You do not realize that this $60 Billion is paper-money only, there is hardly any cash.
Actually, it's all cash.
As said in the linked article, "no other nonfinancial firm has more liquid money at its disposal" than Microsoft. Though it's dated over two years ago, that's still the case today.
Wow, you're obvious [sic] not business orientated [sic]. Don't divide by budget, subtract it! You're looking for the bottom line, i.e. pure profit.
Actually, a strong price-to-earning ratio is often more important to a company than net earnings. The 'pure profit' you mention is an effective way of making a company look impressive, but is not a good indication of its economic performance.
Let's say that Microsoft spends 500 million dollars and makes a billion in one year, making their net profit half a billion dollars (much lower than they actually make, I'm sure). During that same time, let's say that I spend a thousand dollars and make a million for my computer repair business. My earnings are a thousandfold larger than my costs, compared to Microsofts 2-to-1 earning ratio; I'd say that my company performed *much* better in that year. Microsoft's net earnings, however, are 500 times larger than mine, making them the bigger winner by your argument.
The real reason that companies are kissing Sony's ass is because Sony is a Japanese company.
Not so. Many of the companies that are "kissing Sony's ass" were developing for the orginal Playstation. When the era of the PS2 and Xbox came about, companies that put out PS1 games felt it'd be safer to continue their developement with Sony's nextgen system, as opposed to Microsoft's brand new one. Think about it: Sony would be assured of a large amount of PS2 sales in the crowd that had already owned and liked PS1s. Plus, many* that never had PS1s saw the PS2 as a better investment over an Xbox for a new system, especially when it came to backwards compatibility (*I can't say all; tons of people, myself included, chose an Xbox over a PS2).
The problem is the Japanese developers make all the good games and these developers are all loyal to Sony because Sony is run by Japanese people who look like them.
Then why does has the PS2 soundly beat the Gamecube in system and game sales in Japan?
I'd venture a guess that loyalty is rarely the leading motivation for most companies to develope games. I seem to recall Square releasing Final Fantasy VII on the PS, when all the previous FF games were on Nintendo systems.
When it comes to standards, IE tends to be a bit more relaxed than other browsers (read: Mozilla and FireFox). You can do things like add properties to <tr> tags (something that standardized HTML doesn't support, I *think*). While in most cases this is pretty innocuous, it has the potential to allow developers to create code that is only useable on IE browsers.
For a little example, try opening www.microsoft.com in both IE and FireFox. Notice the cool rollever menus on the left that are displayed "correctly" in IE but not in FireFox? It's not a browser shortcoming, it's just that IE is able to display code that doesn't necessarily conform to a standard.
Avant Browser is another good "IE-based browser" that includes tabbed browsing and popup blocking. I've been pretty happy with it. Also, memory usage is generally pretty good compared to IE. I'll have upwards of 15 windows open in Avant, using an average of 2 or 3 mb of memory per window. On the other hand, leave Avant running (with or without any actual browsing windows open) for a day or two, and it's not uncommon to see 150 - 200 mb of virtual memory and 50 - 75 mb of physical memory being used. Heh.
I use FireFox just as much, though. I do a fair bit of cross-browser testing, and sometimes it's just refreshing to use an all around good product like FireFox.
I believe the old addage "reduce, reuse, recycle" is a much more environmentally-friendly way to live than just relying on the fact that the DVDs are recyclable. The recyling process takes time, effort, and resources, all things that wouldn't be necessary (to a large extent) if thousands upon thousands of 'fading DVDs' weren't produced and placed on the market.
It's your fault if you buy this and don't recycle it.
Though that may be true, companies should have a moral obligation to helping the environment (a false hope, unfortunately). If these DVDs are manufactured on a large scale, not only are they putting most of the environmental responsibility on the consumer, they're also creating a problem that could be easily avoided.
This is a rather skewed case in favor of Windows. First off, the fact that this printer comes with only a Windows CD is no fault of the OS; it's simply because more people run Windows.
Also, who's to say that said printer is going to work under Windows, even with the driver CD? Assuming it'll be foolproof under *any* OS is as absurd as saying it will *never* work on another.
As a general statement, yes, I think Windows is easier when it comes to hardware. Thing is, if HP (in this instance) simply made drivers for Linux (maybe they do!), your entire point is invalidated. When it becomes cost-effective for companies to support an OS other than Windows on a large scale, then the compatibility issues with Linux (my main gripe) would simply go away.
you can thank Bill Gates and company for making computers accessible to everyone.
The GUI that seems to be the basis of Windows' "accessibility" was present on Apple machines years previous. I'm not really a fan of Macs, but giving credit to Microsoft for making computers "easy" to use isn't right.
If anything, thank them for holding a monopoly that forced developers to adhere to a standard.
You know, now that I think about it, the issue that a lot of people have with Linux is not ease of use, but compatibility. Like it's been stated many times before, there are distros that are terribly easy to set up and use. Finding software to work with it, however, is another story.
Back then, hardware accelerated GUI would have made sense.
Not so much. The 'onboard video' on my old PC was a joke, and that sort of graphics arrangement was more popular then than it is now. Most new retail machines ship with fairly decent graphics cards, something that was not common 6 years ago.
Oh, and are you sure you know what GUI stands for? How about you look it up and compare it with the term "graphics card." Maybe you'll find a common link between the two:P
People need to realize that PC!=Internet connection.
Absolutely. Also, even if you have a connection, it's always cool to have the manual or reference *right there* instead of having to move from screen to screen or juggle open windows.
Heh, and we geeks sometimes enjoy reading manuals in our spare time for the hell of it too.
Greate way of judging the usability of modern day linux distros by refering to distros from 4 years back.
First off, Psyche (Red Hat 8.0) was released in September or October of 2002, which I believe is less than 4 years ago;) (try this if you don't believe me).
Second, those are the distributions I've run on my own personal machine, certainly not the only I've used (of course, it's my bad for not mentioning that previously).
And as far as Red Hat distros go, I've tried 9 and the first Fedora Core, and ultimately I enjoyed using 8 over both of those.
It's amusing to see how fast I'm labled a Microsoft fanboy and Linux n00b when I don't preach fervent devotion to Linus, et al...
Though you deserve kudos for actually using that software (and I agree with you wholeheartedly with regards to hypocritical Windows users), your anti-anything-linux rant is amusing and rather silly.
I run Windows XP Pro at home because I play games. However, I've run Red Hat 6.1, 7.1, and 8 on other machines, but have never found them to be terribly useful for personal uses. If I were to constantly have more than one machine, I would probably run Linux as well. I, however, do not have any qualms about running WinXP, especially because it *can* be a very stable and powerful OS.
Professionally, I've done my web developing in the past with perl on a Linux server. As the years went on, however, our company made the jump to Windows 2003 Server and.NET using C#. Though I am no fan of the "corporate bastard" that is Microsoft, production costs have lowered and development has become much more efficient since we made the switch. All biases aside, I have been relatively content to use a Microsoft product in this situation.
Free software is great, but is seldom intuitive enough for the masses. Linux, and the realm that surrounds it, is largely for those that enjoy and have the time to endlessly tweak their software. I have enormous respect for those kind of people, and I must admit that I've felt jealous of them and their coolness.
When you call everyone "IE-using scumsuckers" and "shitbags", you're as annoying as the very n00bs you taunt. At least Linux wannabes are open to software that they don't even use.
Your average parent doesn't necessarily think sex is evil, but does recognize that it's an issue that younger minds might not be ready for. Learning about sex before you're mature enough has the potential to be damaging. The largest problem, then, stems from the difficulty in determining when children in general have reached maturity.
The same argument could also be said of violence, but as it's been said before, our society seems to accept violence more readily than sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of dollars in research invalidated because of a huge potato stuck in the exhaust.
I seem to recall the Wright brothers' first flight being rather short as well...
*watches as the entire solar system becomes a hugeass game of CTF*
Actually, it's all cash. As said in the linked article, "no other nonfinancial firm has more liquid money at its disposal" than Microsoft. Though it's dated over two years ago, that's still the case today.
Actually, a strong price-to-earning ratio is often more important to a company than net earnings. The 'pure profit' you mention is an effective way of making a company look impressive, but is not a good indication of its economic performance.
Let's say that Microsoft spends 500 million dollars and makes a billion in one year, making their net profit half a billion dollars (much lower than they actually make, I'm sure). During that same time, let's say that I spend a thousand dollars and make a million for my computer repair business. My earnings are a thousandfold larger than my costs, compared to Microsofts 2-to-1 earning ratio; I'd say that my company performed *much* better in that year. Microsoft's net earnings, however, are 500 times larger than mine, making them the bigger winner by your argument.
Ballmer, CEO
G-Dub, CFO
Not so. Many of the companies that are "kissing Sony's ass" were developing for the orginal Playstation. When the era of the PS2 and Xbox came about, companies that put out PS1 games felt it'd be safer to continue their developement with Sony's nextgen system, as opposed to Microsoft's brand new one. Think about it: Sony would be assured of a large amount of PS2 sales in the crowd that had already owned and liked PS1s. Plus, many* that never had PS1s saw the PS2 as a better investment over an Xbox for a new system, especially when it came to backwards compatibility (*I can't say all; tons of people, myself included, chose an Xbox over a PS2).
Then why does has the PS2 soundly beat the Gamecube in system and game sales in Japan?
I'd venture a guess that loyalty is rarely the leading motivation for most companies to develope games. I seem to recall Square releasing Final Fantasy VII on the PS, when all the previous FF games were on Nintendo systems.
When it comes to standards, IE tends to be a bit more relaxed than other browsers (read: Mozilla and FireFox). You can do things like add properties to <tr> tags (something that standardized HTML doesn't support, I *think*). While in most cases this is pretty innocuous, it has the potential to allow developers to create code that is only useable on IE browsers.
For a little example, try opening www.microsoft.com in both IE and FireFox. Notice the cool rollever menus on the left that are displayed "correctly" in IE but not in FireFox? It's not a browser shortcoming, it's just that IE is able to display code that doesn't necessarily conform to a standard.
I use FireFox just as much, though. I do a fair bit of cross-browser testing, and sometimes it's just refreshing to use an all around good product like FireFox.
I believe the old addage "reduce, reuse, recycle" is a much more environmentally-friendly way to live than just relying on the fact that the DVDs are recyclable. The recyling process takes time, effort, and resources, all things that wouldn't be necessary (to a large extent) if thousands upon thousands of 'fading DVDs' weren't produced and placed on the market.
Though that may be true, companies should have a moral obligation to helping the environment (a false hope, unfortunately). If these DVDs are manufactured on a large scale, not only are they putting most of the environmental responsibility on the consumer, they're also creating a problem that could be easily avoided.
This is a rather skewed case in favor of Windows. First off, the fact that this printer comes with only a Windows CD is no fault of the OS; it's simply because more people run Windows.
Also, who's to say that said printer is going to work under Windows, even with the driver CD? Assuming it'll be foolproof under *any* OS is as absurd as saying it will *never* work on another.
As a general statement, yes, I think Windows is easier when it comes to hardware. Thing is, if HP (in this instance) simply made drivers for Linux (maybe they do!), your entire point is invalidated. When it becomes cost-effective for companies to support an OS other than Windows on a large scale, then the compatibility issues with Linux (my main gripe) would simply go away.
The GUI that seems to be the basis of Windows' "accessibility" was present on Apple machines years previous. I'm not really a fan of Macs, but giving credit to Microsoft for making computers "easy" to use isn't right.
If anything, thank them for holding a monopoly that forced developers to adhere to a standard.
You know, now that I think about it, the issue that a lot of people have with Linux is not ease of use, but compatibility. Like it's been stated many times before, there are distros that are terribly easy to set up and use. Finding software to work with it, however, is another story.
Not so much. The 'onboard video' on my old PC was a joke, and that sort of graphics arrangement was more popular then than it is now. Most new retail machines ship with fairly decent graphics cards, something that was not common 6 years ago.
Oh, and are you sure you know what GUI stands for? How about you look it up and compare it with the term "graphics card." Maybe you'll find a common link between the two :P
Absolutely. Also, even if you have a connection, it's always cool to have the manual or reference *right there* instead of having to move from screen to screen or juggle open windows.
Heh, and we geeks sometimes enjoy reading manuals in our spare time for the hell of it too.
First off, Psyche (Red Hat 8.0) was released in September or October of 2002, which I believe is less than 4 years ago ;) (try this if you don't believe me).
Second, those are the distributions I've run on my own personal machine, certainly not the only I've used (of course, it's my bad for not mentioning that previously).
And as far as Red Hat distros go, I've tried 9 and the first Fedora Core, and ultimately I enjoyed using 8 over both of those.
It's amusing to see how fast I'm labled a Microsoft fanboy and Linux n00b when I don't preach fervent devotion to Linus, et al...
Though you deserve kudos for actually using that software (and I agree with you wholeheartedly with regards to hypocritical Windows users), your anti-anything-linux rant is amusing and rather silly.
I run Windows XP Pro at home because I play games. However, I've run Red Hat 6.1, 7.1, and 8 on other machines, but have never found them to be terribly useful for personal uses. If I were to constantly have more than one machine, I would probably run Linux as well. I, however, do not have any qualms about running WinXP, especially because it *can* be a very stable and powerful OS.
Professionally, I've done my web developing in the past with perl on a Linux server. As the years went on, however, our company made the jump to Windows 2003 Server and .NET using C#. Though I am no fan of the "corporate bastard" that is Microsoft, production costs have lowered and development has become much more efficient since we made the switch. All biases aside, I have been relatively content to use a Microsoft product in this situation.
Free software is great, but is seldom intuitive enough for the masses. Linux, and the realm that surrounds it, is largely for those that enjoy and have the time to endlessly tweak their software. I have enormous respect for those kind of people, and I must admit that I've felt jealous of them and their coolness.
When you call everyone "IE-using scumsuckers" and "shitbags", you're as annoying as the very n00bs you taunt. At least Linux wannabes are open to software that they don't even use.
Your average parent doesn't necessarily think sex is evil, but does recognize that it's an issue that younger minds might not be ready for. Learning about sex before you're mature enough has the potential to be damaging. The largest problem, then, stems from the difficulty in determining when children in general have reached maturity. The same argument could also be said of violence, but as it's been said before, our society seems to accept violence more readily than sex.