Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Jan 2007 16:35 UTC
Windows Millions of computer users participate in software beta programs every year, usually toiling away in anonymity, never quite sure if whatever they find or report will matter in the final product. Others find the experience a lot more fulfilling, such as the families that participated in Microsoft's Life with Windows Vista program. In addition to the more than 2 million testers of Vista, Microsoft selected 50 families from around the world and watched, in a reality TV kind of way, how they interacted with Vista, right out of the box with the first beta and all the way up to release to manufacturing.
Thread beginning with comment 200525
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nothing wrong with that
by tomcat on Wed 10th Jan 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "Nothing wrong with that"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

What I'm starting to learn is that I prefer the idea of software portability more than a "ball and chain" style of device integration. For simple photo scrapbooks, I actually prefer the Kodak picture stations where I don't have to buy, install, or learn anything, and can find one at any Walmart or Target. I also like the idea of multisession DVD's or USB key running GNU/Linux or whatever OS (should it matter?) which have the potential to run from any kiosk located anywhere perhaps without the need for a hard drive

How are those examples of "software portability"? They're highly-integrated software/hardware scenarios. Who cares whether they're using GNU/Linux or Windows. Either way, the device integration is part and parcel of the vertical kiosk deployment.

Win-V boxes in the home figure to provide many of the same functions traditionally enabled by discrete analog devices except that Win-V might be twice as expensive and half as reliable.

Twice as expensive and half as reliable? Based on what evidence?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Nothing wrong with that
by stestagg on Thu 11th Jan 2007 08:14 in reply to "RE: Nothing wrong with that"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Twice as expensive and half as reliable? Based on what evidence?

Well at least twice as expensive. HOME Linux installs typically cost 0 (that's $0 btw.) Installing Windows XP costs either from around 70 ($119 Walmart) OR whatever the cost of an OEM licence is. I make that 70/0 (divide by zero which tends to infinity.)

Half as reliable? I run Ubuntu Linux in VMWare on Windows. It has never crashed / been insecure / been unreliable (either system or apps) for me.
The host Windows OS however has (been surprisingly stable but) crashed on a number of occasions. So again, technically, for me, Windows is infinitely less stable than Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 1