It seems obvious to me that you wouldn't use a technology that would work in less than half of the intended audience (unless you make it degrade gracefully).
But the real question is why does it take so long to come up with these standards? HTML5 started by WHATWG back in 2004. CSS3 has been around since 2005. Just get them finalized already. Don't whinge about browsers not fully supporting the standards if you don't give them a fixed document to work towards.
The problem with that policy is that it endangers the neighbor's houses and everyone's lives. If I were a paid-up neighbor, I would be pissed off at any damage that could have been prevented.
I really don't see what the problem is. If the householder doesn't pay the $75, charge them $1000 when you come out to save the house. That way the surrounding properties are not put in danger, the fire department gets more money than they otherwise would have and they don't end up looking like petty, money hungry dicks.
The last Microsoft product I bought was Windows 98, so I have mercifully missed the whole disaster since then. All my clients are just now starting to switch from XP to Windows 7, because I advised against Vista.
I was like you. I advised people to avoid Vista without having tried it too. Then I did try it and found that most of the bad things people said about it were just outright lies. There were some problems, but it was nowhere near as bad as everyone claimed.
And in all these years of supporting dozens of computers I have never heard of PowerShell until this article.
I'm not surprised since your clients were taking your advice and you hadn't heard of it. It stands to reason that they wouldn't be using it. Powershell has been around for 4 or 5 years now, and it does appear in everyone's Windows Update list as an optional download. No offense, but I'm not sure how you support Windows users with only knowledge of Windows 98.
Too bad they did not build on Xenix, and save everyone much grief. Imagine where Apple could have been in the 90s, had they switched to Unix a decade earlier.
The problem with Windows isn't with the core technology. The NT kernel is quite solid. The problem is what they did on top of that. ActiveX in a browser was just asking for trouble. Leaving ports open and services running by default might make it easy for plebs to run programs and network services without having to configure them, but it is suicide for security. Even if it had Xenix underneath, they still would have been up the creek with idiotic decisions like that.
MS has 25 million live subscribers. @ $50 each, that's $1.25bil.
I'm no expert in Xbox Live, but your cited article doesn't match your figures. It says that only half the 25 million users paid the $50 Gold subscription:
Microsoft says about half the service's 25 million users paid an annual fee to play games online like "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" in the year ended June 30. That would be about $600 million.
So rather than $1.85 billion dollars of sales that you estimate, it is more like $1.2 billion that your article estimates. Still nothing to be laughed at. I can only assume that the grandparent poster meant to say was that the Xbox Live service was laughed at by Playstation gamers. Which they would, I suppose.
The article started to address this, but failed miserably.
One group will undoubtedly be saying "there's no harm in running both client- and server-side firewalls, so why even contemplate the heresy of turning off the built-in Windows firewall?" You would of course be right, except for one thing - it's actually quite hard to turn off the built-in firewall
Ah, what? The reason for not turning off the firewall is that it is hard to turn off the firewall? That makes no sense at all. It also doesn't seem too hard to me. In Win7, type firewall into the start menu search box and click on Windows Firewall. From there, choose "turn firewall on or off".
The reason for leaving the firewall on is to give a last line of defence if someone gets around the server protection. It also acts as a barrier when idiots decide to add an unauthorised wireless access point onto the network.
I had a quick look at the system requirements for this project, and it said: "The following are required for DRI-based hardware acceleration with Mesa...Linux 2.6.28." This version was released nearly two years after Vista. I don't think that it can be said to support DirectX better than Microsoft when it can't run on a version that dates back to XP days.
Now I think that it is great that they are doing this project, but saying it supports the API better than Microsoft only distracts from the developer's achievements.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of open-source tools, and Android has the potential to offer all the advantages of an open platform, but it also gives the handset and cellphone providers the power to customize and add endlessly to their phones.
So just what is the advantage of an open platform if OEMs are not allowed to customize it? I see Android like the Linux kernel on which it is built. The Linux kernel powers all manner of desktops, phones and other devices with a wide variety of user interfaces. Similarly, Android is a building block to make a phone user interface. It allows manufacturers to make an HTC phone, or a Motorola phone (etc).
And what is the alternative? Lock down the OS so OEMs can't replace applications with their own choices? Isn't that the practice that causes everyone to complain about Microsoft? Just imagine that the default browser in Android was Internet Explorer. Would anyone here complain about manufacturers replacing it with anything else on their model of phone? No? Then it seems a bit rich to complain about any other customization of the platform.
The reason why they're making such a fuss over his porn and gambling is that he had to bypass the Great Firewall of Australia to access them.
Why has everyone modded this as insightful rather than funny? The Internet filter was never rolled out in Australia, and after the results of the last election it is dead in the water.
you're claiming that Obama set up the regulatory structure that lead to (I presume) the disaster in the Gulf?
I'm saying that he let the regulatory structure that was there wither
How? What did he do to reduce the quality of the regulation covering offshore drilling? Perhaps you believe that by not improving the regulation that this constitutes a whithering effect.
It's as much about what you don't do as what you do.
Are yes, you do. In that case, why make this a partisan argument against Barack Obama? Surely then you should attribute eight times more blame to the previous administration, given that they had eight years compared to Obama's one.
Actually George W Bush was more responsible for the incident because his administration had the opportunity to avert this problem and actively decided against implementing additional safety features. In 2003 the Minerals Management Service considered requiring remote controlled shut-off switches for drilling rigs. They decided against forcing them to install the devices because they cost too much.
Perhaps if they had gone the other way (against the wishes of big business) then this would have been just a workplace accident rather than a major environmental catastrophe.
As for Obama, he didn't have much time to think much about offshore drilling operations because he came into the presidency in the middle of the GFC. Or do you think he somehow caused that too?
So you're reading the book, you tripleclick the home button, swipe down with two fingers and it starts reading to you. Tap with two fingers to pause the reader. tripleclick home again to turn off VoiceOver.
Another great example of the ease of use of the iPhone. I can never understand why people keep claiming that it is user friendly when there are so many examples of these hidden features. The only saving grace in this case is that this is an obscure feature that few people will need to use.
That sounds great, but is it true. No disrespect, but I have read too many scenarios like this around here only to find that they are just complete guesswork on the part of the writer and have nothing to do with reality.
So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?
I don't think the video quality matters less, I recently bought a bluray player and hooked up to netflix streaming on a 55" Samsung.
I'll stop you there. The fact that you were trying out your new bluray player with your massive TV demonstrates that 1) you would be looking more closely at the quality of your new item, and 2) you are the kind of person who DOES care about quality (although using netflix negates that a bit). This does not mean that you represent the majority of people.
I am not a huge fan of HD video, but even I was amazed when I had a look at what was available via bittorrent and found it full of VERY low resolution video files. Obviously the masses don't really care much about the quality of what they watch - or maybe those that do think it matters care enough to pay for quality video.
Finally, I agree with you that pixelation in black is a horrible thing to see. While I don't care a great deal about higher resolution of bluray, I do appreciate the better colour definition to make the darkness seem more realistic.
Portugal paid a ridiculous amount of money to put in place a new system that has not and will not save them any money.
Why would it be instantly cheaper to use renewable energy considering that you have to pay for the infrastructure (which the existing non-renewable energy sources have already been paid for).
Far from a success, this is in fact a giant failure for Portugal.
Only in your limited definition of success. Their aim may have been to reduce their carbon footprint and do their bit to save the world. Or maybe it was to keep more of the money spent on energy within their borders rather than making other countries richer. Maybe the aim was to increase the profile of their country as a green destination which may improve their tourist industry.
There are many reasons why countries should adopt green energy. I doubt making it cheaper for the consumer would ever be the top priority.
I can't believe you are trying so desperately to believe that Apple came first despite coming to the market over five years after Microsoft's Tablet PC. And the Tablet PC system was preceded by Windows for Pen Computing which was an add on for Windows 3.11 back in the early 90s!!! How far back do the Apple rumours go?
Of course, Microsoft was not the only company to develop pen based computing back in the 90s. Nor were they the first. The concepts of multi-touch, pinch to zoom, finger flicks and the computer surface responding fluidly to the users gestures date back to the mid-80s to early 90s. It just took a couple of decades for the hardware to catch up.
I do agree with you that Apple held off until the market (and more importantly technology) was ready. Their devices are light enough to be carried and fast enough to eliminate the lag in user interface. However, I don't think that they got lucky with the user interface. Apple looked at all the products that preceded it to see what worked and what didn't work. Virtually everything that people point to as a revolutionary UI feature can be found in some other device or demonstrated proof of concept.
I think Apple's touch capabilities are quite a bit more advanced than what Microsoft incorporated into Windows to accommodate touch screens. You might want to look at how that works in order to understand how primitive those capabilities were.
I own both a tablet PC and an iPhone, so I am aware of the differences. That doesn't change my assertion that Microsoft wasn't late to the game.
Microsoft's offering was limited by the lack of cheap multitouch hardware available at the time as well as the need to fit in with the existing Windows UI (including 3rd party software support). Microsoft's Surface shows what they could do with access to multitouch and a change of UI. It had kind of things like the pinch zoom and finger flicks to "throw" objects across the screen that the Windows pen interface lacked and that Apple later invented for iOS. It also had a more simplistic, but flashy interface that was better suited to the input mechanism.
But it also cost over $10,000 dollars. Because of this, it was never marketed as a consumer device. If Microsoft were smart, they would implement the technology they had with the Surface in a mobile device and brand it as Surface to dispel the myth that they are the Johnny-come-lately of the touchscreen and smartphone/tablet markets.
Once again, Microsoft is late to the party and Ballmer's pissed.
Except that Microsoft has been developing software for the Tablet PC market since 2001. They incorporated this into the main build of Windows with Service Pack for of Windows XP. Rather than being late, they were too early so that the tablets were too big and heavy.
Also, they assumed that people wanted the full Windows interface, which doesn't lend itself to the less precise controls of pen and finger input. They made that same mistake with Windows Mobile too. Back in the early PDA days, that was the reason why I prefered the simple interface of PalmOS (from which the iPhone interface borrows heavily).
Ballmer is pissed not because Microsoft was late, but that they were never able to capture the user's imagination with their tablet technology. Apple got it right because they were able to see the mistakes that Microsoft made compared to their opposition at the time.
Problem is, if you're out driving on the autobahn, all this achieves is wasting fuel to haul around a whole lot of pointless & heavy batteries.
At some stage you have to exit the autobahn, and that is when fuel consumption goes up and the hybrid advantage kicks in. Just because you have decided to focus on the one section of road that doesn't see a great improvement doesn't mean that it is not worth bothering with electric motors or that overall consumption will not go down.
So... should murderers be let off just because in their moral code it's ok to kill?
That sounds so absolute, except that the moral line is blurred by the fact that there is a 700 billion dollar industry dedicated to killing people. And there are laws that state you can shoot someone who breaks into your home. And many states still allow execution. And there are legal defenses to murder, and different sentencing options which suggests a scale to the severity of murder.
All of a sudden, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" gets watered down by exceptions. The fact that many bibles have this line as "Thou shalt not murder" proves that our moral imperatives vary between people and societies.
Fantastic for those who live in sunny states. A lot less great for those of us who don't.
So what? You can at least use it in sunny states then. Just because you have found some place on the map where solar is not practical doesn't mean that the whole idea of solar energy shouldn't be ignored for the rest of the world. It is like saying that solar power is useless because the Amish don't need electricity.
You build whatever is practical for a given location. If their calculations are true, this just eliminates one factor that was against solar power previously. Simple really.
It just sounds like you're defending a hatred of Apple because it's trendy.
I think you need to learn to read entire sentences. It seems that you got up to "I hate Apple..." and then clicked the reply button immediately.
Rotide can hardly be accused of defending hatred of Apple when the point of the entire grandparent post is to label the article as juvenile for deriding iPad owners by using stereotypes.
Despite all the pro-P2P propaganda about how it "democratizes" data, it's really more a mob-rule popularity contest for grabbing the shiniest download.
Isn't mob rule exactly what democracy is all about? If there is little interest in a download then there will be fewer people seeding it. How else did you think democracy would work?
Whether or not that's a good way to do things is irregardless.
You mean irrelevant. Irregardless is not a real word. Even if you want to argue that it is a real word, it does not mean the same as irrelevant.
Getting back on topic, Dell does some things right. The most important thing for me is support. People often ask me for advice on what computer that they should buy. I always say Dell, because if something goes wrong then you can go back to them for help.
This is especially important, because if something does go wrong, I don't want them coming to me to fix it. Just because I gave them advice on what to buy doesn't make it my responsibility. Since I have started suggesting Dell (and explaining why) I haven't had a single person ask me to fix things when they download the lasted virus or when they want to install some new bit of hardware. For me, that is priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems obvious to me that you wouldn't use a technology that would work in less than half of the intended audience (unless you make it degrade gracefully).
But the real question is why does it take so long to come up with these standards? HTML5 started by WHATWG back in 2004. CSS3 has been around since 2005. Just get them finalized already. Don't whinge about browsers not fully supporting the standards if you don't give them a fixed document to work towards.
The problem with that policy is that it endangers the neighbor's houses and everyone's lives. If I were a paid-up neighbor, I would be pissed off at any damage that could have been prevented.
I really don't see what the problem is. If the householder doesn't pay the $75, charge them $1000 when you come out to save the house. That way the surrounding properties are not put in danger, the fire department gets more money than they otherwise would have and they don't end up looking like petty, money hungry dicks.
The last Microsoft product I bought was Windows 98, so I have mercifully missed the whole disaster since then. All my clients are just now starting to switch from XP to Windows 7, because I advised against Vista.
I was like you. I advised people to avoid Vista without having tried it too. Then I did try it and found that most of the bad things people said about it were just outright lies. There were some problems, but it was nowhere near as bad as everyone claimed.
And in all these years of supporting dozens of computers I have never heard of PowerShell until this article.
I'm not surprised since your clients were taking your advice and you hadn't heard of it. It stands to reason that they wouldn't be using it. Powershell has been around for 4 or 5 years now, and it does appear in everyone's Windows Update list as an optional download. No offense, but I'm not sure how you support Windows users with only knowledge of Windows 98.
Too bad they did not build on Xenix, and save everyone much grief. Imagine where Apple could have been in the 90s, had they switched to Unix a decade earlier.
The problem with Windows isn't with the core technology. The NT kernel is quite solid. The problem is what they did on top of that. ActiveX in a browser was just asking for trouble. Leaving ports open and services running by default might make it easy for plebs to run programs and network services without having to configure them, but it is suicide for security. Even if it had Xenix underneath, they still would have been up the creek with idiotic decisions like that.
MS has 25 million live subscribers. @ $50 each, that's $1.25bil.
I'm no expert in Xbox Live, but your cited article doesn't match your figures. It says that only half the 25 million users paid the $50 Gold subscription:
Microsoft says about half the service's 25 million users paid an annual fee to play games online like "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" in the year ended June 30. That would be about $600 million.
So rather than $1.85 billion dollars of sales that you estimate, it is more like $1.2 billion that your article estimates. Still nothing to be laughed at. I can only assume that the grandparent poster meant to say was that the Xbox Live service was laughed at by Playstation gamers. Which they would, I suppose.
The article started to address this, but failed miserably.
One group will undoubtedly be saying "there's no harm in running both client- and server-side firewalls, so why even contemplate the heresy of turning off the built-in Windows firewall?" You would of course be right, except for one thing - it's actually quite hard to turn off the built-in firewall
Ah, what? The reason for not turning off the firewall is that it is hard to turn off the firewall? That makes no sense at all. It also doesn't seem too hard to me. In Win7, type firewall into the start menu search box and click on Windows Firewall. From there, choose "turn firewall on or off".
The reason for leaving the firewall on is to give a last line of defence if someone gets around the server protection. It also acts as a barrier when idiots decide to add an unauthorised wireless access point onto the network.
If your system can't run Vista, then you don't have a hope of running DirectX 11 games.
I had a quick look at the system requirements for this project, and it said: "The following are required for DRI-based hardware acceleration with Mesa...Linux 2.6.28." This version was released nearly two years after Vista. I don't think that it can be said to support DirectX better than Microsoft when it can't run on a version that dates back to XP days.
Now I think that it is great that they are doing this project, but saying it supports the API better than Microsoft only distracts from the developer's achievements.
I have high hopes that 0x2011 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
From TFA:
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of open-source tools, and Android has the potential to offer all the advantages of an open platform, but it also gives the handset and cellphone providers the power to customize and add endlessly to their phones.
So just what is the advantage of an open platform if OEMs are not allowed to customize it? I see Android like the Linux kernel on which it is built. The Linux kernel powers all manner of desktops, phones and other devices with a wide variety of user interfaces. Similarly, Android is a building block to make a phone user interface. It allows manufacturers to make an HTC phone, or a Motorola phone (etc).
And what is the alternative? Lock down the OS so OEMs can't replace applications with their own choices? Isn't that the practice that causes everyone to complain about Microsoft? Just imagine that the default browser in Android was Internet Explorer. Would anyone here complain about manufacturers replacing it with anything else on their model of phone? No? Then it seems a bit rich to complain about any other customization of the platform.
The reason why they're making such a fuss over his porn and gambling is that he had to bypass the Great Firewall of Australia to access them.
Why has everyone modded this as insightful rather than funny? The Internet filter was never rolled out in Australia, and after the results of the last election it is dead in the water.
you're claiming that Obama set up the regulatory structure that lead to (I presume) the disaster in the Gulf?
I'm saying that he let the regulatory structure that was there wither
How? What did he do to reduce the quality of the regulation covering offshore drilling? Perhaps you believe that by not improving the regulation that this constitutes a whithering effect.
It's as much about what you don't do as what you do.
Are yes, you do. In that case, why make this a partisan argument against Barack Obama? Surely then you should attribute eight times more blame to the previous administration, given that they had eight years compared to Obama's one.
Actually George W Bush was more responsible for the incident because his administration had the opportunity to avert this problem and actively decided against implementing additional safety features. In 2003 the Minerals Management Service considered requiring remote controlled shut-off switches for drilling rigs. They decided against forcing them to install the devices because they cost too much.
Perhaps if they had gone the other way (against the wishes of big business) then this would have been just a workplace accident rather than a major environmental catastrophe.
As for Obama, he didn't have much time to think much about offshore drilling operations because he came into the presidency in the middle of the GFC. Or do you think he somehow caused that too?
So you're reading the book, you tripleclick the home button, swipe down with two fingers and it starts reading to you. Tap with two fingers to pause the reader. tripleclick home again to turn off VoiceOver.
Another great example of the ease of use of the iPhone. I can never understand why people keep claiming that it is user friendly when there are so many examples of these hidden features. The only saving grace in this case is that this is an obscure feature that few people will need to use.
That sounds great, but is it true. No disrespect, but I have read too many scenarios like this around here only to find that they are just complete guesswork on the part of the writer and have nothing to do with reality.
So how do you know that Apple has negotiated audio rights for their works?
At least we don't have to wait for four Tuesdays' time for the fix...
No, we had to wait over 300 Tuesdays for the fix to the kernal. That's 75 times better!
I don't think the video quality matters less, I recently bought a bluray player and hooked up to netflix streaming on a 55" Samsung.
I'll stop you there. The fact that you were trying out your new bluray player with your massive TV demonstrates that 1) you would be looking more closely at the quality of your new item, and 2) you are the kind of person who DOES care about quality (although using netflix negates that a bit). This does not mean that you represent the majority of people.
I am not a huge fan of HD video, but even I was amazed when I had a look at what was available via bittorrent and found it full of VERY low resolution video files. Obviously the masses don't really care much about the quality of what they watch - or maybe those that do think it matters care enough to pay for quality video.
Finally, I agree with you that pixelation in black is a horrible thing to see. While I don't care a great deal about higher resolution of bluray, I do appreciate the better colour definition to make the darkness seem more realistic.
Portugal paid a ridiculous amount of money to put in place a new system that has not and will not save them any money.
Why would it be instantly cheaper to use renewable energy considering that you have to pay for the infrastructure (which the existing non-renewable energy sources have already been paid for).
Far from a success, this is in fact a giant failure for Portugal.
Only in your limited definition of success. Their aim may have been to reduce their carbon footprint and do their bit to save the world. Or maybe it was to keep more of the money spent on energy within their borders rather than making other countries richer. Maybe the aim was to increase the profile of their country as a green destination which may improve their tourist industry.
There are many reasons why countries should adopt green energy. I doubt making it cheaper for the consumer would ever be the top priority.
I can't believe you are trying so desperately to believe that Apple came first despite coming to the market over five years after Microsoft's Tablet PC. And the Tablet PC system was preceded by Windows for Pen Computing which was an add on for Windows 3.11 back in the early 90s!!! How far back do the Apple rumours go?
Of course, Microsoft was not the only company to develop pen based computing back in the 90s. Nor were they the first. The concepts of multi-touch, pinch to zoom, finger flicks and the computer surface responding fluidly to the users gestures date back to the mid-80s to early 90s. It just took a couple of decades for the hardware to catch up.
I do agree with you that Apple held off until the market (and more importantly technology) was ready. Their devices are light enough to be carried and fast enough to eliminate the lag in user interface. However, I don't think that they got lucky with the user interface. Apple looked at all the products that preceded it to see what worked and what didn't work. Virtually everything that people point to as a revolutionary UI feature can be found in some other device or demonstrated proof of concept.
I think Apple's touch capabilities are quite a bit more advanced than what Microsoft incorporated into Windows to accommodate touch screens. You might want to look at how that works in order to understand how primitive those capabilities were.
I own both a tablet PC and an iPhone, so I am aware of the differences. That doesn't change my assertion that Microsoft wasn't late to the game.
Microsoft's offering was limited by the lack of cheap multitouch hardware available at the time as well as the need to fit in with the existing Windows UI (including 3rd party software support). Microsoft's Surface shows what they could do with access to multitouch and a change of UI. It had kind of things like the pinch zoom and finger flicks to "throw" objects across the screen that the Windows pen interface lacked and that Apple later invented for iOS. It also had a more simplistic, but flashy interface that was better suited to the input mechanism.
But it also cost over $10,000 dollars. Because of this, it was never marketed as a consumer device. If Microsoft were smart, they would implement the technology they had with the Surface in a mobile device and brand it as Surface to dispel the myth that they are the Johnny-come-lately of the touchscreen and smartphone/tablet markets.
Once again, Microsoft is late to the party and Ballmer's pissed.
Except that Microsoft has been developing software for the Tablet PC market since 2001. They incorporated this into the main build of Windows with Service Pack for of Windows XP. Rather than being late, they were too early so that the tablets were too big and heavy.
Also, they assumed that people wanted the full Windows interface, which doesn't lend itself to the less precise controls of pen and finger input. They made that same mistake with Windows Mobile too. Back in the early PDA days, that was the reason why I prefered the simple interface of PalmOS (from which the iPhone interface borrows heavily).
Ballmer is pissed not because Microsoft was late, but that they were never able to capture the user's imagination with their tablet technology. Apple got it right because they were able to see the mistakes that Microsoft made compared to their opposition at the time.
Problem is, if you're out driving on the autobahn, all this achieves is wasting fuel to haul around a whole lot of pointless & heavy batteries.
At some stage you have to exit the autobahn, and that is when fuel consumption goes up and the hybrid advantage kicks in. Just because you have decided to focus on the one section of road that doesn't see a great improvement doesn't mean that it is not worth bothering with electric motors or that overall consumption will not go down.
So... should murderers be let off just because in their moral code it's ok to kill?
That sounds so absolute, except that the moral line is blurred by the fact that there is a 700 billion dollar industry dedicated to killing people. And there are laws that state you can shoot someone who breaks into your home. And many states still allow execution. And there are legal defenses to murder, and different sentencing options which suggests a scale to the severity of murder.
All of a sudden, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" gets watered down by exceptions. The fact that many bibles have this line as "Thou shalt not murder" proves that our moral imperatives vary between people and societies.
Fantastic for those who live in sunny states. A lot less great for those of us who don't.
So what? You can at least use it in sunny states then. Just because you have found some place on the map where solar is not practical doesn't mean that the whole idea of solar energy shouldn't be ignored for the rest of the world. It is like saying that solar power is useless because the Amish don't need electricity.
You build whatever is practical for a given location. If their calculations are true, this just eliminates one factor that was against solar power previously. Simple really.
It just sounds like you're defending a hatred of Apple because it's trendy.
I think you need to learn to read entire sentences. It seems that you got up to "I hate Apple..." and then clicked the reply button immediately.
Rotide can hardly be accused of defending hatred of Apple when the point of the entire grandparent post is to label the article as juvenile for deriding iPad owners by using stereotypes.
Despite all the pro-P2P propaganda about how it "democratizes" data, it's really more a mob-rule popularity contest for grabbing the shiniest download.
Isn't mob rule exactly what democracy is all about? If there is little interest in a download then there will be fewer people seeding it. How else did you think democracy would work?
Whether or not that's a good way to do things is irregardless.
You mean irrelevant. Irregardless is not a real word. Even if you want to argue that it is a real word, it does not mean the same as irrelevant.
Getting back on topic, Dell does some things right. The most important thing for me is support. People often ask me for advice on what computer that they should buy. I always say Dell, because if something goes wrong then you can go back to them for help.
This is especially important, because if something does go wrong, I don't want them coming to me to fix it. Just because I gave them advice on what to buy doesn't make it my responsibility. Since I have started suggesting Dell (and explaining why) I haven't had a single person ask me to fix things when they download the lasted virus or when they want to install some new bit of hardware. For me, that is priceless.
But no, I wouldn't ever buy a Dell for myself.