On 2009-05-01, Ezekiel <nowhere-there@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:slrngvmi3m.okb.jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 2009-05-01, Ezekiel <nowhere-there@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:8REKl.35746$v8.14690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gtdhfb$ccq$1@xxxxxxxx>, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows NT ran on MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha and x86.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, it ran on MIPS first. The x86 version was a port. Cutler did
>>>>> that on purpose--he knew that x86 would probably be the most popular,
>>>>> so
>>>>> made sure they developed it first on something else.
>>>>
>>>> How did Gates let Cutler get away with that?
>>>>
>>>> Also, the Alpha was a port done to help settle a lawsuit with DEC, from
>>>> whence Cutler fled, IIRC.
>>>
>>> That seems to be the general consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I suspect quite a lot of people would buy a $100 "PC" whether it ran
>>>> Linux
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that Microsoft has the will and the manpower to do
>>>> an ARM port?
>>>
>>> There's already a version of Windows that runs on ARM. It's not the full
>>> retail XP but the basics are there and in place. If MS wanted to support
>>> the
>>> ARM processor they easily could since it's not like they're starting from
>>> scratch.
>>
>> IOW, you would end up with a version of Windows that would from the
>> point of view of the netbook buying public (as advocated by COLA Lemming
>> Trolls) effectively no different from Linux or MacOS.
>>
>> Take away "all those great apps" and there's no reason to buy into it.
>
> Except for the "minor" fact that it gives people an OS and desktop that
> they've been using for many years and that they are familiar and comfortable
> with. As opposed to Linux which is an OS that they've likely never seen
Possibly.
Assuming that Microsoft doesn't do an Office2007 on everyone.
> before and are not familiar with.
>
> But yeah... other than *that* very major difference it's all the same thing.
N00b users have already been snookered into thinking that they are
using some cool new version of Windows when all they were using is Linux.
The "vast major difference" has always been overblown as there have always
been examples of Windows users being taken in by little more than a tweaked
Window Manager.
You might have more of a point with Macs where the application menu
ends up at the top of the screen in a manner quite unlike what Windows
users are used to.
The next time you Lemmings whine about Linux trying to be a Windows
knock off, think about that.
...and as far as being "Office2007'ed" goes, the only thing that
from causing a mass exodus of annoyed users is the also quite often
harked upon by Lemmings problem of anything not MS not being perfect
at decoding at Microsofts proprietary formats.
OO by itself is quite accessable to modern novice GUI users.
The novices that are going to be confused by the Windows to Linux
transition are the sort that are already depending on their local guru
(Windows or Linux) to do simple things like burn CDs.
--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \
|
|
