Miguel de Icaza, Microsoft MVP
dgerard at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 17:52:53 GMT 2010
2010/1/17 Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Michael Haney <thezorch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Linux will have a better shot at mainstream success on platforms that
>> Micro$oft doesn't seem interested in supporting, or cannot support
>> without loosing lots of money because they'll have to seriously lower
>> prices to be competitive. And, we all know how Micro$oft just loves
>> have to compete fairly. Either they somehow get the upper hand,
>> underhandedly of course, or they don't bother. Its their usual modus
"6. Linux runs your television, microwave, toaster, car, camera,
phone, garage door opener and dildo, but geeks still fail to
comprehend why you want a Macintosh for the computer you actually use
in front of you."
> But since before ARM appeared, x86 had more software - orders of
> magnitude more. And since the early 1990s, x86 has consistently been
> more powerful, now to the point where it is orders of magnitude more
> powerful but also scales down until it is nearly as cheap and nearly
> as electricity-frugal as ARM - and it gets smaller, cheaper &
> thriftier-with-the-juice constantly.
> Do not underestimate it.
Indeed. However, I'm vastly amused that the possibility of ARM-based
netbooks that run Linux on almost no power but can't run Windows 7 are
a problem for *ARM*, not for Microsoft.
> Also, since Intel is nearly as dirty-dealing a company as Microsoft.
> Not quite; that would be rather hard, only the big petrochemicals
> companies approach that, or the big finance houses if you take a moral
> rather than legal view.
Or the record companies. Microsoft is saintly compared to them.
Intel is rather good at making ARM chips too, y'know. They just really
like their x86 business.
More information about the sounder