If this is true, then it's good news for Microsoft. XP Support has been set to continute until 2020.

I think that "in general" you're right, but you're forgetting the human aspect. If my uncle is buying something for his computer, it might not care what all of his facebook friends think about computers, but he might VERY WELL care what *I* think, and so he might be curious to see what I like. In a similar regard, I wouldnt ask my mother where to vacation, but I have several friends on facebook that do a lot of traveling, and I think seeing their experiences might be useful.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Microsoft does this sort of thing all the time. They avoid drawing attention to something when it's "up and comming", and then after the real threat has subsided (MS Office has matured a level, and OO is going downward) they create the strawman.

Because people wont look at it as "the price of half a console" they will look at it as "the price of 2 1/2 games". People spent $150 a month on TV + Internet, they will have no problem spending that on their kids for christmas in order to place something that isnt "run around and blow up other kids".

Wow, these companies are really shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to corporate adoption.

No right-minded SysAdmin would want this sort of thing in their environment. While I understand that you CAN turn it off, Im willing to bet (without caring enough to actually look), that they have neglected to add any security features that would prevent an end user from turning the "auto update" back on.

Yea, those Windows and MAC users are so dumb. They expect installing an application should be a standard part of the OS and easy!

Instead, they will have to learn that you are better off if you choose between several different package managers with various subtle differences.

It sounds tike you need better management tools, not a new OS. There's lots of ways to minimize the Processes/Services running on XP and to keep the systems clean...without remoting into them individually. not to mention....removing old files and profiles will not to ANYTHING to improve the speed of the computer.

Wow, what an ingorant post. If you think it's confusing to edit the registry...you might want to stay away from .conf files.

You're speaking of "efficiency". I assume you're speaking of FireFox as an example. But there's is nothing more efficient about an IT organization supporting more than one tool for the same purpose, based on the preference of a user (or an admin). If you can lay out how a company or IT organization would improve efficiency by supporting FireFox, along side IE (because you MUST support IE since many 3rd party apps use the IE engine embedded), I'd love to see it. I might even elect you to office.

Perhaps Sun has "promised" too much over the years on things that don't produce a return on investment. Perhaps this is why Oracle scooped them up. Perhaps Oracle wants to remain profitable.

Many corporations insist on IE only. Why? Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway. Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice. (remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference) The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.

Oh, puh-lease. Anybody using the RC gets a free ride in that they get to test the OS and test their software with the OS for free. If you don't want to help test a RELEASE CANDIDATE, then don't use it. Nobody's twisting your arm. Ubuntu is buggier than any modern version of Windows... why aren't you complaining about "testing" Ubuntu for free?

I suspect that Microsoft only cares about taking a hunk of the people who have interest in the "Google Docs" type products. If they even take 20-30% of that market, they will have ruined the momentum that Google has.

My guess is....they spent a lot of marketing dollars and found that people generally like the number 7.

Have you analyzed the meta tags, picture alts and context of the site itself? If results were as easy as counting words, everyone would have a search engine.