In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:06:35 +0100
<1701060.DDXoBGKyHi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Not a good day for Microsoft
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | During the Microsoft antitrust trial, Corporate PR spokesman Mark
> | Murray used to start each press gathering with the words, "This has
> | been another great day for Microsoft."
> |
> | But even an eternal optimist like Murray might have a tough time putting a
> | shine on the Microsoft news of the day on April 10.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=381
>
> Vista: Whatever happened to fast boot?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Anyone else remember when Microsoft used to talk about making Windows
> | Vista (or Longhorn, as it was then known) a fast-booting operating
> | system. Fast, as in cold boots that were 50 percent faster than
> | those possible with Windows XP?
50%? Such small thinkers. If you can find one, use a
Commodore 64, an Apple ][ or ///, a TRS-80. Turn it on,
it's on and says so within at most maybe 1 second. Even an
old PC didn't take that long to boot into its internal
Basic. A couple of drive gronks (one during POST, one
during a failed floppy boot attempt), and one then gets the
prompt, though there was the wait during memory testing.
(The Amiga does OK here, though the startup script takes
a few seconds to do its thing.)
My understanding is that there are machines out there
based on Linux which can boot in 10 seconds, which is not
all that impressive -- though it's a vast improvement over
the overhyperkludginated PCs most of us have now. ;-)
And then there's the mobile market. Turn on a cell phone,
wait 1 minute for it to boot? I don't think so... :-)
> |
> | Something obviously went awry.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378
>
> Microsoft: Vista Capable Site Description Unchanged
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Despite reports to the contrary, Microsoft Corp. said Tuesday it
> | has not changed wording at its Web site to explain more clearly
> | how hardware with a "Windows Vista Capable" label will perform
> | when running the OS, in light of a class-action lawsuit filed
> | against the vendor last week.
> `----
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130610-pg,1/article.html
>
> Afraid of losing those lawsuits, IMHO. Still screwing the customers and never
> apologising.
Never let 'em see you sweat. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
