____/ Thufir on Sunday 06 January 2008 02:42 : \____
> On Jan 3, 6:05 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Thufir" <hawat.thu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9d1969e9-08d6-4382-abe2-d16c4d618a05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > On Jan 2, 1:14 pm, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "Thufir" <hawat.thu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:aYRej.62071$DP1.27739@xxxxxxxxxxxx> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008
>> >> 10:49:18 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Taking things out of order, it is
>> >> >> pretty well documented that MS came to the realization that a
>> >> >> one-stop-shop kind of platform product like Windows had to have an
>> >> >> integrated browser in order to be viable.
>>
>> >> > Why would it require an integrated browser?
>> > [...]
>> >> It needs a browser.
>> > [...]
>>
>> > You're just asserting the same thing without giving an actual reason.
>> > No, I didn't snip the "reason" because you didn't provide anything
>> > beyond fluff -- there's no argument in what you wrote, just
>> > assertions.
>>
>> Well surely you are just being difficult and cannot believe that MS could
>> sell an OS platform package without a browser, but go ahead and pretend.
>> Maybe someone will believe that you are cute.
>
>
> You never substantiated the need for an integrated browser -- your
> original claim was that "It [the OS] needs a browser".
I have many Microsoft quotes that show this to be false. Even Microsoft
admitted this. Bill Wesisgerber will keep spewing out garbage in attempt to
rewrite history on behalf of his company.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Wintendo O/S: which virus do fancy today?
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 139 total, 1 running, 137 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
