One of the tests is related to rendering speed (#69) not design faults. That's because it wants the test to be completed fast enough to achieve 30fps.

Under system load, or browser load (such as extra stuff being done in the rendering thread whilst the test is running), a browser may not always pass this test. Whilst its an OK test, there will be no way to reliably pass it 100% of the time, and as CPU's become faster and more efficient, its likely browsers will pass eventually regardless of if they optimise their code or not.

Its also one example of why the ACID tests are quite overrated.

I meant Darwin, not OSX darwin... OSX sits on top of darwin though.. If Windows can be an operating system, so can OSX. Explorer isn't just an application for accessing the rest of the operating system. So Aqua and the libraries sitting on top of Darwin can be considered its own operating system. And my point was, if it mattered so much, there would be a lot more developers hacking at the Darwin code and changing it.. There isn't.

It wouldn't make any sense for Microsoft to go open source at this time. Firstly, the only people who should care about open source should be developers. You hear a lot of people whining in linux about how everything should be open, but barely any supporters (companies and individuals alike) look at the code. And if people aren't going to modify or analyse the code, what's the point? Secondly, developers can already do everything they need to in windows without seeing the source code. What do you guys honestly think developers can add, that they can't now? Windows is quite extendible...

I think most people misunderstand the difference between freeware, and open source. Microsoft may possibly make windows much cheaper one day to eliminate the competition (Mark Shuttleworth himself said, its difficult to compete when windows is free). However, Microsoft has enough developers, they certainly don't need community help. I don't mean to call the author of this article an idiot per say, but he clearly doesn't understand the benefits/cons between open source and freeware. Windows is already extendible enough these days to not require it being open sourced.

Furthermore, OSX Darwin is open, and nobody cares! The only reason Apple cares about open source is because they essentially take a lot of code from the community, but give very little back.

Microsoft isn't going bankrupt anytime soon so its not as though you will be making a risk by purchasing windows, and be unable to maintain it in the future!

Theres very little reason people would need to look at the source code.. Must go Open Source?? HAHAHA. NO! There is little point, both for Microsoft and users. Maybe it will go freeware though...

I tend to agree.. The flight models on X-plane tend to be a lot better, but unfortunately, its plugin list is quite limited, and so is its graphics capabilities apparently :(

Also, in Australia at least, X-plane unfortunately doesn't seem to have anything to compete against Orbx's "Full Terrain X" except Auspak (which doesn't go far enough in my opinion for VFR flight). Its a pity, but I hope X-plane eventually does get a lot better, because it not only runs a lot smoother then FSX, but if you buy a copy, it runs on OSX, Linux and windows!