I would add to this comment that the entry on wikipedia, which is mentioned in TFA, seems so opaque to me that it might have been randomly generated and I wouldn't know any better. :(

Wow, a Valve fan. Kinda like an Apple fan. I really don't know how to answer to this, because there is nothing to answer to. I'll try to rephrase my last post, even though I know it is a waste of time.

symbolset: Since Steam will stop working on Windows, Valve is doing this to protect us...
caithsith01: I can still run programs written 15 years ago on Windows. Why would Steam stop working?
symbolset: MS is well known to take over the market previously occupied by ISVs....
chryana: What the hell does this have to do with caithsith01's point?
symbolset: Gabe protects his customers. You're so heartless.
chryana: I'll try to rephrase what I just said in a way that you can understand, but I don't think it's possible.

If will not bother replying to any further post you make, because I think you missed the opportunity for a rational discussion to take place.

Your answer completely sidesteps the GP's point. He's not arguing that the Microsoft app store, when it comes out, will not be in direct competition with Steam. He's pointing out that one of the strengths of Windows is the time and effort spent to ensure backwards compatibility with older applications, which is considered an important reason why it rose to such high prominence on the desktop. Which completely invalidates your original post, since it is based on a false premise. I'll give you a slashdot story as reference to back that up.

I bet even with a world as big as the Milky Way galaxy, there will be people who complain that the game is overpriced.

I was with you until the very last sentence. The rest of your comment is both interesting and insightful, but to me, the relation between the price of a game and the size of its world is a non sequitur if the content is procedurally generated, since in that case I can just generate more content myself. I really can't imagine myself paying extra for a game because they're adding a bunch of computer generated stuff to it, unless it is added in a manner that makes sense (Like say, for instance, adding an arena in an RPG where you can fight random mobs or something like that.).

I liked the Xen personally... You want more of the same old tactical shooting which is offered everywhere? Then pick up one of these tactical shooters instead, they're a dime a dozen.

You're speaking of Team Fortress 2? Yeah, sales were probably quite low four years after it was released, so they made it free to play. Breathes new life into an old title, with people buying hats and what-not. What's your point?

Well, I paid 14.50 at the Steam store in total for three of those games (Bastion, Limbo and Sword & Sorcery) before the bundle came out. Don't like the port? Don't buy it. The developers don't owe you anything. Besides, check the pie chart, even though the Linux buyers pay close to three quarters more, there's at least 6 or 7 Windows buyers for every one of them.

When I read in the summary that Unity was now a "beautiful swan", I clicked on the link, hoping to get a review of why this is the case. Instead, I get a long summary of the biggest new features in the latest version. Not very convincing.

Not only that, but I would like to add that I do not think personally that the few books I have read from project Gutenberg are suitable for educational use... I don't want to slap the project Gutenberg, I like what they do, but the few books I got from their website (mostly French literature) were shock full of spelling mistakes, probably caused by faults in OCR recognition. Maybe schools could run classes where students would have to fix a few chapters during their semester and give back the output of their work to the project (after revision by the teacher, of course).

Patent litigation.

I am not presuming that people are idiots, please read my post again if you think so. I am just pointing out that
- not everybody is interested in computers all that much (and there is nothing wrong with that, there's lots of things I'm not interested in either), so giving the ability to create virtual machines or encryption is not very helpful for most people
- the features which the OP suggests should be part of the basic Windows installation are not, in their current form, all that useful to increase security. The virtual machine makes it so that the end-user now has to remember to update not only his computer, but also the virtual machines that it runs. Running the browser in a VM will do someone little good if the VM is compromised and he types his credit card number in the browser window which is inside of it. As for encryption, chances are higher that the end-user will suffer some data loss because of it than to avoid getting his computer compromised.

TLDR: Your post is mostly orthogonal to what I wrote. I said that VMs and encryption (in their current form, shipped with Windows) are not useful as security features for most people, and none of what you said answers that, sorry. And I didn't say people are idiots.

I can agree with that, although I have to say that I don't know of any other OS which does this either. But then, Windows appears to be the only OS which really needs this...

Either you're trolling or you are vastly overestimating the general public computer abilities. Do you really expect Joe six-pack to setup a virtual machine to run his browser in? Even if he has a knowledgeable friend who sets this up for him, now try to explain to him why he can't apply a wallpaper he downloads or install a game without copying it from the virtual machine to is computer (which, by the way, defeats to large extent the usefulness of the virtual machine in the first place)? As for encryption, I'm not really sure of how it protects a computer from viruses and random malware, but I do know that it makes it much more difficult to recover data in case of hardware failure, sometimes impossible if the encryption depended on some certificate which had to be backed up (which wasn't done, because the user didn't know about it). You can argue that Microsoft should offer a simpler line of products, but I don't think those features are particularly useful in regards to security for the general public.

Yes, I agree that it looks interesting. I just hate it when someone repeats the same thing again and again in a discussion, when it's not in every discussion he goes. I'm fine with discussing the merits of LLVM, this looks like the appropriate place for it. I just don't want to read the same discussion four or five times because one person ignores what has been said on the topic and just repeats his original message.

Are you an Apple shill in your spare time?

I'm trying to read this thread, and I have to put up with your repetitive posts about how great clang is. Why don't you read some of the replies to your crap? They do a good job of debunking your claims. I have mod points, but I just hate moderating people down, even if they waste my time repeating unfounded assertions (also known as bullshit).