[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Grant Sewell wrote:
Oh, their ignorance seems more worrying than just a lack of awareness of Comes-With-Linux netbooks:Hmm I missed that piece of journalistic cack-handedness. Mind you it has to be said that BBC journalists who write their online articles are rubbish and occasionally show only a passing grasp of English. My guess would be that the quote is the result of incompetence with a liberal sprinkling of ignorance of the subject."Dell already produces notebooks sporting Latitude ON technology that uses both Arm and Intel chips so that they can boot into both Windows and Linux."Wait... You need Arm in order to boot into Linux? Wow... That told me! Grant
Interesting they say that Windows 8 or 9 may run on ARM. Is it only me that remembers MS saying after Windows 3.1 'we're ditching version numbers as customers don't understand them'? Promptly producing Windows 95[1], 95A, 95B, 95B[2] and 95C followed by 98A and 98B; call me picky but aren't these version numbers? Then Millenium (wow an actual word! OK it wasn't most people called it ME) and 2000 - whoops back to numbers. XP and Vista stand out really as MS's *only* attempts at version names other than Millenium. Windows 7, 8 and 9 smell like version numbers to me.
Kind regards, Julian[1] In my TS experience calling an OS the year it was released made things worse. I lost count of customers who swore blind they had Windows 96 or 97 just because that was when they bought the PC - and this was supposed to make things simpler?
[2] What was that about confusing people? -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html