On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:13:24 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Perspective: Is Windows still relevant?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| In the increasingly Google-YouTube-Web 2.0 age we inhabit, it's become
>| fashionable to dismiss Windows as a relic.
>|
>| Ask around the office. You'll hear the Gen Xers sneer about how Microsoft's
>| operating system is, well, so yesterday. Even a fair number of IT
>| graybeards are warming to the notion that the times, they are a changing.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| However this gets resolved, the dustup speaks volumes about the true state
>| of Windows' relevance. Looks like "yesterday's product" still has a few
>| more tomorrows left.
> `----
>
> http://news.com.com/Is+Windows+still+relevant/2010-1014_3-6123281.html
>
> And C|Net has ties with Microsoft, mind you. This is not the first time
> Microsoft gets criticised in that site, which sports a lot of anti-Linux
> ads.
Wow. Wow.
Only you could spin an entirely Microsoft positive article like this as
"criticism".
"Nowadays, it's the European Union's Neelie Kroes, who figures as
Microsoft's chief nemesis. She's warned Microsoft not to design Vista in
ways that would screw the competition. The EU has already stuck Microsoft
with more than $600 million in fines. Kroes imposed an additional $350
million because she said Microsoft subsequently refused to change its
business practices.
All because of an operating system that so many have deemed to be
yesterday's news."
The point, which you seem to have completely missed, is that if Windows was
really as "yesterday" as so many people want to claim, then why all the
fuss? Shouldn't it just sort itself out if the end users don't care about
it anymore?
The obvious answer, is that end users clearly still care a great deal,
unlike what the few elitists would have you believe. But that's obviously
too subtle for you to understand.
|
|
