of the tickets. The airline has suspended all safety checks due to budget cuts, but I'm not worried, no court would uphold this."
The damage will already been done. And I wouldn't trust the law-system that much.
A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations.
Wrong, a responsible organization should not use any version of WindowsXP or later at all.
Anything with such ridiculous clauses should be questioned and if no suitable compromise can be found with the vendor, that software/patch should not be installed. If you do not accept the terms and cannot negotiate more reasonable terms, find an alternative solution.
Well, at least you stopped calling it a "non-issue"....
" * Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update. "
In case you missed the important part:
These security related updates may disable your ability to [..] use other software on your computer.
Essentially, Microsoft got the right to "disable" *anything* they choose to disable. And they don't care about the Windows update settings because this whole thing is about DRM and not Windows update. Oh, did I mention that they will inform the users only through "reasonable" efforts on "a web site"? How noble. So when some app doesn't run anymore, you won't know why. Even if Microsoft really only wants to affect mp3-players etc., we all know that accidents can happen and also other apps may be affected.
Do you still think this is a non-issue? You want your bank to use this kind of software? You got to be kidding me.
If you used Microsoft "designed for incompatibility" technology, you will have problems, but if you used Standard C, Standard C++, Standard FORTRAN or almost any other language, porting to Linux should be doable in a couple of weeks at the most for everything except huge projects.
Also, emulation software works very well with software that old.
Isn't it funny that the same people who cry "We can't switch! The costs would be too high!" (which is not true anyway. 2 years is a joke.) are the same who constantly insist "We don't need to write portable software, we only want to run it on one platform anyway."
That said, yes switching can be a problem if your company was led by MS-whores who used MS only.
But if you used *any* non-MS technlology like Delphi (Kylix), Java, Qt or whatever, switching will be much easier. In case of Java switching would be trivial.
Microsoft actually does what they say they do. Last time I checked Microsoft didn't give any guarantees of what they do, just a bunch of webpages. (And even IF they would issue some kind of guarantee or agreement. They have broken such things in the past often enough)
Microsoft installed the new EULA just for kicks and will never ever use the power to access YOUR system.
If lying to yourself makes you comfortable, well just keep lying to yourself.
When do you [censored] finally acknowledge that Microsoft was only "critizised" because they signed an agreement with the government not to bundle a browser with Windows.
Then they broke that agreement and went to court.
Why do people get the idea that contracts, laws and agreements don't apply to Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
It runs on all platforms, it is widely supported and deployed and you can get it at every webhoster.
And there are running more Apache servers with PHP module than IIS servers altogether:
securityspace
Apache/PHP is marginalizing IIS and all other servers.
Both Microsoft lovers and monopoly-whiners will hate it, but those are the facts.
You REALLY think that a tablet-PC can handle that better?
Of course XBox is more powerful than PS2. But it's still rather dissapointing for 2 years.
Actually, a game system should be so much better that it should easily outsell a 2 year old system despite smaller initial game library.
That's how it was all the time: Every new console started with a smaller library and outsold the older consoles.
Every console except XBox of course.
And if losing 1 billion/year is a huge success and only sell half of their own estimates, I want to see a normal success - I'm not even talking about a failure...
Now demonstrate a use of what a tablet-PC can do better than a PC/PDA combination.
Everybody already has a PDA and the 100 grams or so don't really encumber you or do they?
Then add lots of pointy haired bosses with a similar attitude.
That said, I still don't think they will be successful long-term. Because it's Microsoft and it's "revolutionary", no matter how old the idea really is, so I see many morons buying it in the next months.
But! there is not much use for it. There are not really many situations in which a tablet PC is better than a PDA or a Laptop. That's why the great "revolutionary" tablet-PC has been converted into a tablet/laptop hybrid. Tablet-PCs have lots of problems. They are heavy, they are fragile, the touch-screen gets dirty fast, and the center of gravity is in the screen, not the lower unit which will make it fall over easily in laptop-mode. I'd guess that most buyers will realize that they keep their laptop-part attached all the time anyway and will buy a slimmer, lighter, faster and cheaper laptop - or a PDA - in the next upgrade cycle.
So I expect a very short tablet-PC craze which will die down soon.
Seriously, I have really, honestly thought of situations in which a tablet-PC might be useful. In all cases, a currently existing, cheaper, more reliable and readily available PDA would have been better though.
The only thing I would see as a possible use is for graphic artists which might need a large touchscreen. Yeah, that's possibly nicer than with a graphics tablet (although I'm no graphics artist). But other than that, I don't see any real use.
And that's the reason why all tablet-PC attempts have failed so far.
Just look at XBox: Big, loud, fragile, power-consuming, sold at 150$ loss - and still behind Gamecube and Playstation.
Now the same with Tablet-PC: Isn't it just an oversized PDA? The way I see it, it combines the disadvantages from PDA and Laptop: It's too heavy and big to casually carry it around in a pocket, battery lifetime is measured in hours like with a Laptop. - But it lacks a keyboard, many interfaces and connectors.
Why should anybody choose it over a Laptop? or a PDA?
Hint: Not everybody earns the same. Out of the billion of habitants, I guess there are a couple of millions who can easily afford such devices without any trouble.
Of course there are glitches like wrong library versions, etc. but if that is incompatible, then every OS is incompatible.
Overall, the different flavours of Linux are much more compatible than Win9x and WinNT.
If you would have understood the GPL, you would realize that it does not prevent innovation.
With Linux, we don't need any niche players. Unless you need a radical new design (maybe a true microkernel or something else) there is no need to reinvent the wheel - just modify Linux for your needs.
And this is exactly what IBM is doing with Linux.
Let me explain:
If an individual sprays/puts something on one wall, it's vandalization and by now probably terrorism.
If a megacorporation sprays/puts something on 1000 walls, it's "they didn't do any damage, get over it."
Do you have any other naive questions or is everything clear now?
Linux is free. Linux will remain free. Forever.
And "free" as in "freedom" is important. It guarantees a save investment and makes sure you are not trapped in vendor lock-in. It also guarantees the abcense of stuff like WPA or MSFT's new EULA.
Stuff like that is more important than what "sucks" and what has "media appeal". IBM has learned this first-hand with OS/2.
No, OS/2 did not fail because of crappy marketing. It failed because computer-makers refused to preinstall a OS from a competitor. No matter how cheap it might have been, no matter how great it was. - It would have been a stupid decision for computer makers to chain themselves to a competitor.
While some people still don't get it, EVERY major IT-company already understood that Linux is the only way to go long-term. Every major IT-company which is not trapped in Microsoft-contracts is supporting, using and/or offering Linux solutions. IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Oracle.. you name it.
In 5 years, there will be only Linux, BSD and Solaris - with BSD and Solaris being binary and source compatible to Linux.
Linux has reunited Unix, this is a good thing because it didn't happen by monopilzation from one company. There is lot of diversity within Linux (lots of different vendors and supporters) but it's all compatible.
So?
This is like saying "My airline printed 'No damages in case of death or injury' on the back of the tickets. The airline has suspended all safety checks due to budget cuts, but I'm not worried, no court would uphold this."
The damage will already been done. And I wouldn't trust the law-system that much.
A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations.
Wrong, a responsible organization should not use any version of WindowsXP or later at all.
Anything with such ridiculous clauses should be questioned and if no suitable compromise can be found with the vendor, that software/patch should not be installed. If you do not accept the terms and cannot negotiate more reasonable terms, find an alternative solution.
Well, at least you stopped calling it a "non-issue"....
" * Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update. "
In case you missed the important part:
These security related updates may disable your ability to [..] use other software on your computer.
Essentially, Microsoft got the right to "disable" *anything* they choose to disable. And they don't care about the Windows update settings because this whole thing is about DRM and not Windows update. Oh, did I mention that they will inform the users only through "reasonable" efforts on "a web site"? How noble. So when some app doesn't run anymore, you won't know why. Even if Microsoft really only wants to affect mp3-players etc., we all know that accidents can happen and also other apps may be affected.
Do you still think this is a non-issue? You want your bank to use this kind of software? You got to be kidding me.
If you used Microsoft "designed for incompatibility" technology, you will have problems, but if you used Standard C, Standard C++, Standard FORTRAN or almost any other language, porting to Linux should be doable in a couple of weeks at the most for everything except huge projects.
Also, emulation software works very well with software that old.
Actually the new EULA gives them the right, regardless of some config setting.
So the EULA is invalid. Will Windows care? Will Windows behave any different because of that? Can you feel secure because of that?
I don't think so.
It's amazing how many things Windows users are willing to do.
That said, yes switching can be a problem if your company was led by MS-whores who used MS only.
But if you used *any* non-MS technlology like Delphi (Kylix), Java, Qt or whatever, switching will be much easier. In case of Java switching would be trivial.
If lying to yourself makes you comfortable, well just keep lying to yourself.
Indeed it is.
What is your point again?
Your point was that no absurd things ever happened in the USA and never, never will, right?
But they are both great browsers, it's just preference.
Check this out:
n bsp; 1 user users 10328269 Oct 3 14:16 phoenix-0.2-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gzn bsp; 1 user users 9520231 Oct 15 18:32 phoenix-0.3-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 user users 10850305 Sep 24 17:41 phoenix-0.1-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
-rw-r--r--&
-rw-------&
Phoenix is becoming smaller (and faster) which each release!
Then they broke that agreement and went to court.
Why do people get the idea that contracts, laws and agreements don't apply to Microsoft?