| Richard 2007-12-31, 6:55 pm |
| On Jan 1, 2:25 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>
> Most hardware suppliers (Dell, et al) will replace Vista with XP. Some new
That is correct for Dell and a few others, but generally not for
retail shops where they are all Vista.
Some also offer other alternatives. The point being that MS tried to
control what OEM could offer and only allowed (!) XP for 3 months
after Vista was released, but had to rescind this because many simply
wouldn't buy Vista.
> hardware, especially laptops, can't run XP because the drivers for their
> unique hardware are Vista-specific.
And much hardware can't work with Vista because the drivers aren't
available. In some cases some hardware (video cards) sold as 'Ready
for Vista' won't support Aero. The rationale for this is that MS gave
out certification if the _any_ version of Vista worked and 'Home
Basic' doesn't have Aero.
Compiz on Ubuntu outdoes Aero and will run on almost any integrated
video, such as my 4 year old laptop.
>
> Linux accounts for less than 1% of the desktop market (0.86% was the last
> number I saw). This is roughly equivalent to OS2.
It is 1% of the retail market because of contractual tie ins with MS.
To get a Linux box one has to buy a Windows box and reformat or dual
boot, or use uncounted white-box or build your own. I have several
Linux boxes here and in client sites and _none_ were counted.
Also many Linux machines are recycled older machines that ran Win98,
ME or 2000 and would otherwise be dumped, yet will run perfectly fine
for most home users, or even for businesses. They don't get counted
either.
This is changing, mainly because Vista requirements are so large that
system price is high. With ASUS EEE, XO, nokia 810, and several other
there is a new category of machines.
>
> Docx was not created to obsolete prior versions; Docx was created to use XML
> architecture,
Well actually is uses a MS specific non-standard form of XML and then
obscures it by failing to use meaningful tags.
> making Word more open than its .doc predecessor.
There is no attempt to make it 'open'. Certainly it is no longer just
a dump or the internals of MSWord, but is an XMLified dump of thoise
internals.
> There are
> already scads of docx-to-doc converters,
Partial converters.
> but you can do it by hand. Take a
> .docx document, add ".zip" to the end, click on the file. Inside of the
> archive is a file named "document.xml" and clicking on that should open the
> original file in a browser window (or maybe not...).
The point of doing that is what ? You won't see the actual document as
it would be redered by MSWord.
Perhaps you are confusing this with the 'online converters' where you
upload the .docx to a site and they convert (mostly) to html, add some
advertising, and display the result.
[color=darkred]
|