You don't know what the hell you are talking about.1. Even with cross platform software there is seperation between the branches and that means that the branch where the developers spend most of their time will always be at least a little ahead of the other branches.2. "Google stuff" is a lousy example. The only thing they produce that is _ususally_ _almost_ exactly the same accross platforms is the stuff that runs in the browser. They have many programs that are "Windows Only".Pull your head out of your ass.
When MS has access to people's data, it's considered unsecure and can be used to harm users. When Google has access to people's data, it's considered OK and is fine to let advertisers have access too (even if there's a site like this that explains how Google can do much more : <a class="user" href="http://masterplanthemovie.com/">http://masterplanthemovie.com/</a> )When MS tries to integrate platforms, including their own, for a better experience, it's considered being a monopoly. When Apple tries to integrate platforms, especially their own, for a better experience, it's innovative and great. (even though Apple makes ties most of their products into one big messy knot).I guess even if MS is changing for the better, there will always be haters citing these, despite the fact that the other beloved companies do exactly the same thing.
Both of you are wrong. These services are only "free" if you keep paying for windows's upgrade cycles. I choose not to BUY a brand new computer, together with BUYING a xp/vista license just to remain compatible with ms software. There's nothing "free" about having to PURCHASE more hardware and software just to remain compatible. It's like saying xbox live can be free, but as long as you bought a xbox and compatible game. Eventually support for xp will end and people will be forced to make further unnecessary PURCHASES. Notice all the mentions of purchases which I've gone to the trouble of highlighting, well purchases means not free!!Read this very carefully: software is NOT OPEN if it's incompatible with other operating systems! That's a definition. It's why people oppose this, because it's a monopolistic practise! You evidently don't understand what free and open mean in the context of software. It's like saying you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say certain things. Well, that's not freedom of speech, is it?
sk11Apr 25, 2008
When MS screws you, they also charge you a lot of money for the "experience."If, when, google screws you, at least it shouldn't cost you any money.
jorgApr 25, 2008
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.1. Even with cross platform software there is seperation between the branches and that means that the branch where the developers spend most of their time will always be at least a little ahead of the other branches.2. "Google stuff" is a lousy example. The only thing they produce that is _ususally_ _almost_ exactly the same accross platforms is the stuff that runs in the browser. They have many programs that are "Windows Only".Pull your head out of your ass.
w4rh34rtApr 25, 2008
Lol, ARGH THE BIG SCARY MICROSOFT. Here's a new one, if you don't like them. Don't use it. There! Wasn't that easy =]
quikboyApr 25, 2008
Live Mesh IS free. Couldn't help but note that. Just to be fair.
quikboyApr 25, 2008
So does Apple. ;^)
quikboyApr 25, 2008
When MS has access to people's data, it's considered unsecure and can be used to harm users. When Google has access to people's data, it's considered OK and is fine to let advertisers have access too (even if there's a site like this that explains how Google can do much more : <a class="user" href="http://masterplanthemovie.com/">http://masterplanthemovie.com/</a> )When MS tries to integrate platforms, including their own, for a better experience, it's considered being a monopoly. When Apple tries to integrate platforms, especially their own, for a better experience, it's innovative and great. (even though Apple makes ties most of their products into one big messy knot).I guess even if MS is changing for the better, there will always be haters citing these, despite the fact that the other beloved companies do exactly the same thing.
sk11Apr 26, 2008
Both of you are wrong. These services are only "free" if you keep paying for windows's upgrade cycles. I choose not to BUY a brand new computer, together with BUYING a xp/vista license just to remain compatible with ms software. There's nothing "free" about having to PURCHASE more hardware and software just to remain compatible. It's like saying xbox live can be free, but as long as you bought a xbox and compatible game. Eventually support for xp will end and people will be forced to make further unnecessary PURCHASES. Notice all the mentions of purchases which I've gone to the trouble of highlighting, well purchases means not free!!Read this very carefully: software is NOT OPEN if it's incompatible with other operating systems! That's a definition. It's why people oppose this, because it's a monopolistic practise! You evidently don't understand what free and open mean in the context of software. It's like saying you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say certain things. Well, that's not freedom of speech, is it?
mydaveAug 12, 2008
no surprise here. bravo MS developers!<a class="user" href="http://www.wmpowered.com">http://www.wmpowered.com</a><a class="user" href="http://www.robobusiness2006.com">http://www.robobusiness2006.com</a>
juliereaderFeb 10, 2009
hahah there open-ness is sop close :P-----------------<a class="user" href="http://www.linkbuilderz.com/link_building_services.html">http://www.linkbuilderz.com/link_building_services ...</a>