Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
Crazy... but eitherway, I am still sure MSN is the Number One Homepage, I read it somewhere... can't remember where... haha.x0r515t said:MSN is the default homepage for IE on a clean installation. Most people still buy HP's, Dell's, etc. For these types of pre-built PC's the default homepage on IE is a HP or a Dell site. I know on my friends compaq, the default homepage on IE was a compaq site.
Not everybody, what about the people who view the Internet? They want their things to work properly in Internet Explorer, and they far outnumber those who recognise the W3C.x0r515t said:Well considering the fact that everyone recognizes W3C as the standard, it must be MS.
How does that seem unfair? Microsoft makes up lots of standards that everybody and their Dog recognise, why should the Internet be otherwise?x0r515t said:Well thats your opinion. I still think that any new potential web standard should be worked with the W3C in mind for approval. That way with W3C backing, everyone will conform to this new standard and not just one company. I just don't see how a software company that makes web browsers should be the one setting the web standards, seems unfair.
Haha. Vista has enough improvements in it Considering that XP was released barely 18 months after 2000 and Me, and the advancements have kept it great until now and for a long time yet.x0r515t said:Thats fine they can release new software, but when they do this they shouldn't forget to include improvements!
They don't support 2000 because they don't want to have to patch it, and they only ever have a 5 year Support base on all their Operating Systems. The want upgrades so it is easier, and quicker for the consumer, to patch the Operating Systems they should be patching and Supporting. And indeed, to build Vista on time. Even as a tactic to Force Upgrades, what is wrong with that? Linux don't support old Operating Systems at all, nor many new ones if I am correct? The very fact they support Operating Systems 5 years down their line is quite remarkable. It won't be long now, only Christmas next year, before they stop XP's Supportx0r515t said:But that's just my point. What exactly is "better" about XP compared to 2000? I will give you that XP has more eye-candy, but other than that? Both are based on the same technologies, both OS's are nearly identical. MS is trying to make XP look better lately by not supporting 2000 with their new softwares like IE7. Everyone knows 2000 could run IE7 if XP can, it's just another tactic by M$ to force upgrades.
If somebody doesn't want to upgrade from 2000, they won't. They don't have to. They just have to decide whether using an Operating System that is unpatched is worth it.
Yeah, but Microsoft has done that now for ten years How long have Gnome and KDE supported Icons?x0r515t said:.....and windows has one desktop that uses icons!
Normal people can't use Linux safely, flexible or not, without a Licencing System anyway Open-Sourcing just leaves the doors open for Scum (different, malicious, not the normal Linux-writing Scum) to supply users bugged Operating Systems.x0r515t said:Just proves my point that Linux does in fact have better hardware support than windows. This is a good example that shows how Linux is one of; if not the most flexible OS to date.
Yeah, it probably is. Even if you did just show me a page obviously hosted on a Windows Server Linux is only very popular in China because it is a new market... 34% increases in Operating System sales are nothing in China.x0r515t said:I know in china, linux is very popular:
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/117007.htm
Or even in retail(34% increase):
http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=19565
Plus M$ "Get the facts" ad campaign tells me that M$ is concerned
It could be... but I doubt it, or Linux would be stablex0r515t said:That kind of a setup is what makes a mac as we know it. It's not impossible to match the stability of a mac on a changing setup either, just look at linux/*nix. OSX on x86 could be very interesting if Apple decides to bring OSX to any x86 compatible PC, which I doubt they will. One reason OSX may be so stable other than hardware may be due to the fact that it has a *nix base