Because it's more than just BSD with a better windowing system.
OS X Live CDs? Uh, sure. *rolls eyes*
Some people just want OS X for generic x86 so they can pirate it to death like they have with Windows XP. Nothing more. I don't get the whiney sense of entitlement, but hey. I'm also used to reliable computer hardware with an operating system that just freaking works.
When I pay $129 for OS X that is more that what I've paid for Windows. So what is the fucking problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?
First of all, calm the fuck down.
Second, Windows XP Professional is $250.
Third, you can't run OS X on anything because OS X is designed to provide a seamless experience with Apple's hardware. I don't get your sense of entitlement here.
Ok retard you still haven't answered how people will magically decide to purchase new hardware when what they currently have works fine
OMFG. What has been my point? Here, I'll list them for you:
1.) Microsoft Vista will flop. 2.) It will flop because Microsoft's plan to drive hardware sales will backfire.
Let me make my main point clear again since you are obviously slow Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista that comes with a new computer and most people will be upgrading for reasons other than to only meet the hardware requirements to be able to run Vista.
And, once again, I'll list it to make it clear for you:
1.) WINDOWS XP SALES AND HARDWARE SALES ARE DRYING UP. 2.) Therefore, Microsoft needs to sell more of Windows. 3.) Since most people only get new versions of Windows when they buy a new PC, Microsoft is trying to drive hardware sales.
Get it? I'll spell it out again. Windows business is down 10% year-on-year according to Microsoft, and people get new versions of Windows primarily through new PC sales, according to Microsoft. To make money, they need to drive hardware sales again and ship Vista on them.
People are NOT going to upgrade their whole computer just to be able to meet the requirements for Windows Vista.
That's why Vista will flop. Are you understanding yet?
Here, I'll spell it out again:
1.) People get Windows primarily through PC sales. 2.) Windows XP and current PC sales have dried up. 3.) Knowing nobody will rush out and buy Vista, Microsoft attempts to drive hardware sales. 4.) Vista flops because of it.
Is it sinking in yet? Has it passed your cranial walls and made residence in those dullard brain cells of yours?
Ok, I have said enough. Now go back to your Mac that ships with a one-button mouse (since you too dumb to have more than one button, you would forget which button to press when) and try to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
Having no other counterargument, you make a lame Mac insult, ignoring that MacOS has supported multiple mice buttons since the 90s, that the Apple store sells one-button mice, and most importantly, that the four-button Mighty Mouse SHIPS WITH MACS. Idiot.
Having a one-button mouse isn't a sign of dumbness, it's a sign of a superior user interface. Windows requires ten clicks to do things that only require one in OS X. Functionality is hidden away in various right-click menus. But hey, have fun waiting another year and a half to get OS X Tiger's features today. LOL.
* Built-in DVD recording capabilities, including Mt. Rainier support.
Welcome to OS X.
* A file-based disk imaging technology called XImage, that will install Vista in about 15 minutes rather than the 40 minutes taken by the current file-by-file copying method.
Translation: "It copies the files directly now instead of extracting them." Does it matter how long it will take to install? Are you installing Windows on a regular basis?
* Native Raw image support.
LOL. Welcome to OS X.
* Native, embedded RSS support, with developer API.
Gee whiz. That's worth a whole operating system upgrade.
* File encryption support superior to that available in Windows XP, which will make it easier and more automatic to prevent unauthorized viewing of files on stolen laptops or hard drives.
Most of this stuff is already available from third-parties for XP.
* File virtualization, a feature that automatically creates private copies of files that an application can use when it does not have permission to access the original files. This facilitates stronger file security and helps applications not written with security in mind to run under stronger restrictions.
Hooray, so it lets you access files you're not supposed to be able to access. Gotta love that Microsoft security.
* Transactional File Transfers, prevents a half updated set of files from being created during updates for example, which can cause stability problems.
Wow, filesystem journaling!
* SafeDocs Restore Service, a Windows Backup tool allowing automatic backup of files, recovery of specific files and folders, recovery of specific file types, or recovery all files.
Wow, a backup app! Nobody's ever seen those before!
* Support of UNIX-style symbolic links.
LOL.
So, please explain how Windows Vista was engineered to boost hardware sales when Microsoft will make money on hardware sales that include some version of Windows anyway. What version is included is not a factor, they make money whether it is Windows XP or if it were Windows Vista.
Okay, since you're thick as a brick, read your own paragraph because you answer it yourself. You outright state that Microsoft makes money from hardware sales. Bing! Guess what, kiddie, Windows XP sales have dried up, and people are sticking with the computers they have now. So Microsoft is trying to create as much flash and bang in Vista as possible and telling them they need to buy a new computer to have it.
I'll list it for you:
1.) Microsoft makes money from hardware sales. 2.) Windows XP sales have dried up. 3.) Current hardware sales are drying up. 4.) Microsoft creates new version of Windows and tells people they need to buy new hardware for it. 5.) Microsoft magically makes money from hardware sales again for Vista. Funny how that works.
Do you get it now? Does it compute?
Not that it will matter. Vista will flop. All it has is Aero. All the features you listed were minor auxiliary features that didn't require a whole new OS update. With Microsoft announcing SEVEN freaking versions of Vista, expect rampant customer confusion. And much gloating from Mac users when they point out OS X already has all the "new" features Vista is supposed to get.
FYI, the "Dark Ages" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Perhaps when the Conservative movement gets up the guts to tell the Evangelicals, including GWB, that being Conservative doesn't mean having to deny reality that doesn't fit with a Biblical interpretation which could best be described as simply idiotic.
I'm opposed to organized religion, but I do want to say that the conservatives today suddenly seem to have all the political moderates, and it's the liberals who seem to have gone fringe. Having liberals scream at me with picket signs that I'm an idiot for not voting for their guy turns me away. Howard Dean says something crazy every week (much to the delight of Matt Drudge).
This is something that has bugged me about the media. There is an anti-Christian and anti-South portrayal in nearly all popular media and all news stories. If you go to a Southern town in a movie, there will be rednecks with pickup trucks and getting into barfights or beating their wives. Christians are the punchlines of jokes, and their beliefs are actively mocked and parodied. The media is also anti-father. You rarely find a good father figure in movies or television or news stories. Either he's non-existent, or he's a deadbeat who left years ago, or a wifebeater, etc.
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news. Lots of peopel disappear in our nation, but heaven forbid the white blonde girl in Aruba go missing. Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it (see little black girl Rilya Wilson who just disappeared without a trace in Florida, who only Bill O'Reilly of all people covered).
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian, but these biases, which are just silently accepted by everyone because they're used to seeing them, make me sick. I'm just tired of it. I wish there were clear, direct, independent journalists to get some ACTUAL NEWS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. Not ratings-makers. I don't want to hear about "day 10 of Camp Casey." Please, tell me what is going on in the world. I know there is more out there.
Well no kidding that is true since it is the most popular, widespread OS. They would still make the same amount of money selling Windows XP, since that is the OS installed on most new computer systems.
You're completely missing the point. People don't go out and buy Windows upgrades. They get new versions of Windows when they buy new computers, but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.
Windows isn't "popular," though it is widespread.
So how is pushing the limits a bad thing?
Bloating your product to push hardware sales is a bad thing.
I don't see people making a big deal when a new video game comes out that has high system requirements.
You don't? People bitch every single time. That's why consoles are the popular gaming platform now.
They are trying something new and maybe it will suck, but maybe it won't. From other posts from people who have tried out the beta it does not sound like if you don't have a top of the line computer Vista is unresponsive or unusable.
That's because the betas don't have the final Aero Glass vectorized interface. With that disabled, the system goes back to a more XP-like interface, which makes one wonder what the point of getting Vista is.
However, I don't see a problem with pushing the limits when releasing a new product.
Because they're "pushing the limits" completely pointlessly, to make money with their OEM contractors. They're trying to coax people into the upgrade cycle when they don't need it.
So, I still do not believe that Vista was engineered to have high requirements to boost sales through more hardware sales. Believe that if you will, but you are wrong.
No, I am absolutely correct about this, and you have no counterpoints to offer. You don't need 3Ghz and 512MB of RAM to display a drop-shadowed, hardware-accelerated window on the screen. Give me a break.
For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete.
The summary is wrong anyway. Microsoft hasn't ignored the Web as an emerging platform. They've specifically targetted it, controlling standards with a non-standards compliant browser, breaking Java to keep people dependent on Windows, and now introducing the Avalon/.NET APIs to attempt to deliver applications through Internet Explorer. All to keep their platform dominant.
It's still much simpler. OS X's Software Update is an actual application, not a webpage, and it lists available updates and nothing more. You fire up the app from the Apple menu, check the boxes, and start the download process.
Windows starts up Internet Explorer and opens the Windows Update site, which is loaded with hyperlinks and buttons, has an "Express" and a "Custom" update process, and generally requires more clicking and waiting to get it done.
Yeah, I am sure they would engineer their whole operating system to force people to upgrade their computer instead of possibly being able to sell copies to more people.
Windows sales are made up almost entirely of new computer preinstallations. Microsoft itself has confirmed this.
Also, if people are happy with their current hardware and the applications they are running why would they purchase a new computer? If all they need the computer for is to go online and edit pictures how will they be forced to upgrade when they already have everything they need right now?
You're arguing my point for me. People already have what they need, yet Vista requires incredibly steep requirements just to display some windows on the screen.
Next time get some hard facts before making baseless claims.
I don't expect Microsoft fanbois to do anything but defend Microsoft business practices to the bitter end.
You're ignoring the plateau. People do specific things on a computer--check email, take pictures, surf the web, play music. At some point, you don't need more than a certain level of hardware to do what most people do on computers. The sweet spot is 1Ghz with 256MB of RAM, perhaps 512.
What does a secretary or a business owner need vectorized graphics for?
I can tell you exactly why it took them so long. For one, it is not a complete rewrite. They were basing their work off of Windows XP SP2. They were adding so many new technologies that the system was straining, so last year they actually started over from the Windows Server 2003 codebase, and backported their new tech in a more modular fashion. The second major reason it's taken so long is that the Longhorn project is over-managed.
Even more proof it's not a complete rewrite is the fact most of Vista's new technologies are going to be made available for XP as well, as free downloads.
I think Vista will be somewhat of a flop, as most people have begun to treat computers as appliances that last a long time. 1Ghz/512MB of RAM is a perfect computer for someone browsing the web, sending email, and taking pictures. They don't need more than that. The plateau has been hit. It will be hard to justify a mega-machine just to display windows on the screen.
I hope people realize part of the reason for the steep requirements is to please OEMs who want to sell new computers. Microsoft knows most of their Windows upgrades are through new computers sales, so that's how they'll try to get people to use Vista, and vendors are happy because their sales have been lagging as people have realized 1Ghz with 256MB of RAM really is all they need just to do their online banking, send some email, and take pictures of the family.
This is an obvious attempt to initiate hardware sales to please manufacturers and make them money.
The graph isn't showing Linux; it's showing VA Linux, which had ESR on its board of directors. Again, the point is to show the ineffectiveness of ESR against Microsoft through comparison.
There are conflicting reports on Bush's computer preference. The "Bush uses a Mac" theory is mostly a result of a photo that was taken of him in the oval office with a Mac on his desk; however, one of his aides has reportedly said that he actually uses a Dell, which would make more sense--Dell being a Texas homegrown company after all.:)
I find that rather overdramatic. If it wasn't a joke, Microsoft was probably wanting just him as some sort of open source consultant. I don't really know how to respond to your talk of a "war" and of "denying the enemy the materials to wage war." Microsoft commands something like 95% of the world's desktops. So if it's a war, only one side is fighting.
He was pointing out how ineffective this "worst nightmare" has been for Microsoft. You're distracting yourself with the Linux company, which wasn't the point.
I thought the beauty of open source was that the source code was available. Free speech, not free beer. I didn't know it was "Open Source is great because it means I don't have to fire up eMule anymore!"
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's more than just BSD with a better windowing system.
OS X Live CDs? Uh, sure. *rolls eyes*
Some people just want OS X for generic x86 so they can pirate it to death like they have with Windows XP. Nothing more. I don't get the whiney sense of entitlement, but hey. I'm also used to reliable computer hardware with an operating system that just freaking works.
When I pay $129 for OS X that is more that what I've paid for Windows. So what is the fucking problem with running it on any piece of hardware that can run it?
First of all, calm the fuck down.
Second, Windows XP Professional is $250.
Third, you can't run OS X on anything because OS X is designed to provide a seamless experience with Apple's hardware. I don't get your sense of entitlement here.
Ok retard you still haven't answered how people will magically decide to purchase new hardware when what they currently have works fine
OMFG. What has been my point? Here, I'll list them for you:
1.) Microsoft Vista will flop.
2.) It will flop because Microsoft's plan to drive hardware sales will backfire.
Let me make my main point clear again since you are obviously slow Microsoft makes money whether is is Windows XP or Windows Vista that comes with a new computer and most people will be upgrading for reasons other than to only meet the hardware requirements to be able to run Vista.
And, once again, I'll list it to make it clear for you:
1.) WINDOWS XP SALES AND HARDWARE SALES ARE DRYING UP.
2.) Therefore, Microsoft needs to sell more of Windows.
3.) Since most people only get new versions of Windows when they buy a new PC, Microsoft is trying to drive hardware sales.
Get it? I'll spell it out again. Windows business is down 10% year-on-year according to Microsoft, and people get new versions of Windows primarily through new PC sales, according to Microsoft. To make money, they need to drive hardware sales again and ship Vista on them.
People are NOT going to upgrade their whole computer just to be able to meet the requirements for Windows Vista.
That's why Vista will flop. Are you understanding yet?
Here, I'll spell it out again:
1.) People get Windows primarily through PC sales.
2.) Windows XP and current PC sales have dried up.
3.) Knowing nobody will rush out and buy Vista, Microsoft attempts to drive hardware sales.
4.) Vista flops because of it.
Is it sinking in yet? Has it passed your cranial walls and made residence in those dullard brain cells of yours?
Ok, I have said enough. Now go back to your Mac that ships with a one-button mouse (since you too dumb to have more than one button, you would forget which button to press when) and try to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
Having no other counterargument, you make a lame Mac insult, ignoring that MacOS has supported multiple mice buttons since the 90s, that the Apple store sells one-button mice, and most importantly, that the four-button Mighty Mouse SHIPS WITH MACS. Idiot.
Having a one-button mouse isn't a sign of dumbness, it's a sign of a superior user interface. Windows requires ten clicks to do things that only require one in OS X. Functionality is hidden away in various right-click menus. But hey, have fun waiting another year and a half to get OS X Tiger's features today. LOL.
Okay, Windows fanboi, I'll bite.
:P
* Full support for the NX feature of processors.
Ooh, I can't wait!
* Built-in DVD recording capabilities, including Mt. Rainier support.
Welcome to OS X.
* A file-based disk imaging technology called XImage, that will install Vista in about 15 minutes rather than the 40 minutes taken by the current file-by-file copying method.
Translation: "It copies the files directly now instead of extracting them." Does it matter how long it will take to install? Are you installing Windows on a regular basis?
* Native Raw image support.
LOL. Welcome to OS X.
* Native, embedded RSS support, with developer API.
Gee whiz. That's worth a whole operating system upgrade.
* File encryption support superior to that available in Windows XP, which will make it easier and more automatic to prevent unauthorized viewing of files on stolen laptops or hard drives.
Most of this stuff is already available from third-parties for XP.
* File virtualization, a feature that automatically creates private copies of files that an application can use when it does not have permission to access the original files. This facilitates stronger file security and helps applications not written with security in mind to run under stronger restrictions.
Hooray, so it lets you access files you're not supposed to be able to access. Gotta love that Microsoft security.
* Transactional File Transfers, prevents a half updated set of files from being created during updates for example, which can cause stability problems.
Wow, filesystem journaling!
* SafeDocs Restore Service, a Windows Backup tool allowing automatic backup of files, recovery of specific files and folders, recovery of specific file types, or recovery all files.
Wow, a backup app! Nobody's ever seen those before!
* Support of UNIX-style symbolic links.
LOL.
So, please explain how Windows Vista was engineered to boost hardware sales when Microsoft will make money on hardware sales that include some version of Windows anyway. What version is included is not a factor, they make money whether it is Windows XP or if it were Windows Vista.
Okay, since you're thick as a brick, read your own paragraph because you answer it yourself. You outright state that Microsoft makes money from hardware sales. Bing! Guess what, kiddie, Windows XP sales have dried up, and people are sticking with the computers they have now. So Microsoft is trying to create as much flash and bang in Vista as possible and telling them they need to buy a new computer to have it.
I'll list it for you:
1.) Microsoft makes money from hardware sales.
2.) Windows XP sales have dried up.
3.) Current hardware sales are drying up.
4.) Microsoft creates new version of Windows and tells people they need to buy new hardware for it.
5.) Microsoft magically makes money from hardware sales again for Vista. Funny how that works.
Do you get it now? Does it compute?
Not that it will matter. Vista will flop. All it has is Aero. All the features you listed were minor auxiliary features that didn't require a whole new OS update. With Microsoft announcing SEVEN freaking versions of Vista, expect rampant customer confusion. And much gloating from Mac users when they point out OS X already has all the "new" features Vista is supposed to get.
Have fun waiting another year and a half.
FYI, the "Dark Ages" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Perhaps when the Conservative movement gets up the guts to tell the Evangelicals, including GWB, that being Conservative doesn't mean having to deny reality that doesn't fit with a Biblical interpretation which could best be described as simply idiotic.
I'm opposed to organized religion, but I do want to say that the conservatives today suddenly seem to have all the political moderates, and it's the liberals who seem to have gone fringe. Having liberals scream at me with picket signs that I'm an idiot for not voting for their guy turns me away. Howard Dean says something crazy every week (much to the delight of Matt Drudge).
This is something that has bugged me about the media. There is an anti-Christian and anti-South portrayal in nearly all popular media and all news stories. If you go to a Southern town in a movie, there will be rednecks with pickup trucks and getting into barfights or beating their wives. Christians are the punchlines of jokes, and their beliefs are actively mocked and parodied. The media is also anti-father. You rarely find a good father figure in movies or television or news stories. Either he's non-existent, or he's a deadbeat who left years ago, or a wifebeater, etc.
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news. Lots of peopel disappear in our nation, but heaven forbid the white blonde girl in Aruba go missing. Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it (see little black girl Rilya Wilson who just disappeared without a trace in Florida, who only Bill O'Reilly of all people covered).
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian, but these biases, which are just silently accepted by everyone because they're used to seeing them, make me sick. I'm just tired of it. I wish there were clear, direct, independent journalists to get some ACTUAL NEWS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. Not ratings-makers. I don't want to hear about "day 10 of Camp Casey." Please, tell me what is going on in the world. I know there is more out there.
Yet another valid security question is deflected by a Mozilla fan. So the world turns.
Well no kidding that is true since it is the most popular, widespread OS. They would still make the same amount of money selling Windows XP, since that is the OS installed on most new computer systems.
You're completely missing the point. People don't go out and buy Windows upgrades. They get new versions of Windows when they buy new computers, but today's hardware is good enough for them, so they're less likely to buy new computers.
Windows isn't "popular," though it is widespread.
So how is pushing the limits a bad thing?
Bloating your product to push hardware sales is a bad thing.
I don't see people making a big deal when a new video game comes out that has high system requirements.
You don't? People bitch every single time. That's why consoles are the popular gaming platform now.
They are trying something new and maybe it will suck, but maybe it won't. From other posts from people who have tried out the beta it does not sound like if you don't have a top of the line computer Vista is unresponsive or unusable.
That's because the betas don't have the final Aero Glass vectorized interface. With that disabled, the system goes back to a more XP-like interface, which makes one wonder what the point of getting Vista is.
However, I don't see a problem with pushing the limits when releasing a new product.
Because they're "pushing the limits" completely pointlessly, to make money with their OEM contractors. They're trying to coax people into the upgrade cycle when they don't need it.
So, I still do not believe that Vista was engineered to have high requirements to boost sales through more hardware sales. Believe that if you will, but you are wrong.
No, I am absolutely correct about this, and you have no counterpoints to offer. You don't need 3Ghz and 512MB of RAM to display a drop-shadowed, hardware-accelerated window on the screen. Give me a break.
For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete.
The summary is wrong anyway. Microsoft hasn't ignored the Web as an emerging platform. They've specifically targetted it, controlling standards with a non-standards compliant browser, breaking Java to keep people dependent on Windows, and now introducing the Avalon/.NET APIs to attempt to deliver applications through Internet Explorer. All to keep their platform dominant.
Whew, I was getting worried we weren't going to have YAGS (Yet Another Google Story) today. And this one has Microsoft in it. Bonus!
An inaccurate headline and summary on Slashdot? You, sir, are threatening the hegemony.
It's still much simpler. OS X's Software Update is an actual application, not a webpage, and it lists available updates and nothing more. You fire up the app from the Apple menu, check the boxes, and start the download process.
Windows starts up Internet Explorer and opens the Windows Update site, which is loaded with hyperlinks and buttons, has an "Express" and a "Custom" update process, and generally requires more clicking and waiting to get it done.
Uh, yes they do. Many businesses still run Windows 98 and 2000. OS/2 mainframes are common.
The issue isn't over what, technically, defines a blog, but the level of journalistic competence of the average blogger.
/. and insult ERIC RAYMOND over a little joke he made without anything to back it up, then you're an idiot.
As opposed to the journalistic competence of the Slashdot editors? Please.
Besides, if you're going to come onto
Why is "ERIC RAYMOND" above criticism? A "little joke?" Take off the blinders, dude.
Yeah, I am sure they would engineer their whole operating system to force people to upgrade their computer instead of possibly being able to sell copies to more people.
Windows sales are made up almost entirely of new computer preinstallations. Microsoft itself has confirmed this.
Also, if people are happy with their current hardware and the applications they are running why would they purchase a new computer? If all they need the computer for is to go online and edit pictures how will they be forced to upgrade when they already have everything they need right now?
You're arguing my point for me. People already have what they need, yet Vista requires incredibly steep requirements just to display some windows on the screen.
Next time get some hard facts before making baseless claims.
I don't expect Microsoft fanbois to do anything but defend Microsoft business practices to the bitter end.
You're ignoring the plateau. People do specific things on a computer--check email, take pictures, surf the web, play music. At some point, you don't need more than a certain level of hardware to do what most people do on computers. The sweet spot is 1Ghz with 256MB of RAM, perhaps 512.
What does a secretary or a business owner need vectorized graphics for?
And given that Vista's new APIs will be free downloads made available for XP, it makes you wonder, what's the point of Vista then?
I can tell you exactly why it took them so long. For one, it is not a complete rewrite. They were basing their work off of Windows XP SP2. They were adding so many new technologies that the system was straining, so last year they actually started over from the Windows Server 2003 codebase, and backported their new tech in a more modular fashion. The second major reason it's taken so long is that the Longhorn project is over-managed.
Even more proof it's not a complete rewrite is the fact most of Vista's new technologies are going to be made available for XP as well, as free downloads.
I think Vista will be somewhat of a flop, as most people have begun to treat computers as appliances that last a long time. 1Ghz/512MB of RAM is a perfect computer for someone browsing the web, sending email, and taking pictures. They don't need more than that. The plateau has been hit. It will be hard to justify a mega-machine just to display windows on the screen.
I hope people realize part of the reason for the steep requirements is to please OEMs who want to sell new computers. Microsoft knows most of their Windows upgrades are through new computers sales, so that's how they'll try to get people to use Vista, and vendors are happy because their sales have been lagging as people have realized 1Ghz with 256MB of RAM really is all they need just to do their online banking, send some email, and take pictures of the family.
This is an obvious attempt to initiate hardware sales to please manufacturers and make them money.
Said blogger isn't being trumpeted in a front page Slashdot story for millions of geeks to ponder over.
Besides, Slashdot is a blog.
The graph isn't showing Linux; it's showing VA Linux, which had ESR on its board of directors. Again, the point is to show the ineffectiveness of ESR against Microsoft through comparison.
There are conflicting reports on Bush's computer preference. The "Bush uses a Mac" theory is mostly a result of a photo that was taken of him in the oval office with a Mac on his desk; however, one of his aides has reportedly said that he actually uses a Dell, which would make more sense--Dell being a Texas homegrown company after all. :)
I find that rather overdramatic. If it wasn't a joke, Microsoft was probably wanting just him as some sort of open source consultant. I don't really know how to respond to your talk of a "war" and of "denying the enemy the materials to wage war." Microsoft commands something like 95% of the world's desktops. So if it's a war, only one side is fighting.
He was pointing out how ineffective this "worst nightmare" has been for Microsoft. You're distracting yourself with the Linux company, which wasn't the point.
I thought the beauty of open source was that the source code was available. Free speech, not free beer. I didn't know it was "Open Source is great because it means I don't have to fire up eMule anymore!"