With all that silly names variations, you sound like 13 year old exhibiting mild b*tch fit...
Hey, since AI manages to automatically censor “9to5M?c” when you type it, couldn’t we edit that censor list to change all variations of Google and Samsung to just ‘Google’ and ‘Samsung’? Then the mockers get to keep mocking and everyone else gets to see the proper thing.
Microsoft might be desperate, but a large percentage of Nokia phones are too underpowered to run Windows. It is likely considering running Android for the very low end of the market so it can quit developing its own OS for the low end of the market. It can also take the approach of Amazon, which uses the Android kernel, but strips out everything Google. Google hates that.
Doesn't make sense. From everything I have read so far, Windows Phone is more efficient than Android. If WP is under-performing on any hardware, Android will do even worst. But I think you're wrong. Much as I played with Lumia 520 - which is the lowest current WP on the market - it behaves quite well.
Windows is and was the definition of evil, so Google is off the hook here.
They should get a standing ovation when true, because they did a Microsoft to Microsoft.
Microsoft was evil one, but after being wrist-slapped for monopolistic crap time ago, they turned quite benign.
In the last few years, among the other things Google did:
Trojan-horsing Apple with Eric Schmidt and pulling some tricks with Oracle, too.
Try to undermine Apple with feature-lacking Gmaps, only to relase - their own words - "the best Gmap application on any platform" after Apple showed them middle finger and released their own in-house maps.
Blocked MS from having quality MS-made YouTube app for WP by creating very artificial rule that only they can make Youtube app in native code, while everyone else must code it in inferior HTML5. Good old catch 25 - Google is not interested in creating their own WP YouTube app, but also doesn't want anyone else to do so. MS argued that phones hardware (back when that happened) is not strong enough to run app comparable to iOS/Android versions completely in HTML5, especially on lower end phones, but Google didn't show any sympathy there. If MS could release service comparable to YouTube, I am quite confident we would see Google's native WP app within weeks.
Back in 2011, "Google Inc. reached a long-awaited $500 million legal settlement with the U.S. Justice Department to avoid prosecution on charges that it knowingly accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal ads from Canadian online pharmacies" (from Wall Street Journal)
Potentially blackmailing Asus fro releasing dual-boot tablet. There's quite a bit info about this trickling out, we'll see how that goes.
I think they could use one good slapping from US/EU, they seem to be growing too fast and feeling too overpowered for their own good.
Google works with partners. It is a different model. If one of those partners takes a step to shoot Google in the foot, I'd expect Google to tell them to stop. That's not really being evil or newsworthy. Cancelling business dealings with them wouldn't be out of order, certainly. If they threatened to cover them in honey and throw them on a fire ant nest, that would be a 'break out the popcorn' headline and newsworthy.
Microsoft works with partners, too. Cannot recall they recently tried preventing them from creating dual-boot computers, or dropping support for non-Windows OSes. Obviously they didn't complain that this tablet will dual-boot with Android. True, they are underdog in mobile devices, but even in area they dominate - desktops and laptops - they are not forcing OEMs to lock their machines to Windows, which would be easily possible.
With all that silly names variations, you sound like 13 year old exhibiting mild b*tch fit...
I owned Vista. Isn't that a good enough explanation?
If Vista were a car it would have been recalled and junked. Since it wasn't a car, Microsux got to rip-off millions upon millions of people and waste years worth of productivity around the world.
Microsux knew then and still knows about the flaws in their Windoz OS yet they continue to sell it as is. That is a criminal enterprise. It is deliberate. I refuse to give any more funds to that company or use their products, and I definitely won't give them any respect as far as using the actual names of their products or their company. I don't support criminals.
I owned Vista. Isn't that a good enough explanation?
If Vista were a car it would have been recalled and junked. Since it wasn't a car, Microsux got to rip-off millions upon millions of people and waste years worth of productivity around the world.
Microsux knew then and still knows about the flaws in their Windoz OS yet they continue to sell it as is. That is a criminal enterprise. It is deliberate. I refuse to give any more funds to that company or use their products, and I definitely won't give them any respect as far as using the actual names of their products or their company. I don't support criminals.
No, it isn't.
I owned and still own one PC with Vista. It was my main gaming/photo editing machine back in the days - and it served me bloody well. I did wait until SP1, when OEMs (approximately) fixed crappy drivers they had on Vista's release, and Vista became more stable OS than XP ever was. Sure it needed more resources than XP, but hey - it was 6 years newer than XP. On decent machine with 4GB of RAM, it was my conclusion that it carries load much better than XP on same configuration. XP seemed a bit snappier under simple load (single app running), but with increase of open apps it was just slowing down really bad. Vista was carrying additional programs with much more grace.
My brother is still using my old HP ProBook 6370b with Vista 32 Business, and has no intention to change it - until it works.
Beside slow OEMs response to new drivers model - and it looks like almost everyone got lazy after 6 years of same-ol' XP - major problem with Vista was MS marketing who was keen to tag almost everything as Vista-ready. Technically, all of those "Vista Ready" machines could run Vista, but not all could run it comfortably. But that is Vista's problem as much as it is x86 OSX problem for not being able to run on legacy PowerPC hardware. Microsoft was over-eager to replace everything-XP to Vista, after not making any money on Windows upgraders for 6 years, but again - that is problem of MS marketing department, not Vista itself.
Regarding rest of your reply, nope, sorry - you still sound like raging 13 years old. Check this link, check date - almost 3 years after Vista was released - and, maybe, reconsider.
Microsoft got kicked hard in the... for their IE/Netscaoe and Word/Wordperfect stints, and emerged reasonably benign corporation after that... To the degree where they don't even try to - for example - retaliate to Google for quite obviously trying to undermine Microsoft's recent mobile efforts.
Treatment I honestly think that other big players should have, especially Google. For such beasts, a lesson in humility is almost always worth it's price.
I'm pretty sure they cannot do much, but I'm also sure they could find way to make Google's life a bit more miserable, considering that desktop Windows is still major platform for distribution of Google services. What if MS would demand that 3rd party browsers for Windows must be made in specific programming language, or that software for windows must have both Metro and Desktop versions included? Or that security mechanisms of OS have specific requirements that Gmail isn't fulfilling at present - required protocols etc.? I'm not programmer, nor lawyer, but I do believe that couple of smart individuals from both sides, locked in a room for a while, would come up with some funny ideas.
Microsoft works with partners, too. Cannot recall they recently tried preventing them from creating dual-boot computers, or dropping support for non-Windows OSes. Obviously they didn't complain that this tablet will dual-boot with Android. True, they are underdog in mobile devices, but even in area they dominate - desktops and laptops - they are not forcing OEMs to lock their machines to Windows, which would be easily possible.
Microsoft certainly has pressured partner OEMs to NOT offer dual boot PCs (specifically HP, ASUS & Dell, who all wanted to release Windows/Linux PCs).
Microsoft certainly has pressured partner OEMs to NOT offer dual boot PCs (specifically HP, ASUS & Dell, who all wanted to release Windows/Linux PCs).
Preinstalled, maybe (though I wouldn't mind if you share some info). But PCs are much easier to dual-boot (as long as they don't come with some sort of uEFI level OS lockdown, and I cannot recall seeing any) and Windows itself allows for dual boot.
Android, to my knowledge, isn't that friendly to idea of other OS presence.
Preinstalled, maybe (though I wouldn't mind if you share some info). But PCs are much easier to dual-boot (as long as they don't come with some sort of uEFI level OS lockdown, and I cannot recall seeing any) and Windows itself allows for dual boot.
Android, to my knowledge, isn't that friendly to idea of other OS presence.
Yes, we are obviously talking about pre-installed in this thread.
I didn't write this but I've read the whole thing. Pick any chapter and start.
You might read about how Microsux operated in the business world. I doubt that anything Google has done to date with hardware manufacturers would compare to this.
I didn't write this but I've read the whole thing. Pick any chapter and start.
You might read about how Microsux operated in the business world. I doubt that anything Google has done to date with hardware manufacturers would compare to this.
Yeah, I read the whole thing a while back & a lot of other similar stuff. Even downloaded the whole DOJ Findings of Fact in the abuse of monopoly trial. Microsoft were out of control. Glad those days are over.
I didn't write this but I've read the whole thing. Pick any chapter and start.
You might read about how Microsux operated in the business world. I doubt that anything Google has done to date with hardware manufacturers would compare to this.
That is one hell of an article! And I'm not talking about the length of the article. Thanks for the link.
Comments
Hey, since AI manages to automatically censor “9to5M?c” when you type it, couldn’t we edit that censor list to change all variations of Google and Samsung to just ‘Google’ and ‘Samsung’? Then the mockers get to keep mocking and everyone else gets to see the proper thing.
Doesn't make sense. From everything I have read so far, Windows Phone is more efficient than Android. If WP is under-performing on any hardware, Android will do even worst. But I think you're wrong. Much as I played with Lumia 520 - which is the lowest current WP on the market - it behaves quite well.
Microsoft was evil one, but after being wrist-slapped for monopolistic crap time ago, they turned quite benign.
In the last few years, among the other things Google did:
I think they could use one good slapping from US/EU, they seem to be growing too fast and feeling too overpowered for their own good.
Microsoft works with partners, too. Cannot recall they recently tried preventing them from creating dual-boot computers, or dropping support for non-Windows OSes. Obviously they didn't complain that this tablet will dual-boot with Android. True, they are underdog in mobile devices, but even in area they dominate - desktops and laptops - they are not forcing OEMs to lock their machines to Windows, which would be easily possible.
With all that silly names variations, you sound like 13 year old exhibiting mild b*tch fit...
I owned Vista. Isn't that a good enough explanation?
If Vista were a car it would have been recalled and junked. Since it wasn't a car, Microsux got to rip-off millions upon millions of people and waste years worth of productivity around the world.
Microsux knew then and still knows about the flaws in their Windoz OS yet they continue to sell it as is. That is a criminal enterprise. It is deliberate. I refuse to give any more funds to that company or use their products, and I definitely won't give them any respect as far as using the actual names of their products or their company. I don't support criminals.
Not being as elegant as OS X isn't illegal.
The whole IE thing I'm guessing.
No, it isn't.
I owned and still own one PC with Vista. It was my main gaming/photo editing machine back in the days - and it served me bloody well. I did wait until SP1, when OEMs (approximately) fixed crappy drivers they had on Vista's release, and Vista became more stable OS than XP ever was. Sure it needed more resources than XP, but hey - it was 6 years newer than XP. On decent machine with 4GB of RAM, it was my conclusion that it carries load much better than XP on same configuration. XP seemed a bit snappier under simple load (single app running), but with increase of open apps it was just slowing down really bad. Vista was carrying additional programs with much more grace.
My brother is still using my old HP ProBook 6370b with Vista 32 Business, and has no intention to change it - until it works.
Beside slow OEMs response to new drivers model - and it looks like almost everyone got lazy after 6 years of same-ol' XP - major problem with Vista was MS marketing who was keen to tag almost everything as Vista-ready. Technically, all of those "Vista Ready" machines could run Vista, but not all could run it comfortably. But that is Vista's problem as much as it is x86 OSX problem for not being able to run on legacy PowerPC hardware. Microsoft was over-eager to replace everything-XP to Vista, after not making any money on Windows upgraders for 6 years, but again - that is problem of MS marketing department, not Vista itself.
Regarding rest of your reply, nope, sorry - you still sound like raging 13 years old. Check this link, check date - almost 3 years after Vista was released - and, maybe, reconsider.
http://www.dailytech.com/US+Army+Says+No+to+Windows+7+Yes+to+Vista+Upgrade/article15217.htm
Microsoft got kicked hard in the... for their IE/Netscaoe and Word/Wordperfect stints, and emerged reasonably benign corporation after that... To the degree where they don't even try to - for example - retaliate to Google for quite obviously trying to undermine Microsoft's recent mobile efforts.
Treatment I honestly think that other big players should have, especially Google. For such beasts, a lesson in humility is almost always worth it's price.
I'm pretty sure they cannot do much, but I'm also sure they could find way to make Google's life a bit more miserable, considering that desktop Windows is still major platform for distribution of Google services. What if MS would demand that 3rd party browsers for Windows must be made in specific programming language, or that software for windows must have both Metro and Desktop versions included? Or that security mechanisms of OS have specific requirements that Gmail isn't fulfilling at present - required protocols etc.? I'm not programmer, nor lawyer, but I do believe that couple of smart individuals from both sides, locked in a room for a while, would come up with some funny ideas.
Microsoft works with partners, too. Cannot recall they recently tried preventing them from creating dual-boot computers, or dropping support for non-Windows OSes. Obviously they didn't complain that this tablet will dual-boot with Android. True, they are underdog in mobile devices, but even in area they dominate - desktops and laptops - they are not forcing OEMs to lock their machines to Windows, which would be easily possible.
Microsoft certainly has pressured partner OEMs to NOT offer dual boot PCs (specifically HP, ASUS & Dell, who all wanted to release Windows/Linux PCs).
Preinstalled, maybe (though I wouldn't mind if you share some info). But PCs are much easier to dual-boot (as long as they don't come with some sort of uEFI level OS lockdown, and I cannot recall seeing any) and Windows itself allows for dual boot.
Android, to my knowledge, isn't that friendly to idea of other OS presence.
Windows Me
So Windows ME and IE (while issues) don't really meet the spec for the "flaws" being talking about.
Preinstalled, maybe (though I wouldn't mind if you share some info). But PCs are much easier to dual-boot (as long as they don't come with some sort of uEFI level OS lockdown, and I cannot recall seeing any) and Windows itself allows for dual boot.
Android, to my knowledge, isn't that friendly to idea of other OS presence.
Yes, we are obviously talking about pre-installed in this thread.
This is old but it's a start for understanding how Windoz sort of works: "Why I Hate Microsoft" http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html .
I didn't write this but I've read the whole thing. Pick any chapter and start.
You might read about how Microsux operated in the business world. I doubt that anything Google has done to date with hardware manufacturers would compare to this.
This is old but it's a start for understanding how Windoz sort of works: "Why I Hate Microsoft" http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html .
I didn't write this but I've read the whole thing. Pick any chapter and start.
You might read about how Microsux operated in the business world. I doubt that anything Google has done to date with hardware manufacturers would compare to this.
Yeah, I read the whole thing a while back & a lot of other similar stuff. Even downloaded the whole DOJ Findings of Fact in the abuse of monopoly trial. Microsoft were out of control. Glad those days are over.
He said that Microsoft "knew then and still know about the flaws in their OS yet they continue to sell it as is".
So Windows ME and IE (while issues) don't really meet the spec for the "flaws" he's talking about.
Windows Me was criminal, worse even than Vista it was the y2k bug presented as an OS.
That is one hell of an article! And I'm not talking about the length of the article. Thanks for the link.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2014/031114-us-cert-urges-xp-users-to-279601.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2014-03-11