Windows 7 has been out and about for little over a week now, and as it turns out, Microsoft's new baby is doing relatively well. That is, according to the figures by NetApplications: Windows 7 already reached the 3% mark this weekend, and is already closing in on the 4% mark.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-06-24
Companies that develop software for profit will ALWAYS prefer to target a reduced number of platforms. Fewer supported platforms means lower cost, lower cost means higher profit (usually).
And, regrettably, the majority of the relatively small Linux market also suffers from an "I don't want to pay for anything on Linux" attitude. It's hardly a welcoming market for any business trying to make money, especially compared to the Windows and OSX markets.
Member since:2007-09-06
I've found FOSS users to be more respectful of licenses and very willing to pay for good quality software.
I hope your basing your assumption on something more valid than Adobe's attempt at a Linux native Photoshop many years ago; the one where they still charged 700$'ish without providing 700$ worth of benefit over competing graphic editors. We probably shouldn't look at things like Mandriva selling PowerPack for a very reasonable cost in addition to giving the lower Free and One disk images away. Paying for and charging for software is a very big part of Linux. Many programs run a free development version and value added version for retail.
Free of cost is a nice benefit but Freedom to use and modify as one sees fit on there own hardware is a much bigger part of it.
Member since:2009-08-26
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:2006-02-05
For whoever voted me down, this isnt a troll, it was a benchmark done by tuxrader and was all over the news a few months ago http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beat...
Member since:2006-03-20
true, that adobe suck (although I don't know with apple OSX ). But it is too late anyway flash got too much momentum from designer that wish a pixel perfect rendition of their website, and re-encoding video for the new tag would take a lot of time/storage for the transition ( or should youtube be killed like geocities).
Again I'm against a video tag, it goes against the simplicity of web client (though it is already complicated enough to cope with all the broken html in the world), hardly help with providing an alternative ( which would lock us with browser with enough manpower to code this feature ), and prevent us to use a "better" container/codec which would emerge eventually.
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:
2006-05-12
Yeah, and that has very little to do with Windows and is mostly due to Adobe being idiots when coding for Linux or anything else outside of Windows. Of course, Adobe really only wants to support Windows anyway, but just throw a token Flash player out there so they can sell Flash as a "universal" player. The <video> tag can't come fast enough.