I have a 2011 MacBook Air and I love it. My usage pattern is quite close to yours i.e. most activity is in the browser, apart from my writing, which I handle with either IAWriter or OpenOffice (which is free). Whilst there is the odd quirk that I’ve yet to get used to (for example if you highlight an icon for an app and press Enter it doesn’t start the app but offers to rename the icon), OS X’s interface is very clean and attractive. Dare I say “Zen”-like? :-) I’ve seldom had to faff around with settings or configuration. I highly recommend it. I can’t compare to Windows 8 or 7, since I’ve had little or no experience with those operating systems. I use Windows XP at work, which as it happens, I actually respect and enjoy using.
Whatever the truth of the matter, Microsoft should be more explicit and clear in their communication. You shouldn’t have to make such speculations. I think it’s a failure of marketing.
Cut your losses. Buy a new one. Keep a better eye on it. You’re not 6. You don’t need advice on what to do when your items get lost or stolen. Grow up. Stop complaining.
People on this website seem to have weird expectations for what ads should be..
He never said they should acknowledge the iPad’s strength, he’s merely describing the commercial and he’s correct. If it’s obvious to you that, yes, of course they would ignore the iPad’s strengths, I would suggest you’re not paying much attention to the adverb here. “Casually.” That makes a difference to the statement. i.e. he’s placing focus on Microsoft’s insouciance.
I am asking this from a completely not-partisan perspective.
Are Google
(a) in any legal way obligated to provide for Windows Phone an official YouTube app?
(b) in any legal way obligated to facilitate the creation of Microsoft-developed YouTube app?
What I am getting at here is that, putting aside moral argumentation, what does the law say in this case? Isn’t Google’s position here air-tight? They don’t have to do anything for anyone, even if they’re shown to be inconsistent. They created a YouTube iOS app because they wanted to and because it’s profitable for them and didn’t for MS because maybe (a) they’re being plain mean to MS as they see them as a nascent competitor or (b) just don’t think it’s worth their time. Even if you make the point of Google somehow letting other small software houses create 3rd party YouTube clients — what difference does that make legally? That Google hasn’t sent cease and desist letters to them doesn’t invalidate the cease and desist letter they sent to Microsoft.
