Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Thufir on Sunday 06 January 2008 02:42 : \____
>
>> On Jan 3, 6:05 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> "Thufir" <hawat.thu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:9d1969e9-08d6-4382-abe2-d16c4d618a05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> > On Jan 2, 1:14 pm, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> "Thufir" <hawat.thu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:aYRej.62071$DP1.27739@xxxxxxxxxxxx> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008
>>> >> 10:49:18 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> Taking things out of order, it is
>>> >> >> pretty well documented that MS came to the realization that a
>>> >> >> one-stop-shop kind of platform product like Windows had to have an
>>> >> >> integrated browser in order to be viable.
>>>
>>> >> > Why would it require an integrated browser?
>>> > [...]
>>> >> It needs a browser.
>>> > [...]
>>>
>>> > You're just asserting the same thing without giving an actual reason.
>>> > No, I didn't snip the "reason" because you didn't provide anything
>>> > beyond fluff -- there's no argument in what you wrote, just
>>> > assertions.
>>>
>>> Well surely you are just being difficult and cannot believe that MS could
>>> sell an OS platform package without a browser, but go ahead and pretend.
>>> Maybe someone will believe that you are cute.
>>
>>
>> You never substantiated the need for an integrated browser -- your
>> original claim was that "It [the OS] needs a browser".
>
> I have many Microsoft quotes that show this to be false. Even Microsoft
> admitted this. Bill Wesisgerber will keep spewing out garbage in attempt to
> rewrite history on behalf of his company.
>
I wonder how much Billy gets paid for being dishonest here?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
