Only if you can't read a chart. Even in the EU chart, iOS is about 2x WP.

The world is also bigger than the EU. If you look at global numbers, WP looks flatlined compared to iOS.

Can't see the chart but I can only assume you are ignoring the fact that Lumia phones are on huge discount in India and that Apple doesn't do any real discounting. Again for global numbers, it appears Android is dominant, iOS is present, and Windows is barely above RIM and Symbian. That is not success.

I don't disagree that Apple polished the smartphone and the tablet. But few would not argue that Apple and Android also made them actually usable. I had a WM6 phone. It crashed randomly. Figuring out how to do anything required looking it up as everything was buried 3 menus deep. The problem for MS was their mindset of just putting Windows on a device and calling it done. Part of this was probably Gates who had an aversion to anything but Windows. There is a story that MS had an e-reader before anyone else but since it didn't use a Windows UI, Gates killed it.

This was the main issue with the tablets. There were expensive touchscreen laptops. They provided few real advantages over a much cheaper Windows laptop other than you could use touch. The UI was modified to add a pen. That was all the optimization done. Also at the time, there were not light by any means so carrying one was not comfortable.

I don't remember all projects. Just most of them. There was the famous 4 quadrant chart where he focused Apple on only 4 lines of products.

What do you mean by 2 TB 2? Do mean like switching between two computers? I don't think so.

If we measure success in terms of market share, Windows Phone was registering in the single digits as of January 2014. This is 4 years after the original WP7 released. So under 10% in 4 years is not a rousing success.

Financially success is probably not assured given such low market share. MS has not separated out their earnings and profits for Phone except recently: Q4 2014

So gross margin is 0.054B / 2.0 B = 2.7% overall for phone. Note this is for all phones not just Windows Phone; however sales were only 5.8M. Financially that's terrible performance. If you compare it so Apple (and people will): 35M, $19B, (no margin reported).

Or you can buy a cheap Thunderbolt adapter.

The basic idea is this: Marvel is making a crapload of money in movies. DC Comics wants to do the same.

Apple says you can use iMacs as displays. It requires Thunderbolt apparently.

I assume this is the processor the new Mac Minis will use compared to the 2010 processor The clock speed isn't a much benchmark as it once was considering that the new CPU can ramp up to 2.7GHz. It's more of a powersave feature as the new processor has a 15W TDP as opposed to 25W. The newer chip uses a 2 x 256KB L2 cache and a 3MB L3 cache whereas the older chip only uses a 3MB L2 cache. The bus speed on the new chip is 5GT/s and the old one was 1.066 GT/s. The most important difference would be integrated graphics vs discrete graphics required on the older one.

Many companies have an aversion to GPLv3 for good reasons. Apple is fine with GPLv2 and BSD and Apache style licenses. GPLv3 with their restrictions puts Apple into a legal quagmire they don't want to be in.

Internet Explorer is still playing catch up with other browsers.

It matters because that was one of the claims that the administration made. It matters because the effectiveness of the older stockpiles would decrease over time and it was a question whether their existing stockpiles could be used as they would be at least 30 years old by the invasion. It would be more like toxic waste at that point rather than an effective weapon. That's why Iraq would need to manufacture new ones.

Iraq did not have biological weapons. Iraq was known to have sarin and mustard gas. So what?

Powell:

Your contention it was for already and new weapons is ludicrous. By the time of the invasion that gas that they already had was decades old and highly ineffective. That's why they needed to manufacture new ones.

So when the Bush administration found the chemical weapons, they were so vindicated that they trotted them out in front of Congress? Hell no. You know why? The weapons they found were of so little importance that they barely mentioned it. Why don't you stop spinning this, you coward.

You do realize that not all weaponry lasts forever right? Even nuclear weapons are retired because the components may not be as effective as when they were put into service. Since the Iran-Iraq War, the world knew Iraq had mustard and sarin gas. This is not news.

Not when the actual claim by Colin Powell and the administration was that Iraq was MANUFACTURING new chemical weapons.

No, it's conservatives that are spinning these discoveries that Bush was right when in reality they are not. That's dishonest. That is spin.

What part is being ignored? Everyone knew Iraq had mustard and sarin gas since 1984. The Bush administration claimed specifically that Iraq was manufacturing new chemical weapons. Such weapons were never found.