Transcript?
I can read something in about 1/10 the time it takes to listen to it...
Bundling’s come a long way since Microsoft was dragged through the US courts in the 1990s for wrapping Internet Explorer into Windows. With the up coming Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 Release 2 and Silverlight 3, it looks like Microsoft’s taking a soft sell to get you to consume the trio without landing in hot water. …
I agree that it is annoying to have 3rd party software installed on new PCs, but just having programs installed doesn't necessarily slow down machines. Most of that software never runs, it just wastes some disk space. Similarly, a service that runs but remains idle most of the time will not have a noticeable impact on performace. Many users who find their PC slowing down should to defragment their drive, as a first step.
I would be nice to hear news about Windows that doesn't come from people with weird zealous opinions (angry Linux or Mac users, or just anti-corporate leftists) or who are journalists and English majors who don't really understand technology.
One guy I like is Bill Thompson on the BBC, who has a MS degree in computer science. Yes, he has a very liberal POV, but at least he is not ignorant about the technology he reports.
I'm having a hard time understanding why MS can't learn from their mistakes with Vista. Sure there are some fanboys who think that VIsta is OK but obviously the general public realizes that Vista was a bad OS.
I think the PDC was Mojave for professionals - just show them a product- don't really ask them to try it but accept what we tell you. When infoworld and others actually installed the "pre-beta" and said it performed as miserably as Vista does, MS said the same nonsense that they did with Vista. It is because it is an early beta stage - performance will get better. Well We have Vista SP1 and XP is still better for file copies, network throughput, startup etc even if you have 2 or more gigs of ram, a multicore processor, a large cached hard drive. Vista is fine for home use if you aren't looking for speed but for those of us who do notice a difference XP is still the preferred OS by tech professionals, small companies like Intel, tech journalists etc.
MS never had to really do advertising for Apple users in the past because XP ran well when compared to OSX - not an identical but well. Mac users clearly are ahead when compared to Vista in many ways (i'm not a mac fanboy - I have one macbook, one Windows XP PC and one Windows 2007 server usd as a desktop at home (performs better than Vista SP1 even though they share much of the same code).
MS wouldn't need to have I'm a PC ads if they could actually learn from what they did with Vista, remove all the bloatware, make the code more efficient not just longer, concentrate on boot times - not boot times with loading items piecemeal but TOTAL boot time, network copies, local hard drive copies, shut down time, etc - performance is far more important if you want to get companies to "upgrade" than transparent borders.