Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Permalink for comment 274967
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-11
"I never understood why Microsoft didn't choose to follow the same route of Apple with MacOS X, that is, taking an open Unix-like kernel, implementing a sensible user interface on it, and obtaining in output the best of both worlds, probably also cutting down on development expenses. Plus a Classic-like environment for old apps. "
MS's bread and butter is compatibility, and if they did that, they would lose a lot of business from err...businesses, who want to make reasonably sure their stuff will run. And I'm not talking about driver compatibility, but application, which is not too bad on Vista, and will get even better