It's nice how this same story has discussions about how patents should be invalided and how Microsoft is stealing others ideas. Classic slashdot.

It is actually around 50%, but many of those servers are internal (exchange, mail, processing, crunch jobs etc..). MS has around a third on publicly facing web servers, but all server types should be counted.

RIM's problem is basically same as Nokia's was - their platforms eco-system is practically dead. You cannot find any of the apps or games you want on them. I don't use my phone (old Windows Mobile 6.2) much so I haven't needed that many apps on it, but on those few times that I have had a need for something, it really sucks when the apps are only available for the big three - iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7. This is true for even such known programs as Skype (I actually did find some old WM6.2 Skype version, but the voice quality sucks with that version).

Where RIM is failing here again is just trying to get their own system out. There's just too many platforms. Hell, even on PC's most companies only make their products available for Windows and maybe OS X. They cannot compete with iOS at this point, and while a little bit better, Android has the same kind of fragmentation problems (though to a lesser degree). In my opinion RIM should go with Windows Phone 7. As RIM is mostly used by business people, they would even get Office and Exchange directly to it. Perfect for businesses.

Yeah, we already saw Google TV already. It was its own device too and didn't come with any agreements with content producers, it only displayed YouTube and tv channels own websites. It was quickly blocked and pretty much become completely unusable device.

Yep, it was years ago. On that note UNIX and Linux used to have lots of worms that spread remotely too, and there's still lots of bugs and sometimes even remote exploits. Firefox and Chrome patch hundreds of bugs per year.

If software vendors were being held responsible for every bug that might have slipped through, what you think would happen? Open source contributors would stop contributing software, because they would risk losing their personal money in the process. On the other hand, Microsoft has the money. You would only kill open source development.

What are they being responsible for? Just running piece of software isn't illegal. Even FBI or whoever it was that cleaned one of the botnets gave computer owners the possibility to opt-out of it, in case they wanted to keep it on their computer.

You want to hold all the Linux contributors responsible too? Especially when the malware usually comes via user stupidity, not insecure software.

Why not have it on weekdays when most people don't have dates, wild parties or bar nights to check out the girls? What were they thinking?

No they didn't, they just bundled both binaries inside the same file.

Also, .NET and Java apps will still directly run on both.

Do you honestly want to waste battery for virtualization and emulation? We're talking about tablets here, battery life is a big concern and emulation uses a lot more resources than if the developer just compiled a proper ARM version.

If battery life isn't that big of a concern to you, then get a x86 Windows tablet. That you get all the x86 programs running natively. I'm also quite sure many developers will compile ARM versions of their programs too.

No it didn't, it just means developers have to compile both x86 and ARM versions. Reading comprehension, use it. It would be waste of battery life to emulate another architecture just because the developer was lazy and didn't build ARM version too. Besides, if the apps are for tablets they probably need some work with the interface too.

And why exactly? It's pretty obvious you need different builds for x86 and ARM versions. You can still get them if you want to, but it would be just idiotic to emulate another architecture. Native executables is the only good way to go.

Interestingly, they have sex with real girls instead of wanking to porn.