I'm not dead...yet.

What's so bad about Microsoft?


I pretty much don't care, but this makes for interesting reading.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 2nd, 2006
I got a feel for the general tripe-ishness of the article right at the outset.

"The new features and the increased processing requirements are designed to fuel the process of perpetual upgrades. This is Microsoft's way of rubbing Intel's back so that Intel will give Microsoft preferential treatment when it comes out with new chip specs."

Pardon the language, but what a load of shit. I also love how it glosses over something rather humorous:

"Did you realize 486's are still usable machines if you're running something other than Microsoft's latest software? For instance, Linux worked great on 486's back when they were the top of the line and amazingly enough it didn't stop working on them once the Pentiums came out."

Funny stuff - so Linux circa 486s still runs on 486s? Wow, almost like Windows 3.1 still runs on 486s. The Linux of today, of course, like a lot of open source software, is incredibly resource intensive, and while you have more flexibility to tweak it (e.g. headless, with zero unnecessary services) for ultra-compactness, on a standard users desktop with a GUI, Linux is as much of a resource pig, or worse, than Windows is. Some Linux desktops already feature Avalon-type functionality (at least vector 2D graphics)
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 2nd, 2006
Oops, you found an error!