You see, you shouldn't post links that you think people won't read.
I can't find a single instance of the word 'malicious' or 'liar', and the only matches for 'perfect' were next to applications that work 'perfectly' on Vista.
You might also want to read their disclaimer: "PLEASE NOTE: This article is not intended to be a review of Vista itself. Nor is it a statement for or against that or any other available OS. It is certainly not an argument for or against switching or upgrading. Its primary purpose is to provide accurate information as to what works and what doesn't on a particular platform."
Lies, lies and more lies. How is Microsoft screwing Apple in this situation?
The iPhone doesn't have to interact on any level with DRM, and the component parts of my system that do interact with it (audio, video) have full 64-bit driver support. I should know, I'm using 64-bit Vista. Even better, XP doesn't have any of the same support for Blu-ray/HD-DVD DRM, so how are they not able to code XP 64-bit drivers? Apple have no excuse in this situation when plenty of hardware manufacturers are abletocodethem.
Then you reel off the same stupid list that you repeatedly cite to show that 'M$ am bad' which has been debunked a hundred times by Windows and Linux users alike.
Your final sentence is a gem that sums up the rest your post: "Windoze is like barren". What does that even mean?
Quoting Joe U is even less reputable but that's not the point. I really must keep a list of these for when you say that "all M$ trolls have is namecalling". I love irony.
Referencing yourself is labor saving. Only for you. I refer you to recent history when you linked to one of your posts that linked to a story that you wanted people to read (which, incidentally, you lied about anyway).
Referencing yourself is lazy, unreliable and impolite.
They killed Netscape by giving away IE, not by IE being better. Okay, my turn to call bullshit.
Anybody who says the Netscape could even compete after they started releasing bug-filled messes that pretended to be browsers doesn't remember their browsers. I'm not the only one that thinks so either:
The ageing Communicator 4.x code could not keep up with Internet Explorer 5.0. Typical web pages had become graphics-heavy, often JavaScript-intensive, and were constructed with increasingly complex HTML code that used features designed for specific narrow purposes but redeployed them as global layout tools (in particular this applied to HTML tables, which Communicator struggled to render). The Netscape browser, once regarded as a reasonably solid product, came to be seen as crash-prone and buggy. It didn't help that some versions of it tended to re-download an entire web page to re-render it when the browser window was resized, a considerable nuisance to dial-up users, and would usually crash when the page contained anything but the most simple Cascading Style Sheets. In addition, the browser's somewhat dated-looking interface didn't have the modern appearance of Internet Explorer.
I think you and I approach this from different standpoints.
Bloggers are not journalists. They are not spokesmon. They are not attorney generals. They are guys who own websites and start with zero credibility. They work to earn that, and if they destroy it, then it's their prerogative. Their words do nothing to change the face of the world.
In all honesty, If I ever need them I'll take lessons in journalistic integrity from someone who isn't a hypocrite. (thanks for reminding me of that, by the way)
Your characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you and your methods as a 'fraud' or 'sellout', then the blatant travesty that is the above happening and you shouting "I don't write false information designed to convey something that isn't true" is just hilarious. As for the rest of your tirade, I find the fact that you accused me of only having namecalling to fall back on, then spending the rest of the post ranting at me for things I have neither said or done to be just plain ironic. "You can continue to publish RDM-hate pieces on Digg"... that's a classic. If I ever give a shit about Digg I'll be sure to email you. I don't share your irrational hatred of that site, but nor do I like it.
I'm not even going to bother with this any more, my laughter overfloweth.
If you're really associated with Roughly Drafted then I would like to congratulate you on creating a website that actually makes me wince when someone quotes it. I have never seen a website so full of pro-Apple fanboyism and baseless FUD as yours. I don't know whether it's intentional or not, so I'll wait until I give you any further kudos.
In response to your comment, the key words there are "engineer the impression". They did not. They were fully open about the fact that these bloggers were paid to write what they did, and it was the bloggers themselves who failed to notify their readership that they were advertising on Microsoft's behalf.
I guess you're not used to a company asking bloggers to help instead of suing them, huh.
Does that mean suddenly nothing should be true, honest, and forthright? That we should just end our expectations that people will act with honor and decency? Good slippery slope argument there, and you'll find I suggested no such thing.
The rest of your post had a more reasonable tone (except the immature M$ usage, nil points for that one) and I can mostly agree with you.
Well, yes, which is precisely why I said it's "up to the personal ethics of the individual blogger". I agree that I personally would state explicitly that I was being paid to advertise something (if I kept anything more than a public journal). If somebody doesn't and you don't agree with that, you stop trusting their opinion.
Nobody is forcing you to believe everything you read on the internet, after all:)
No, it's not. From Wiki:
the term astroturfing pejoratively describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous public reactions to a politician or political grouping, product, service, event, etc. by many diverse and distributed individuals acting of their own volition, when in fact the efforts are centrally coordinated. Microsoft didn't even try and keep this secret. It was fully public and the bloggers had every opportunity to state that they were acting on Microsoft's behalf.
So Microsoft paid bloggers per click to advertise for them?
Where's the scandal here? There's no mention of Microsoft forcing these guys to say that they weren't being paid, and doing something like this is up to the personal ethics of the individual blogger, surely?
I don't think you get paid for hits on your comments, so if next time you could link directly to the story in question rather than linking to your comment that comments on the story in question, that would save me time that I could be spending here, destroying your credibility.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Do you really think you will find privacy in Mr. Gates' empire? You could work in a vault, but every file on your computer, every email, phone call, and web site you visit will be monitored. Why do you have to make me sound like a broken record? *exasperated sigh* Proof, please?
You might even get fired for making a blog post at home that Mr. Gates did not like. As usual you're misrepresenting that situation. Work at any big company. They will fire you for taking photographs of private company matters. It's called 'corporate espionage' and it's not in any sense of the word 'protected' by any law. It doesn't matter what he was doing, whether he was taking photos of computers, trousers or whatever. He fucked up big time and you won't find a single company of Microsofts size that will tolerate that behaviour from their staff.
Apple is offering a safety blanket so that people can user Apple and other applications without fear of not being able to work with dreaded M$ enslaved coworkers. The only difference between Apple and Microsoft as far as any business is concerned is that Apple hardware and the Apple user experience are even more tightly controlled than Microsoft's. How is switching anything over to Apple going to liberate anybody?
Their users, in turn, will do what they can to interact in standards based ways like Open Office, Google Office and anything but Office 2007. All of which are usable on Windows.
Being able to run Office 2007 in a virtual machine, minimizes Windoze created hardware problems and eliminates the "networking" game M$ uses to push it's upgrade train. There are no 'Windows-created' hardware problems, unless you've been told something that the rest of the world hasn't. I'm also intrigued as to what you mean by 'networking game'. Evidence? Not expecting any.
A better way to end that train is to make government use ODF and return all Office Docs to their source with a note that tells the clueless sender why you can't work with them. You can't open them in OpenOffice using Novell's OOXML plugin? Who knew?
Vista is not selling Lie.
both it and Office 2007 have been baned almost everywhere. Lie.
Google and Sun have useful and free alternatives that won't wreck your work in a few years because neither can decide it's time to overhall things to generate revenue. I can open any old Office format with a newer version of Office. You won't know that because you don't use Office. Also, any old versions of Office back for the last 7 years or so can be upgraded to open OOXML files. You won't know that because, again, you don't use Office.
Apple is happy to join the pack of rebels. No, they aren't. They have a completely closed OS/hardware combo that they are going to keep that way. I don't know where you got this idea that Apple are wonderful friends of open source - everything they have ever made is locked down tighter than a ferret's arse.
The lack of Vista sales is hurting hardware makers enough to discredit the perpetual upgrade train for them. Factless statement. You haven't managed to provide credible evidence for this yet, so I'm not expecting any.
This destroys M$'s ability to manipulate hardware vendors and will ultimately bring about real hardware standards and competition. M$'s days of BIOS sabotage are numbered. You still don't have any proof of either of those, either.
The consent decree expires in November. If that means what I think it means, Vista is going to suck life more obviously than it already does. I have read enough of your comments to know that things very rarely mean what you think they mean.
It's like they've ignored the consent decree, even while it's in effect. No, they haven't. There's plenty of evidence, this article included, that they're actually doing the opposite.
Normal people are unable to think of what M$ will do next. Another infantile dollar sign, another pathetic piece of rhetoric, another factless comment.
Astroturfers like you, who can offer nothing but insults followed by
Windoze users are the losers Add a few points already made and debunked in the thread I linked to , and you have another Twitter classic.
perhaps you could at least cite some sources. No problem. This is also the source for the November date I gave you. It goes on to make some very good points about why search isn't 'middleware', and the fact that search was never included in the 2000 judgement is a very good argument as to why Microsoft are in the clear. Not to mention that Google have been (and still are) free to put their own front end on Vista's indexer in the same way they do with Spotlight on the Mac.
So, would you like to go on record that the Bush/Cheney ties with oil companies and Halliburton don't affect how they do their current jobs? After all, they cut all ties with their former employers, right? Of course I wouldn't. Read this and then tell me why that argument is even coherent.
Um, what it means is that the state lawmakers were suprised to get a memo requesting something that no other head had ever requested. Then I read it wrong and I apologise for the misconstrusion. Regardless, whether that has happened before or not, Google's complaint still has zero merit. Just because you see conspiracy (where I honestly do not), it still does not give basis to Google's ridiculous claim that somehow Microsoft are acting anti-competitively by having a way of searching for files in their operating system.
Yes, they filed back in November - 4 days before Vista's release to business. They had clear knowledge of the existence of the indexing system since 2003, and a year of beta testing. What took them so long?
The rest of your post seems to argue with itself.
You cite a memo that came from someone with an apparent conflict of interests - despite the fact that working for a company that once worked for Microsoft has absolutely zero bearing on how he does his job - and then carry on to say that the memo didn't in fact exist. Can you decide whether it was sent or not, because if it wasn't your outrage kind of falls flat.
Did you honestly forget this whole thing where you made exactly this point, and after 5 posts of arguing you still couldn't come up with a coherent fact or reason to support what you said?
This is the absolute worst back-track I have ever seen from you.
First, I asked IF it was true. No, you didn't. You jumped straight in and called the poster a liar, just like you always do. Then you asked if they paid anyone else, which were in fact loaded questions in an attempt to lend credence to your 'Google doesn't pay Mozilla' line right at the top of your post.
Second, that money is not the reason Google ends up as the boxed search engine Yes, it is. In fact, Yahoo, Google and other providers made various offers and Google came out on top because they paid more.
the choice can be changed at any step of the way from Mozilla.org to my desktop. Well, no, you can only change it when it's actually installed. Also, you can change the default with IE too, and Opera. It's not exclusive to free software.
Noise and bullshit - you'll find plenty of that up there in your post.
It's not false at all. Google pay the Mozilla foundation for each search that's made using that search box, just as Yahoo pay them for each search made on the Asian version of Firefox, which has a different default.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
I'm worried about reading the comments when this thing comes out.
Dealing with Apple geeks is one thing, dealing with Linux geeks with their own OSS phone will be quite another.
You see, you shouldn't post links that you think people won't read.
I can't find a single instance of the word 'malicious' or 'liar', and the only matches for 'perfect' were next to applications that work 'perfectly' on Vista.
You might also want to read their disclaimer: "PLEASE NOTE: This article is not intended to be a review of Vista itself. Nor is it a statement for or against that or any other available OS. It is certainly not an argument for or against switching or upgrading. Its primary purpose is to provide accurate information as to what works and what doesn't on a particular platform."
What was your point?
Lies, lies and more lies. How is Microsoft screwing Apple in this situation?
The iPhone doesn't have to interact on any level with DRM, and the component parts of my system that do interact with it (audio, video) have full 64-bit driver support. I should know, I'm using 64-bit Vista. Even better, XP doesn't have any of the same support for Blu-ray/HD-DVD DRM, so how are they not able to code XP 64-bit drivers? Apple have no excuse in this situation when plenty of hardware manufacturers are able to code them.
Then you reel off the same stupid list that you repeatedly cite to show that 'M$ am bad' which has been debunked a hundred times by Windows and Linux users alike.
Your final sentence is a gem that sums up the rest your post: "Windoze is like barren". What does that even mean?
Referencing yourself is lazy, unreliable and impolite.
Anybody who says the Netscape could even compete after they started releasing bug-filled messes that pretended to be browsers doesn't remember their browsers. I'm not the only one that thinks so either: The ageing Communicator 4.x code could not keep up with Internet Explorer 5.0. Typical web pages had become graphics-heavy, often JavaScript-intensive, and were constructed with increasingly complex HTML code that used features designed for specific narrow purposes but redeployed them as global layout tools (in particular this applied to HTML tables, which Communicator struggled to render). The Netscape browser, once regarded as a reasonably solid product, came to be seen as crash-prone and buggy. It didn't help that some versions of it tended to re-download an entire web page to re-render it when the browser window was resized, a considerable nuisance to dial-up users, and would usually crash when the page contained anything but the most simple Cascading Style Sheets. In addition, the browser's somewhat dated-looking interface didn't have the modern appearance of Internet Explorer.
I think you and I approach this from different standpoints.
Bloggers are not journalists. They are not spokesmon. They are not attorney generals. They are guys who own websites and start with zero credibility. They work to earn that, and if they destroy it, then it's their prerogative. Their words do nothing to change the face of the world.
In all honesty, If I ever need them I'll take lessons in journalistic integrity from someone who isn't a hypocrite. (thanks for reminding me of that, by the way)
Your characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you and your methods as a 'fraud' or 'sellout', then the blatant travesty that is the above happening and you shouting "I don't write false information designed to convey something that isn't true" is just hilarious. As for the rest of your tirade, I find the fact that you accused me of only having namecalling to fall back on, then spending the rest of the post ranting at me for things I have neither said or done to be just plain ironic. "You can continue to publish RDM-hate pieces on Digg"... that's a classic. If I ever give a shit about Digg I'll be sure to email you. I don't share your irrational hatred of that site, but nor do I like it.
I'm not even going to bother with this any more, my laughter overfloweth.
If you're really associated with Roughly Drafted then I would like to congratulate you on creating a website that actually makes me wince when someone quotes it. I have never seen a website so full of pro-Apple fanboyism and baseless FUD as yours. I don't know whether it's intentional or not, so I'll wait until I give you any further kudos.
In response to your comment, the key words there are "engineer the impression". They did not. They were fully open about the fact that these bloggers were paid to write what they did, and it was the bloggers themselves who failed to notify their readership that they were advertising on Microsoft's behalf.
I guess you're not used to a company asking bloggers to help instead of suing them, huh.
QED
The rest of your post had a more reasonable tone (except the immature M$ usage, nil points for that one) and I can mostly agree with you.
Well, yes, which is precisely why I said it's "up to the personal ethics of the individual blogger". I agree that I personally would state explicitly that I was being paid to advertise something (if I kept anything more than a public journal). If somebody doesn't and you don't agree with that, you stop trusting their opinion.
:)
Nobody is forcing you to believe everything you read on the internet, after all
So Microsoft paid bloggers per click to advertise for them?
Where's the scandal here? There's no mention of Microsoft forcing these guys to say that they weren't being paid, and doing something like this is up to the personal ethics of the individual blogger, surely?
Even better, the guy that story is about actually admitted that he was in the wrong and was fired 'with cause'.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Do you really think you will find privacy in Mr. Gates' empire? You could work in a vault, but every file on your computer, every email, phone call, and web site you visit will be monitored. Why do you have to make me sound like a broken record? *exasperated sigh* Proof, please? You might even get fired for making a blog post at home that Mr. Gates did not like. As usual you're misrepresenting that situation. Work at any big company. They will fire you for taking photographs of private company matters. It's called 'corporate espionage' and it's not in any sense of the word 'protected' by any law. It doesn't matter what he was doing, whether he was taking photos of computers, trousers or whatever. He fucked up big time and you won't find a single company of Microsofts size that will tolerate that behaviour from their staff.
Yes, they filed back in November - 4 days before Vista's release to business. They had clear knowledge of the existence of the indexing system since 2003, and a year of beta testing. What took them so long?
The rest of your post seems to argue with itself.
You cite a memo that came from someone with an apparent conflict of interests - despite the fact that working for a company that once worked for Microsoft has absolutely zero bearing on how he does his job - and then carry on to say that the memo didn't in fact exist. Can you decide whether it was sent or not, because if it wasn't your outrage kind of falls flat.
Did you honestly forget this whole thing where you made exactly this point, and after 5 posts of arguing you still couldn't come up with a coherent fact or reason to support what you said?
Noise and bullshit - you'll find plenty of that up there in your post.
It's not false at all. Google pay the Mozilla foundation for each search that's made using that search box, just as Yahoo pay them for each search made on the Asian version of Firefox, which has a different default.
Sources: Here and here.
Here we go again.
Please provide evidence that Microsoft has ever sold the results of someone's private file indexing to another company for any reason at all.