Firstly, that's utter bullshit, but if you are talking about Word 2.0, sure. You forget one thing though. The following part of the sentence: "for the vast majority of the population". For the vast majority of the population, including about 99% of the business document producers, even Word 2.0 is still plenty good (missing some cloud integration etc, but you get my point - for writing documents that 99% of the population does.

That was not a problem. The problem with WP was not that it got tripped by Microsoft, the problem with WP for Windows was that it functioned completely different than all other Windows applications. The WP teams insisted on following their own GUI Guidelines rather than following the "standard" GUI functionality. The development team and the architects plus their managers were all incompetent fools. They were so full of them selves that they didn't start changing WP in sensible ways until it was way too late.

None of the problems with WP had anything to do with Microsoft APIs.

It was a bullsh*t trial, IMnsHO. The basic tenet of the trial was absurd. The fact that Microsoft bundled a browser with their operating system was not anti-competitive in any way. Netscape would have been able to out-compete IE if it was in any way a useful product. Netscape never became half-way decent and even though Firefox started out OK it quickly spiraled into oblivion due to it being crap. It still is. Chrome would have been almost at the market share of IE right now if it hadn't been for the dumb asses clinging to the bloated monster that is FF.

Yes. So did Google. IBM. Cisco. In fact, all companies in the world more or less.

Yes, they bundled software with the OS. Strangely so does every other operating system vendor these days, but...

According to the IPCC personal vehicles contribute about 5% if the worlds CO2 emissions. Since most electricity is produced using non-renewable fuel, they pollute somewhere in the same range as gasoline cars. What does this mean? It means that anyone who talks about personal vehicles and any change to their use whatsoever as a solution to climate change is a moron. Most environuts I have met are morons. Please note, before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not a climate change denier, I am just pointing out that anyone talking about cars as a solution to any problem related to climate change is a moron. Even if we all stopped driving tomorrow and decided to bike to work, it would have an entirely insignificant impact on CO2 emissions.

Changing from gasoline cars to electrical cars will have almost zero effect on CO2 emissions when you consider that walking instead of driving will have a theoretical maximum effect of 5%.

The largest CO2 emitters are electricity production, the agricultural sector etc. This is where we need to start. Starting at a place with a maximum 5% effect is simply retarded. Here is a tip to the environuts: Stop yapping about cars, cars do not emit CO2 in any statistically significant manner.

As for buses, it's basically the same, though the total CO2 emissions are even lower. Again, according to the IPCC the entire transport sector accounts for about 15% of the CO2 emissions, so any discussion involving changes to transportation as a means to solve the CO2 emission problem is retarded.

Seriously?

Word Perfect for Windows was total crap. It didn't lose because of shady Microsoft techniques, it lost because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population. Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent in addition to be so full of them selves that no matter how much market loss they were experience they refused to listen to their customers.

Netscape was ruling the world until IE6, in hindsight a crap browser, but at the time, heads, shoulders and entire torsos above Netscape. At the time. Afterwards Netscape grew into a bloated monster and the world was saved by Google Chrome.

Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.

That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.

I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct. :-)

That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).

Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.

Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.

Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.

The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.

That is not entirely true. Yes, Blu-Ray is a disk format, and as such it doesn't care about resolution, however, it must be able to deliver a 4K data stream through a HDMI 2.0 interface at bit rates significantly higher than for HD. The format must also be able to store a 4K movie on the disk, which means the drive probably has to be able to support BD-XL3 or XL4. This means that the player (drive) must be able to support BD-XL, it must support HDMI 2.0 and it must support 6x speeds. I doubt most Blu-Ray players of today supports this.

Not even close. Not yet. Probably never.

Your loss. Streaming "HD" is barely SD in quality.