Um, this is about *performance* not the few things MS got right in Vista. Basically Vista is a CPU resource hog of monumental proportions. There's no reason a good, secure OS has to be bloated to the gills with all the crap MS put into Vista.
Required disclaimer: I hate MS about as much as anyone else here, but...
This is a very strange blog piece and I'm wondering what part of the galaxy this guy lives in:
1) Since when does "dead" mean a company that is no longer feared? True, MS has lost it's fear factor, but that is nothing like being dead. "Dead" means dead, as in SCO.
2) I wish I had a dime for every time someone says the desktop is dead and all apps will from now on be web hosted. This is so old and isn't going to happen. Sure Ajax has made the web a lot more responsive and desktop-like but there is a long list of limtations having to do with availability, security, etc. It's not all about bandwidth.
3) Take a walk through the airport or just about any business office, the dentist, doctor's office, etc. How many Mac or Linux boxes do you see? Not that many. Sure Macs are a lot more popular now and growing, but to claim that he sees hardly anything but Macs and Linux makes me wonder about what planet he comes from.
is that Dell won't sell you a computer without a Microsoft OS. Back around 1996 or so you could still order from Dell a PC with no OS and they would install some minimally functional DOS kernel just so they could test it. Obviously Dell can sell PCs without an OS if they wanted to, but they don't. I suspect the reason has a lot to do with contractual arrangements with MS and nothing to do with Linux. People who want Linux on their Dell PCs are most likely the type who know how to install it themselves anyway. So the issue is just political and has nothing to do with technical issues. In reality today, Dell only sells laptops to those who want Linux because there are few alternatives for laptops. For desktops, Linux users will most likely go elsewhere or build the machine themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, this is about *performance* not the few things MS got right in Vista. Basically Vista is a CPU resource hog of monumental proportions. There's no reason a good, secure OS has to be bloated to the gills with all the crap MS put into Vista.
Required disclaimer: I hate MS about as much as anyone else here, but...
This is a very strange blog piece and I'm wondering what part of the galaxy this guy lives in:
1) Since when does "dead" mean a company that is no longer feared? True, MS has lost it's fear factor, but that is nothing like being dead. "Dead" means dead, as in SCO.
2) I wish I had a dime for every time someone says the desktop is dead and all apps will from now on be web hosted. This is so old and isn't going to happen. Sure Ajax has made the web a lot more responsive and desktop-like but there is a long list of limtations having to do with availability, security, etc. It's not all about bandwidth.
3) Take a walk through the airport or just about any business office, the dentist, doctor's office, etc. How many Mac or Linux boxes do you see? Not that many. Sure Macs are a lot more popular now and growing, but to claim that he sees hardly anything but Macs and Linux makes me wonder about what planet he comes from.
is that Dell won't sell you a computer without a Microsoft OS. Back around 1996 or so you could still order from Dell a PC with no OS and they would install some minimally functional DOS kernel just so they could test it. Obviously Dell can sell PCs without an OS if they wanted to, but they don't. I suspect the reason has a lot to do with contractual arrangements with MS and nothing to do with Linux. People who want Linux on their Dell PCs are most likely the type who know how to install it themselves anyway. So the issue is just political and has nothing to do with technical issues. In reality today, Dell only sells laptops to those who want Linux because there are few alternatives for laptops. For desktops, Linux users will most likely go elsewhere or build the machine themselves.
The TFA is about a perfectly black coating that reflects nothing. This does not imply that it is transparent as you seem to be inferring.