Posted 02/06/2009 at 12:56:33pm

Just because Windows becomes open source does not mean that the install of apps will be different. If Windows was open it would not be like linux; were any and every one can have their own and unique OS. Microsoft would make sure that everyone worked to one standard andonly  one version of windows like, OpenOffice.org or Debian. You would still having the covenience of knowing that when you get software with the Windows logo, you can install it with just a click. Plus for the ones that are not able to go to the Microsoft site and download the OS it would still be available at stores.

Posted 02/06/2009 at 02:54:31am

Making Windows Open Source sounds like a great solution to Microsofts growing fight with other sowtware vendors. If Microsoft is willing to become serious about being in the business of selling online ads; opening their OS and intergratimg there Live Search into the OS sounds like a perfect answer. They can still make an optional Pay version (not to get an anti-trust suit by giving people a choice) that does not include the search. Theis would give them the upper hand against google that they have been looking for, At the same time putting almost an instant stop to linux. Killing two or three birds with one stone. Other services may still be pay to use eg: Windows Server, Microsoft Office.

Posted 03/27/2008 at 04:49:11pm

i cant really call this a fair match the amd and intel were set on two different mem. configs. 1066 to 1333. Thats like 667 to 333 or regular gas to premium and then calling them even, and evan with the slower ram the amd was still not that bad only laging at the most 1:40 sec. on the slower config. Which makes me wonder how would they compete on the same config. The amd is designed to work directly with the ram and to not give the two the same makes the experiment inconclusive. I'll wait tell i find a fair compairson before i judge nrdz-