> Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge: DoWhatIWant() DoIFaster(Function), eg. DoItFaster(DoWhatIWant())
Won't compile: There's a syntax error in your signature.
In reading through this thread, many people state that the limit on netbook features is because of pressure from MS. Since MS only makes the operating system, why should they care what kind of hardware Dell or HP make? Won't MS still sell the same OEM copy of the OS regardless of whether the hardware supports 1GB RAM or 4GB, or a great graphics chip, or larger screen, more USB ports, etc.
TIA for clarification.
Regarding Pescatore's water analogy: I think he's saying that it is bad business for a company to peddle a solution to their own defective product. Why would you trust the solution? Instead of creating AV software, shouldn't they be trying to get rid of the problem? Let us not forget: Windows is not insecure because viruses exist, it is insecure because of a fundamentally substandard software architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
> Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge: DoWhatIWant() DoIFaster(Function), eg. DoItFaster(DoWhatIWant()) Won't compile: There's a syntax error in your signature.
In reading through this thread, many people state that the limit on netbook features is because of pressure from MS. Since MS only makes the operating system, why should they care what kind of hardware Dell or HP make? Won't MS still sell the same OEM copy of the OS regardless of whether the hardware supports 1GB RAM or 4GB, or a great graphics chip, or larger screen, more USB ports, etc. TIA for clarification.
Regarding Pescatore's water analogy: I think he's saying that it is bad business for a company to peddle a solution to their own defective product. Why would you trust the solution? Instead of creating AV software, shouldn't they be trying to get rid of the problem? Let us not forget: Windows is not insecure because viruses exist, it is insecure because of a fundamentally substandard software architecture.