| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Claims 96% of Netbooks Run Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 20:30 EST/01:30 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Microsoft asserts that about 96 percent of mininotebooks, or netbooks, currently on the market run some version of Windows, rather than Linux. Dell, Hewlett-Packard and other makers have been focusing on feeding increased public demand for netbooks, as more people seem to be purchasing them in search of cheap computing power in the midst of a global recession. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 344 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:37:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 2:08:58 AM |
| people continually vote with their feet and dollars |
| #2 By 12071 (124.168.157.237) at 4/7/2009 5:08:50 AM |
| Microsoft claims they have a virtual monopoly in the netbook market - as soon as they try to leverage this monopoly... take them directly to court! |
| #3 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 5:22:55 AM |
|
yes yes yes.. and with a gun to their heads... people chose Windows over Ubuntu Re-whatever, because they were forced to... and those that bought into ultra cheap netbooks loaded with the feature complete *nix flavor of the month, returned them in record breaking numbers in an expression of their utter delight with what OSS had to offer...?
you guys are bright... please see populist BS for what it is and frankly, for just how dangerous it can be. Leave the markets, including those producing software, alone. Wait till Windows 7 ships with cheap SSD's - you'll never see a *nix based laptop - unless some asshat in some clown government leverages populist nonsense to "level the playing field" Oh wait.. my own, now insane country has turned Herr Obama loose to save the day - his favorite position on anything? Prone. |
| #4 By 2 (70.196.186.219) at 4/7/2009 6:25:11 AM |
| don't you sleep, lketchum? hahaa |
| #5 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 4/7/2009 8:07:53 AM |
|
"yes yes yes.. and with a gun to their heads... "
Interesting; I did not know that the previous "Administration" was so active in the netbooks selling operation. :-) This post was edited by Fritzly on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 at 08:15. |
| #6 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 8:49:22 AM |
| the previous administration was not popular with a select number of European nations, but wildly popular outside of them. The beauty of his position is that he told it like it was - yes, extremist theocrats really are dangerous and when they overrun you we will not come back this time to help. I know "The Mirror" in Germany painted it otherwise - ironic, huh... since that country has such a stellar record when it comes to picking wildly popular leaders and on such matters as human rights! Populism is dangerous and very harmful to human beings. Don't say you have not been warned. |
| #7 By 15406 (72.140.218.146) at 4/7/2009 9:26:47 AM |
|
#3: You're a very complex man, Ketchum. According to you, Windows is popular and that's good because you like Microsoft. Meanwhile, Obama is popular but that's bad because you don't like Democrats. Like most Republicans, you're chock full of guff about what Obama is going to do and how it will ruin America but you can't (won't) acknowledge the harm your boy has done over the past 8 years. I have to give it to you; you're a partisan right through to the core.
#4: True defenders of the MS faith never sleep. Not when there's apologia to be offered and spin to be manufactured. #6: You need to switch your dial off of Fox every now and then to get a true perspective. Despite your claims to the contrary, the Bush administration was considered wildly unpopular by the vast majority of the world (and not just the countries that you, personally, don't like) and half of the US. This led to his party being ousted by a landslide and him leaving office with one of the lowest approval rates in the history of the US. It's incredible that you can sit there and claim Bush was popular despite all evidence to the contrary. You're either deluded, or you think the rest of us are. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 4/7/2009 9:35:41 AM |
|
Two observations here:
- Let us leave human rights alone....... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614 - I am a big admirer of Voltaire so hardly a populist. In the 16th Century an Italian writer, Niccolo' Macchiavelli, wrote a book called "il Principe" (The Prince); my guess is that you have already read it, if not I would invite you to do it because it is very interesting. Besides I mention it because nowadays his writings are as actual as they were during the Renaissance. While I enjoy debating with you I am aware and sensible to other readers who do not come here to waste their time reading my humble geopolitical and philosophical dissertations therefore I conclude arguing that, regardless of the means implemented to do it, the previous administration failed to reach their prefixed objective. That is the legacy. |
| #9 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 4/7/2009 9:38:31 AM |
|
"Meanwhile, Obama is popular ..."
Not so much ... "The Pew poll measured the partisan gap between Democratic and Republican respondents and finds a whopping 61 percent spread, the largest such gap for a first year president in forty years. President George W. Bush was a uniter in comparison to Obama, as his partisan gap was only 51 percent at the same point in his presidency." http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/07/obamas-approval-numbers-more-polarized-than-bushs/ |
| #10 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 10:06:04 AM |
|
I'm rather simple.
The world is complex. I've seen most of it. Walked the ground of most of it. Human Rights extends to humans... not to scum that intentionally (that is the operative word here) murder the innocent. Putting the head of a murderous dog in a bucket (or vice) isn't torture - it's justice and where it saves the life of one innocent life I have this to say: "turn the knob counter-clockwise to open the valve" (close it only when the dog stops kicking - water is cheaper than bullets). Fritz, the Prince is a good read, but it is far too oft used to tie up American leaders. It doesn't apply. The family Niccolo served didn't have nearly the responsibility a President has. |
| #11 By 15406 (72.140.218.146) at 4/7/2009 10:55:58 AM |
|
#9: Sour grapes. The GOP are still smarting from the spanking they got, and now they're going to sulk for awhile. In the meantime, they will busy themselves with obstructionism and complaints about how Obama hasn't yet fixed the mess that they, the GOP, got the US into in the first place. Like I said before, after seeing the GOP in action over the past 8 years, if they're against something then it should be immediately embraced. And, like Limbaugh, they want Obama to fail and take the country down with him just so they can say "I told you so." The US can't afford that destructive attitude right now. Also, Bush didn't come into power with a war on two fronts (and possibly three if the sabre-rattling against Iran and North Korea continues) and a tanked economy, as Obama has.
#10: I'm rather simple. You said it, not me. The world is complex. I've seen most of it. Walked the ground of most of it. Sure you have. Human Rights extends to humans... not to scum that intentionally (that is the operative word here) murder the innocent. Sigh. Human rights belong to ALL humans, regardless of what they have done. That is what elevates us from the animals, and what supposedly distinguishes advanced democratic states from dictatorships. Your "eye for an eye", "the ends justify the means" attitude is the kind of thinking that starts you down the road to a police state where human rights are an inconvenience to be ignored by citing "the greater good." |
| #12 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 4/7/2009 1:42:22 PM |
|
#11 The Democrats controlled the House and Senate the last two years. And it was morons like Barney Frank and Dodd and Obama who forced banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them.
Of course being a foreigner and an idiot ... you forgot who controlled what. |
| #13 By 16797 (65.93.149.158) at 4/7/2009 3:48:37 PM |
|
#12 Actually I read that deregulation of the financial system came much earlier, during late 90's (when Republicans had majority) and in fact, even much earlier, during Reagan.. and that is what allowed this mess. Is it not?
By the way, you're trying to say that housing bubble started only 2 years ago? Come on.. |
| #14 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at 4/7/2009 4:45:50 PM |
|
#13: Didn't you know that selective memory is part of the conservative credo?
|
| #15 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 4/7/2009 5:15:47 PM |
|
A refresher for the leftards.
"The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites. The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued." "Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing. Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall." http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/ This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 at 17:20. |
| #16 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 4/7/2009 5:20:04 PM |
|
Community Reinvestment Act 1977 ... etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act |
| #17 By 16797 (65.93.149.158) at 4/7/2009 5:35:54 PM |
|
#11: "Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."
So, Bush administration knew about the problem five years ago and did nothing.. because Barnie didn't agree? Funny.. and then they went to Iraq to fix the problem that didn't really exist. Didn't ask Barnie about that one, did they? :) This post was edited by gonzo on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 at 17:36. |
| #18 By 16797 (65.93.149.158) at 4/7/2009 5:51:22 PM |
|
#16:
Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. (BTW, encouraging != forcing). Others however, including the economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. |
| #19 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 5:57:58 PM |
|
Boy Latch... if you had any idea at all... I try hard not to get mad... some days; some people...
There is the world we all want and we try to build and there is the world as it is. While many of America's critics have sat out many hard episodes, or benefited directly from America's influence, money, and blood, a very great number have stood right there with us through thick and thin. The notion that the US was, or is alone is nonsense. Great Britain, Australia, are always there - they remember how much America sacrificed for them and how much we invested in each to rebuild them. America has long protected many - allowing them to skip the costs associated with keeping the world safe from despots. Similarly, America's critics would do well to remember who it is that keeps the sea and air-lanes safe and consistent and who shares its constellations of satellites... who funded NATO, the UN and who is first on any scene of natural disaster? Who paid more than lip service to millions on Africa and regardless of politics, who shows up first with food and medicine when and where it is needed? I remember vividly how hard it was to get simple things like paint, or lumber after the war - we sent all we had to Europe and our people went without - to prevent a disastrous human tragedy from becoming worse. I remember sneaking meat into Poland in 81 when the Soviets buried the entire ration to punish the people of Poland. I remember the night hundreds of thousands lighted candles and placed them in their windows when yet another stream of Soviet tanks ran over a country. I know how hard we worked to stop them and how much we spent. So sit there and point crooked fingers all you want. You have no idea what this country has done and still does do to keep things in balance as best they can be. It's so easy when you can sit on your duff and carp about our faults - safe from the world's realities. What will you do when eventually, and they will, extremist theocrats do get a nuke and they set it off? What then? What will you say then? That it was America's fault? |
| #20 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 6:00:10 PM |
| #16, you do understand that the President has limited power over the economy, right? or at least he did? That branch is not chartered to dictate to the legislature - that body passes our laws. |
| #21 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/7/2009 6:05:03 PM |
|
1977? We've had 5 republican presidents since then. What did they do?
Don't get me wrong, I voted for Reagan and the first Bush - they were the best choices at the time, but for you to lay this on the Democrats when the Republicans had more time to fix this problem is rididulous! |
| #22 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 4/7/2009 6:48:09 PM |
|
The Bush administration, through its treasury secretaries sent 26 warnings to the Fed (remember they are a corporation), the house and senate. 26 times!
Rxcall, what do they do? They grew US GDP 4.25 times the size it was in 1977 - despite Democrats. We want to take it back to a system of controls? How about the origination of the 30 year mortgage (FDR)! The idea that every person had a "right" to real property? Nonsense. Both parties blew this time and again. Not all people want, or can manage real property. Some would be best served by renting and saving (gosh forbid). Look, it is really, really simple... our economy and that of the EU are highly dependent upon population growth. We could solve that with legal immigration, but we won't (stupid) and that falls at the feet of Republicans (largely). Neither population is growing at a rate required to sustain them - not in ways that they must. We have the room and we keep people out - it's nuts and young people simply do not want kids. |
| #23 By 16797 (65.93.149.158) at 4/7/2009 8:41:03 PM |
|
#22: "The Bush administration, through its treasury secretaries sent 26 warnings to the Fed (remember they are a corporation), the house and senate. 26 times! "
Sent 26 warnings? And? Is it not obvious that you need to do something else and more, if after, say, 5 warnings nothing changes? Didn't republicans have necessary majority in both places until recently (2007)? So why didn't they act on those warnings? |
| #24 By 92283 (24.64.223.204) at 4/7/2009 9:25:09 PM |
|
#17 I think this is an example of encouraging = forcing:
"A Massachusetts bank that has defied the odds and remained free of bad loans amid the economic crisis is now being criticized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for the cautious business practices that caused its rare success. The secret behind East Bridgewater Savings Bank's accomplishments is the careful approach of 62-year-old chief executive Joseph Petrucelli. "We’re paranoid about credit quality," he told the Boston Business Journal. That paranoia has allowed East Bridgewater Savings Bank to stand out among a flurry a failing banks, with no delinquent loans or foreclosures on its books, the Journal reported. East Bridgewater Savings didn’t even need to set aside in money in 2008 for anticipated loan losses. But rather than reward Petrucelli's tactics, the FDIC recently criticized his bank for not lending enough, slapping it with a "needs to improve" rating under the Community Reinvestment Act, the Journal reported."" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509584,00.html #23 You don't seem to understand that the legislature creates legislation. And that Uhbama and Dodd and Frank and lots of others were bought off. Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Dodd, Kerry, Obama , Clinton ... Frank ... Rahm Emanuel. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html |
| #25 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/7/2009 9:36:01 PM |
|
#20: " you do understand that the President has limited power over the economy"
#22: "what do they do? They grew US GDP 4.25 times the size it was in 1977" Talk about a non sequitur |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 344 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:37:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
