Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 392501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.




Member since:
2007-08-22
Only to a degree. While Microsoft has put a lot of effort into compatibility - often making or keeping bugs just for the sake of compatibility; it only goes so far.
If compatibility is what you want, then a Virtual Machine is a better solution - you'll get better compatibility by running the exact version of the OS/libraries/etc. that the software was made for.
Comparatively, most software on Linux is distributed by source, with distributions providing binary versions of said source. Compatibility is only a compile away, for the most part.
No, the problem is that Microsoft has historically done very well at locking competitors out of the OEMS using very sly tactics - tactics that have had them twice convicted of monopoly abuse (by both the US and the EU).
MS makes sure that Apple stays around to show the semblance of competition. But they also know that Apple primarily targets a niche market with their PCs, so is no threat. Apple also doesn't go after MS's OEMs; and MS will do whatever it takes to ensure their OEMs are loyal only to them.
It honestly has nothing to do with product superiority; and everything to do with unfair market controlling by Microsoft.
Linux does great in many more areas than you realize - and runs on far more than you realize too. Windows use to work great when it only has to communicate with itself; though even that is broken in Win2k/WinXP/Vista/Win7.