So Windows only costs $50 with a PC. Does this include throwing away Vista to purchase and install XP? And, have you seen the difference in price between OS X and Windows when sold separately? I believe OS X is still far cheaper (and better).

It is not surprising that Balmer has de-valued the operating system component of computers since Microsoft has failed to release an acceptable operating system in almost a decade. I believe the operating system is far more important than minor hardware differences, which is worth paying extra. Apple consumers pay to get the whole Apple package, including OS X which out-performs Windows OS's at every turn, is far easier to use and requires minimal maintenance. Furthermore, Apple charges far less than Microsoft for their client or server operating systems when sold separately, and Apple software is generally cheaper to purchase. Not needing to deal with Vista or XP is definitely worth paying $500 extra.

I'll be the first to say that the CD form of music distribution has been dead for years. While it is true that illegal downloads are on the rise, legal digital downloads are also on the rise, primarily due to companies like Apple, that jumped on the digital media band wagon some time ago. Traditional music media forces the customer to purchase all songs on a disc at a premium price, while little revenue actually goes back into the hands of the artist. This has resulted in backlashes by consumers and artists against traditional Music Industries. I do believe that digital production and publication can empower artists to gain more control and over the music they produce and can eliminate the music industry middle men, unwanted by artists and music lovers a like. Better music selection online, sampling of at least 30 seconds of any song before purchase, individual song purchase capability and low purchase prices will ensure that legitimate digital music industries will replace traditional industries entirely. Since production and distribution costs can be significantly reduced and physical medium is no longer required, digital music must be a bargain to interest consumers and not sold on par with CDs. Otherwise, illegal forms will dominate.

All Windows OS's have poor startup times, compared with other distributions, and these times increase the longer the OS is installed on the hardware platform. Windows reboots are also required more frequently than most other platforms, most notably for the incremental updates that Windows Automatic Updates service insists are performed when patches are detected. While a short boot time after a Windows fresh install may be acceptable, over time the boot time can lengthen considerably and can become a nuisance. Without hacking the Windows Registry and performing manual maintenance, Windows must be re-installed to restore performance.

I would also state that the design of most hybrid cars, including the plug-in Volt introduce a needlessly complex automotive design that will require more maintenance during product lifetime. While this will benefit the automotive and automotive service industries, consumers could easily pay more for maintenance. Since hybrids utilize both internal combustion and electrical motor components in addition to new, unproven battery technologies, many complex automotive systems must remain functional to drive the vehicle successfully. The Volt will introduce even more complexity by adding the plug-in features to hybrid design. Automobiles should utilize one energy source for the simplest and most reliable design possible. This will also decrease the weight of the vehicle. Either efficient gasoline vehicles or 100% electric plug-ins would be much simpler than any hybrid model. Furthermore, most hybrid fuel efficiency ratings are reportedly far more efficient than experienced under most driving conditions.

Seriously, who needs or uses "Silverlight" anyways? With Flash, Javascript and HTML v5 compatible with all popular operating systems: Windows, linux, OS X and others, do we really need or want another MS proprietary protocol to do the same thing, but also lock us into using Windows? Nope, don't think so!

With all the hype out there, it seems impossible that Safari is as good as Apple says. However, I must admit that it is a much better release than Safari 3, which I thought was a downgrade from v2. Safari 4 beta starts up and loads pages much faster than v3. Also, it does appear to consume less memory while running. Apple has also integrated the "lazy susan" thumbnails for bookmarked pages and also includes the new "top sites" page. I'd say it is faster than Firefox for some things, but overall, Firefox includes more features. However, Safari 4 is still better than v3 and of course IE - any version.

I agree that OS X Updates often do require one reboot, after the software update process is complete. This is still much better than Windows: Incremental Update, reboot, incremental update, reboot, etc.... As far as UAC goes, this is more of an example of a new, MS proprietary idea badly implemented that was used instead of embracing alternative security models that have existed for decades under UNIX. I'm not saying that other OS's don't have proprietary components, but if I write a program in Visual Studio with C++ and use Direct X or MFC, how do I port such a program to linux? I really can't. In the end, I would have to re-write most of the program. Compare this to proprietary UNIX-based OS's where ports are much easier to accomplish between systems. The purpose of technical standards is to integrate technology across vendors, which, does not really exist under the Microsoft philosophy to control their majority market share. So Microsoft's claims of compatibility are only true if you are using another Microsoft system.

You're wrong about WMI - no longer supported in Exchange - EWS used instead. While it still exists, it is continuing to be replaced by other Microsoft protocols for Microsoft Server products, like Exchange and MS SQL Direct X - requires more hardware than OpenGL to run and many third-party developers will report problems programming under this API - XBOX issues have occurred as a result of Direct X instablities Also, you clearly know little about OpenGL if you think it is less stable and performs poorer than Direct X. UAC - seriously, what use is this - can I really be more secureusing an annoying pop-up notifier? I think not. Automatic Updates - seriously, show me another update manager that is worse. Examples that are much better: linux yum and OS X Software Updates. Furthermore, what is the point of an OS that isn't compatible with anyone else???? Windows is rarely compatible with their own legacy software, let alone others...

I am not surprised by the announcement of these major flaws, many directly related to MS proprietary components/protocols. Microsoft has a history of manipulating open standards into MS proprietary protocols in order to prevent development outside Windows. However, as a result, Windows OS's become less compatible with other OS's and do not reap the benefit of improvements to open source alternatives made in the open source and standard organization communities. Several examples of flawed Windows proprietary technologies: WMI (no longer supported in newest Windows Servers), Direct X (unstable and high overhead compared with OpenGL), UAC (worst Vista feature) and Windows Automatic Updates (incremental updates with multiple reboots to update, memory leaks and high resource consumption under idle conditions).

Don't think so, if you are using WinXP Pro - SP3 and launching directly from Windows Explorer. I reset my default browser to IE, then back to Firefox to verify. You can replicate this as follows: a. Use "Run" and enter a URL and it will load in your default browser, eg: Firefox. b. Open "My Computer", find the "Address" bar, or expose it if it is hidden, then enter a URL and it will load in IE.

I cannot believe that this case is not already closed. Internet Explorer is one of many monopolistic paths Microsoft has pursued. For those that seem to think that other OS's are the same, such as OS X, Debian and Red Hat, think again. IE is integrated into the Windows Kernel (foolishly I might add). This means that displaying web content anywhere in Windows means that IE components will be always be used by default. Even when changing the default browser, many Windows functions will only work in IE, such as Active X, Windows Updates, etc... Also, Windows Explorer and IE are very closely linked and you can see this if you type a URL into the address bar of Windows Explorer - surprise, page loaded in IE, even if Firefox is your default browser... Other OS's do not do this and will obey the default browser you specify, even if they only provide 1 browser out-of the box.