Microsoft v/s Apple

[Trichromatic]

Installed windows 8 consumer preview few days after it's release. First few days, I noticed few issues, but apart from that there hasn't been any problem at all. Startup time is lesser, everything works like charm. I guess it has been around 4 months. Generally I don't turn off my computer. I just do my work, close the lid, come back and do work again without any problem. I have to say this is quite unusual for a windows user.

[ganeshran]

You said in the earlier post that's its usability is good for the price. Now its good?

Its good enough not to be called shabby in most people's books. For the price that it retails its quite good.

You are mistaken here. For you it may all be about looks. Wear the good leather shoe and tell me if it feels nice too.

Looks are the differentiating factor in Macs. The appeal in that shiny and ultra thin body cannot be understated and is a major factor in the marketing of the macbooks. A lot of people buy them for the looks, the rounded corners and the fonts - its all about the bling when it comes to advertising the devices.

Lol at bling! So to contend that linux is preferable you have put usability at the bottom of the heap. For me usability is the prime factor. Stability comes a joint first and security the next. And you are forgetting that osx is as stable as the next Unix box. And security has never been a red flag issue in this environment. Ok. Good. It will come in handy in ones future careers in all and sundry fields.

I didnt put usability at the bottom of the heap. Its one of the factors where the Mac is ahead. The remaining three are just as important as usability and MacOS falls behind in all of them. You might consider compatibility and the number of software trivial but its one of the most major reasons why people buy Windows. Every major software has a Windows version even though many dont run on Macs and Linux. Not everyone can afford a console for gaming and Windows outscores both Mac and Linux by quite a comfortable distance. The level of control that a PC offers is another major differentiating factor. Most laptops are built to be taken apart easily and each and almost every part (except the graphics unit which is soldered) can be upgraded for low cost from vendors at SP road.

Yes. And guess what is the end benefit of having better designed, better built hardware? It makes a better more robust and reliable computing experience. If that's a decadent, frivolous luxury that you are willing to forego for all that windows offers that's up to your priorities.

A dell latitude or thinkpad or Inspiron running Linux provides the same robust and reliable computing experience. The hardware virtually never goes bad, is extremely sturdy and the OS is the gold standard. Of course, it doesn't have the rounded corners and pretty fonts or the slightly better touchscreen/adapter. If you consider these worth to be 2.5 times the cost, then who am I to argue with how you spend your money.

[Prakat]

Its good enough not to be called shabby in most people's books. For the price that it retails its quite good.

Right. You get what you pay for.

Looks are the differentiating factor in Macs. The appeal in that shiny and ultra thin body cannot be understated and is a major factor in the marketing of the macbooks. A lot of people buy them for the looks, the rounded corners and the fonts - its all about the bling when it comes to advertising the devices.

You could not be more wrong if you tried. You are fixated on it obviously so I won't argue this point with you! Macs are not marketed for their looks. Ads have a photo, it happens to be a aesthetically pleasing unit. Sue me. If you want to talk about laptops being marketed for their looks check out the vaio campaign with kareena (change covers to suit your outfit!) or that HP Me product.

I didnt put usability at the bottom of the heap. Its one of the factors where the Mac is ahead. The remaining three are just as important as usability and MacOS falls behind in all of them.

You do when you mention it as an aside... As if that isn't a killer reason! And Macs fall behind in stability and security? Epic lulz. stability is rock solid on Macs one of the reasons graphic intensive and 3D artists prefer working on this platform. And security? where are your facts?

You might consider compatibility and the number of software trivial but its one of the most major reasons why people buy Windows. Every major software has a Windows version even though many dont run on Macs and Linux. Not everyone can afford a console for gaming and Windows outscores both Mac and Linux by quite a comfortable distance.

And they are welcome to it. We aren't trying to sell Macs here.

The level of control that a PC offers is another major differentiating factor. Most laptops are built to be taken apart easily and each and almost every part (except the graphics unit which is soldered) can be upgraded for low cost from vendors at SP road.

Yes, that's why a maruti is better than a beemer.

A dell latitude or thinkpad or Inspiron running Linux provides the same robust and reliable computing experience. The hardware virtually never goes bad, is extremely sturdy and the OS is the gold standard. Of course, it doesn't have the rounded corners and pretty fonts or the slightly better touchscreen/adapter. If you consider these worth to be 2.5 times the cost, then who am I to argue with how you spend your money.

Ok now linux. So you champion winblows when talking of app compatibility and linux when talking about stability. We are dealing with a theoretical hotch potch Frankenstein here. Which reveals the deep flaw in this discussion. Your machine does not exist. ill put a macbook pro on the table, what will you put? Show me the best you can come up with. Pick a real box that has proven itself in the market, tell me what OS is on it and we can talk. And yes, thousands of winblows users move over to Macs and find it worth the price. While those who are on the outside looking in wonder why they are paying for pretty fonts.

[ganeshran]

Right. You get what you pay for. You could not be more wrong if you tried. You are fixated on it obviously so I won't argue this point with you! Macs are not marketed for their looks. Ads have a photo, it happens to be a aesthetically pleasing unit. Sue me. If you want to talk about laptops being marketed for their looks check out the vaio campaign with kareena (change covers to suit your outfit!) or that HP Me product.

You are free to disagree but Macs are marketed for their looks (along with power). Its always portrayed itself as the exciting, more colorful alternative to the PC and looks are a core part of this, both the OS and the machine itself. I am not saying looks are the only thing that Mac has, but aesthetics are a major part of how the machines are sold to the user and the layman often buys macs for the same reason

You do when you mention it as an aside... As if that isn't a killer reason! And Macs fall behind in stability and security? Epic lulz. stability is rock solid on Macs one of the reasons graphic intensive and 3D artists prefer working on this platform. And security? where are your facts?

Its just one of the factors that are to an operating system. Its not certainly not the killer factor enough for me to pay more than 60K extra especially when the Mac is behind on all the other three reasons. Of course Mac fall behind on stability when it comes to comparison with the Linux. You consider Windows to be way behind on stability even though Win7 hardly every crashes (once in an year for me). Linux enjoys a stability advantage over the Mac even thought it might not be noticeable for the user similar to the never crashes vs once an year crash for the Win7. I run a media server, continuous torrent download, an intranet web server and a network share on my more than 4 year old laptop along with regular usage of browsing, programming and it never ever crashes. It runs on majority of web servers for the same reason. As for the security part - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/widespread-computer-virus-indicates-mac-users-no-longer-safe/. Just a month ago there was a virus which infected 600K macs. Linux doesnt get these kind of attacks and its not like people are not trying to build viruses for the linux - it runs on web servers (unlike personal computers which Mac runs on) and is continuously under attack from hackers. Still Linux never gets a virus outbreak - the reason is the constant updating from community who patch critical vulnerabilities as soon as they are found

And they are welcome to it. We aren't trying to sell Macs here.

We are comparing the various operating systems, and compatibility is a major win for Windows over both Mac and Linux. There is simply not another OS which supports more software than Windows and unless a user is perfectly happy with what he gets in the box and never has any other usecase with his machine except the most basic functionality, this is a very important point. If that is the user the mac targets, then fine, it doesnt need any compatibility or third party software at all.

Yes, that's why a maruti is better than a beemer.

Wrong analogy. The level of control that a machine offers has nothing to do with it being better, it is more of an advantage that a platform offers. When a PC manufacturer sells you the hardware, it is your to control from end to end. You want to upgrade a HDD- buy it from newegg and hook it in. You want to change the operating system, do as you please. This kind of control is crucial is for power users. It doesnt matter for noobs and laymen, and Windows/PCs serve both kind of clients.

Ok now linux. So you champion winblows when talking of app compatibility and linux when talking about stability. We are dealing with a theoretical hotch potch Frankenstein here. Which reveals the deep flaw in this discussion. Your machine does not exist. ill put a macbook pro on the table, what will you put? Show me the best you can come up with. Pick a real box that has proven itself in the market, tell me what OS is on it and we can talk.

How is it a theoretical discussion? Is a PC not capable of running Linux on a dual boot with Windows? Majority of Linux users have Windows as well for compatibility reasons. The bottomline here is that a PC worth 40K is able to do more than a Mac worth 100K. Whether the PC runs linux or windows is upto the user, as long as he doesnt have to pay extra to get Linux installed which in fact he doesnt. Plenty of PCs come with Linux preinstalled and ditto for Windows.

And yes, thousands of winblows users move over to Macs and find it worth the price. While those who are on the outside looking in wonder why they are paying for pretty fonts.

And yet, there are hundreds of millions of PC users who are perfectly happy with Windows/Linux who laugh at people paying 2.5 times the price of laptops all for a slightly better build quality and the pretty fonts and the rounded corners.

[bulbul]

You are free to disagree but Macs are marketed for their looks (along with power). Its always portrayed itself as the exciting' date= more colorful alternative to the PC and looks are a core part of this, both the OS and the machine itself. I am not saying looks are the only thing that Mac has, but aesthetics are a major part of how the machines are sold to the user and the layman often buys macs for the same reason

you cant sell Millions of machines for years by this alone...may be intially it helps but in longer term people are not fools to buy by seing looks only..as for as i know most of the people who but these products have atleast little bit of tech knowledge.... and look of products is an Apple[Jobs] philosophy from long time its not marketing gimmick. Jobs is mad perfectionist...

[bulbul]

Fact#1 Gates was better businessman (at the top of the world in fact), for a good period of time. Numbers speaks for themselves. Fact#2 Gates' dominance over MAC in 90s, has nothing to do with Apple's revolution in Music/iPhone/Tablet in following decade. two different decades, two different battles, different products also. So, bringing in points from 2000s, to prove/disprove some claim (however wrong) from 90s - is ridiculous to me. If you want to counter DK's statement by some evidence, it has to be from the same time period. Both were driven by different but successful philosophies (combined with execution), and that is the key reason, they dominated the other in different times...and dominated significantly.

Gates was a busenessman while Job's a visionary.. and its not like first round won by MS..first round won by Apple they introduced a succesful computer and made millions way before MS started domination... one of the factors allowed MS to surge ahead and dominate is Jobs stubborness of not licencing software while MS doesnt have interest in building their own Computers but happy to get money from software licences

[Crookbond]

Fact#1 Gates was better businessman (at the top of the world in fact), for a good period of time. Numbers speaks for themselves. Fact#2 Gates' dominance over MAC in 90s, has nothing to do with Apple's revolution in Music/iPhone/Tablet in following decade. two different decades, two different battles, different products also. So, bringing in points from 2000s, to prove/disprove some claim (however wrong) from 90s - is ridiculous to me. If you want to counter DK's statement by some evidence, it has to be from the same time period. Both were driven by different but successful philosophies (combined with execution), and that is the key reason, they dominated the other in different times...and dominated significantly.

So, it's not the IPL that has cheer leaders. You must DO YOURSELF, what you ask others of. Before even cheer leading here, I want you to lay down on what exactly DK posted and what exactly is the point I am countering. Then I shall ridicule both. And before that you should substantiate DK's "claims" (lacking self confidence etc.) before asking me for counter argument claims. Currently, you want rules for others but exception for yourself.

[Crookbond]

Gates was a busenessman while Job's a visionary.. and its not like first round won by MS..first round won by Apple they introduced a succesful computer and made millions way before MS started domination... one of the factors allowed MS to surge ahead and dominate is Jobs stubborness of not licencing software while MS doesnt have interest in building their own Computers but happy to get money from software licences

THIS is exactly what people will not understand. Round 1 (stealing of GUI from Xerox PARC) was definitely won by Apple. Proof? Uau0aIbrzkQ Bill Gates worked for Steve Jobs on the Mac. I find it extremely amusing that people aren't aware of the history and yet throwing blanket statements & later asking for evidences of a counter argument for which no evidence on the argument was itself made. :facepalm:

[Crookbond]

Wrong analogy. The level of control that a machine offers has nothing to do with it being better, it is more of an advantage that a platform offers. When a PC manufacturer sells you the hardware, it is your to control from end to end. You want to upgrade a HDD- buy it from newegg and hook it in. You want to change the operating system, do as you please. This kind of control is crucial is for power users. It doesnt matter for noobs and laymen, and Windows/PCs serve both kind of clients.

I can't understand this point at all. First for hardware, are we talking about desktops or laptops? Both are different entities especially for hardware. Second for software, I have repeatedly told earlier and repeat it for the nth time - avoid commenting on something which you aren't proficient in. What OS can't you change on a Mac - mind enlightening me?

[Crookbond]

++ (and this is coming from a once linux fanboy /ms basher) I just finished a long 'memoir' of a PhD, shared by none other than mac lover, MS basher - local to this thread (mcenley) - and somewhere the author mentions, level of research/innovation in MS ( microsoft research) is at par, or may be even ahead of academia in some fields. How much of that translate into consumer products, is a different matter altogether.

I am just stopping short of abuse here. Don't get personal, just a fore warning. It doesn't need to read a 'memoir' of a PhD to understand that Microsoft has done more to academic/enterprise research than Apple - no doubt. It clearly shows that you aren't in the research business. I am not even a MS basher as you put it. I just call the shots as it is - I haven't even made one ill comment against Gates or Windows. However, can you see the other side? MS and Linux fan boys like you make idiotic comments about Apple based on a one-person book! I am huge admirer of Bill Gates. But, people like you will never understand that because you have to pick a side. In your books, one can't be a great admirer of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Are you even aware that in terms of pure humanity Jobs stands no where to Bill Gates? Do you even know that Bill Gates greatest impact on this world or whatever you call it is not Windows or the PC revolution? Obviously you won't because before you shoot before you think. People like you have all your facts muddled up and then spew venom in different directions.

[Prakat]

You are free to disagree but Macs are marketed for their looks (along with power). Its always portrayed itself as the exciting, more colorful alternative to the PC and looks are a core part of this, both the OS and the machine itself. I am not saying looks are the only thing that Mac has, but aesthetics are a major part of how the machines are sold to the user and the layman often buys macs for the same reason

You just repeated the same thing without taking my response into account. Since when is ugly product design a virtue? You speak of good looks as a terrible evil! Lol

Its just one of the factors that are to an operating system. Its not certainly not the killer factor enough for me to pay more than 60K extra especially when the Mac is behind on all the other three reasons.

Usability is just one of the factors... Is it a coincidence that you are running linux. :haha: Usability is drive quality, feedback and handling in carspeak. Try selling that down to a car buyer.

Of course Mac fall behind on stability when it comes to comparison with the Linux. You consider Windows to be way behind on stability even though Win7 hardly every crashes (once in an year for me). Linux enjoys a stability advantage over the Mac even thought it might not be noticeable for the user similar to the never crashes vs once an year crash for the Win7. I run a media server, continuous torrent download, an intranet web server and a network share on my more than 4 year old laptop along with regular usage of browsing, programming and it never ever crashes. It runs on majority of web servers for the same reason. As for the security part - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/widespread-computer-virus-indicates-mac-users-no-longer-safe/. Just a month ago there was a virus which infected 600K macs. Linux doesnt get these kind of attacks and its not like people are not trying to build viruses for the linux - it runs on web servers (unlike personal computers which Mac runs on) and is continuously under attack from hackers. Still Linux never gets a virus outbreak - the reason is the constant updating from community who patch critical vulnerabilities as soon as they are found

Since you keep bringing up your own personal experience, here is mine. Eight years on Macs, never a virus never a crash. And I've never had antivirus software. Winblows users will have a heart attack now.

We are comparing the various operating systems, and compatibility is a major win for Windows over both Mac and Linux. There is simply not another OS which supports more software than Windows and unless a user is perfectly happy with what he gets in the box and never has any other usecase with his machine except the most basic functionality, this is a very important point. If that is the user the mac targets, then fine, it doesnt need any compatibility or third party software at all.

Mac has a lot of apps for all kinds of use. You are just making random outrageous statements.

Wrong analogy. The level of control that a machine offers has nothing to do with it being better, it is more of an advantage that a platform offers. When a PC manufacturer sells you the hardware, it is your to control from end to end. You want to upgrade a HDD- buy it from newegg and hook it in. You want to change the operating system, do as you please. This kind of control is crucial is for power users. It doesnt matter for noobs and laymen, and Windows/PCs serve both kind of clients.

Sorry, my analogy stands true. You can find easy, cheap replacements for maruti parts anywhere in India. You can't change a beemers parts just like that.

How is it a theoretical discussion? Is a PC not capable of running Linux on a dual boot with Windows? Majority of Linux users have Windows as well for compatibility reasons. The bottomline here is that a PC worth 40K is able to do more than a Mac worth 100K. Whether the PC runs linux or windows is upto the user, as long as he doesnt have to pay extra to get Linux installed which in fact he doesnt. Plenty of PCs come with Linux preinstalled and ditto for Windows.

Here's why this is a theoretical discussion. You mention a dual boot pc as your trump card. there is a massive problem with that that I am frankly surprised you seem to be unaware of. Stability is not an app that one day you decide, ok today I want stability, so I will boot linux. So now tell me a pc box and OS that you will be sticking with for the remainder of this discussion.

And yet, there are hundreds of millions of PC users who are perfectly happy with Windows/Linux who laugh at people paying 2.5 times the price of laptops all for a slightly better build quality and the pretty fonts and the rounded corners.

[Crookbond]

Getting ticked off at both recently. Specially when deploying Enterprise wide solutions. Microsoft is the Wal-Mart of software companies, throwing out products as package that are too immature, screws up the entire eco-system, brings down the collective quality and ends up creating more problems that it promises to solve. It is also a key player in the whole "stack" world where you are either a SAP shop, or IBM or Oracle or well Microsoft. The product of one often does not work with the other. And how could they? Every company sends out an updated version every 2nd day it seems. Apple's product quality and creativity not withstanding they have been either so far behind the curve, or have been reluctant adopters of technology and often their products do not work with other industry leading solutions. So iPad does not work with Flash, because Steve Jobs had an ego clash with Adobe. What era is this? Is this coke-pepsi again? I have been recently engaged to deploy Mobile solution for enterprise wide rollout and both these mahanubhav companys are making me go nuts. The discussion is easy to settle on personal level, try rolling it on a company level.

Lurker - I hope you know that Apple hardly makes enterprise products. Steve Jobs (I think he said this at All Things D) hates the enterprise market and has never seriously even tried. As for your Flash comment - Read Jobs letter on why Apple didn't support flash on mobile devices. It was definitely more than just ego clash. I hope you're aware that Adobe has vindicated Jobs by discontinuing Flash for mobile. Even Android one of the mobile OS market leader, has discontinued flash in it's 4.1 version. If it is just ego, Adobe should go ahead an support flash. There are various problems with flash on a computer and these magnify on a mobile device.

[bulbul]

Lurker - I hope you know that Apple hardly makes enterprise products. Steve Jobs (I think he said this at All Things D) hates the enterprise market and has never seriously even tried. As for your Flash comment - Read Jobs letter on why Apple didn't support flash on mobile devices. It was definitely more than just ego clash. I hope you're aware that Adobe has vindicated Jobs by discontinuing Flash for mobile. Even Android one of the mobile OS market leader, has discontinued flash in it's 4.1 version. If it is just ego, Adobe should go ahead an support flash. There are various problems with flash on a computer and these magnify on a mobile device.

Its not android disconnected Flash..Adobe said they are no longer supporting Flash after ICS and mentioned future is HTML5. from ENGADGET

Adobe was very public about dropping mobile Flash last fall. In case that wasn't clear enough, the developer just drew a line in the sand: Android 4.1 doesn't, and won't ever, get certification for Flash. The company is stopping short of saying that Flash won't run, but it's evident that Adobe won't help you if the web browser plugin doesn't install (or breaks in spectacular fashion) on that Nexus 7. Just to underscore the point, the firm is also halting new installations of Flash from Google Play as of August 15th. Security updates and other vital patches will continue on for existing users. Any fresh downloads after that fateful day, however, will have to come from Adobe's mausoleum for old versions. The company had already said that HTML5 was the way forward on phones and tablets -- now we know just how quickly it's backing up that claim.

[Crookbond]

Its not android disconnected Flash..Adobe said they are no longer supporting Flash after ICS and mentioned future is HTML5. from ENGADGET

Thanks for the correction - but it's exactly what I meant. If Adobe was so confident about Flash, they should've continued. Alas! They accepted the realities and now have conformed to Jobs vision on the mobile - HTML5. If I'm not mistaken, Google too plans to move to HTML5 for YouTube. They have an HTML5 viewing option since a long time now.

[someone]

Lol at the arguments by Mac fans. The fact is even you own Mac, you still need to use PCs if you really want to use the power of computers fully. Windows still is very irreplaceable and MACs can certainly be replaced easily. Afterall, I can get 2 better PCs (more functions as well) at the same cost as a MAC.

[ganeshran]

You just repeated the same thing without taking my response into account. Since when is ugly product design a virtue? You speak of good looks as a terrible evil! Lol

I never said good looks are an evil. I said the massive differentiator between Macs and the PC are the looks. In all other things the PC can perform just as good as the Mac and even better for some use cases. My point was the looks are a major factor in the marketing of the Macs and one of major reasons why people buy Macs.

Usability is just one of the factors... Is it a coincidence that you are running linux. :haha: Usability is drive quality, feedback and handling in carspeak. Try selling that down to a car buyer.

Can you list out the features which makes the MacOS more usable? More responsive OS, more stable, more secure? Or some UI features?

Since you keep bringing up your own personal experience, here is mine. Eight years on Macs, never a virus never a crash. And I've never had antivirus software. Winblows users will have a heart attack now.

600K Macs getting attacked by viruses is not my personal experience. Its a fact that more hackers are targeting macs now and the Mac also decided to brace itself for this by changing its marketing to claim that its safe rather than no viruses attacked. Linux being ultra stable and secure is also not my experience. Its widely accepted in the industry and thats why majority of webservers are powered by the Operating System. Web servers which constantly face hackers trying to gain control, as opposed to a personal computer which has a lower surface area of attack. My personal experience is with Windows 7 and XP. 7 has crashed on me twice in the last 3 years. XP few more times than that. But nowhere did I find stability to be an issue with XP or Win 7 ever in the last 12-13 years of using. I had a lot of gripes with Vista and Me but never any issues with XP or 7.

Mac has a lot of apps for all kinds of use. You are just making random outrageous statements.

Windows has by far more software , more than Mac and more than Linux. There is simply no competition here. If I was buying a computer with multiple uses in the future, I would go with a PC simply because of the choice in software here.

Sorry, my analogy stands true. You can find easy, cheap replacements for maruti parts anywhere in India. You can't change a beemers parts just like that.

Your analogy isnt applicable at all. A beemer is not better because you find lesser parts for it in India. Daewoo parts were hellish to find at one time, so were Fiat. That doesnt make them better than other cars. Lack of control is a disadvantage of the Mac vis-a-vis the PC. There is no correlation between lack of control and better product quality.

With the PC vs Mac analogy Here's why this is a theoretical discussion. You mention a dual boot pc as your trump card. there is a massive problem with that that I am frankly surprised you seem to be unaware of. Stability is not an app that one day you decide, ok today I want stability, so I will boot linux. So now tell me a pc box and OS that you will be sticking with for the remainder of this discussion.

Thats the whole point. I dont need to stick to one particular OS because of the flexibility that the PC offers me, unlike Macs. I use Linux for all my personal computing needs . Torrenting, downloading, browsing everything. However, when I need to use Visual Studio or play Age of Empires, I boot into Windows. Work PCs completely run on Windows as I need to use Outlook, Visual Studio and IIS. There is no use case which is not covered by this arrangement. Stability and security doesnt come at a premium for me. It comes free with the same PC that I bought for 40K from Dell or HP. So when you pay 100K for a Mac its not this stability and security which is the differentiator. It is the slightly better build quality (which is a given regarding the cost) and the better aesthetics of the product which you pay for when you give the 60K more.

No, if they were happy they would be trying to make the mac users see why they should move to windows. They are actually rebooting right now.

I dont see why PC users should try to make mac users move back to windows :dontknow: Mac users made a personal choice by picking a machine which costs more. Its entirely upto them if they find the premium paid worth the extra they are getting. I don't but I cannot argue with decisions that other people make for themselves.

[DomainK]

Apple used to be the biggest promoter of free competition and never lost a chance to criticize MS for doing exactly this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/apple-loses-bid-for-emergency-ban-on-htc-phone-imports.html?cmpid=yhoo Of course it all changed when they also started making the big bucks. So much for free competition.

[The Outsider]

Ganesh, I don't see how you are making this a Linux versus Mac OS argument? You do know that Mac OS is Unix underneath the graphical interface, right? In fact, you can directly work on a Unix shell on a Mac machine if you want.

[bulbul]

Apple used to be the biggest promoter of free competition and never lost a chance to criticize MS for doing exactly this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/apple-loses-bid-for-emergency-ban-on-htc-phone-imports.html?cmpid=yhoo Of course it all changed when they also started making the big bucks. So much for free competition.

why u are running behind patent related issues...MS earns more from Android than it earns from WP7/7.5/8 :giggle:

[bulbul]

^Ganesh why u have to ue Linux when MS is so good :P