sajro
December 1st, 2007, 09:35 PM
Anyone else noticed that you always see something along the lines of this in Tech articles in newspapers and such?
If you're in the market for a new computer, get one with the new Windows Vista(R) operating system. It has built in parental controls and is the most secure Windows yet.
It makes me laugh and cry at the same time.
Laugh because it implied that a Windows OS was secure. Cry because it recommends a terrible OS with insane hardware requirements. The people reading who'll go spend $700+ on a Vista-capable computer (which will still be slow) when their current one (likely running XP or 2k) is more than adequate for Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, and other distros. Plus, it can do better eye candy than Aero.
What annoys me the most is not that they don't acknowledge the free alternative (they might not know) but they don't mention Macs. They don't mention the costs in Antivirus associated with Winblows.
Or M$'s illegal activities they try to cover up.
What do you think about these? Seen any particularly aggravating and inaccurate ones?
If you're in the market for a new computer, get one with the new Windows Vista(R) operating system. It has built in parental controls and is the most secure Windows yet.
It makes me laugh and cry at the same time.
Laugh because it implied that a Windows OS was secure. Cry because it recommends a terrible OS with insane hardware requirements. The people reading who'll go spend $700+ on a Vista-capable computer (which will still be slow) when their current one (likely running XP or 2k) is more than adequate for Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, and other distros. Plus, it can do better eye candy than Aero.
What annoys me the most is not that they don't acknowledge the free alternative (they might not know) but they don't mention Macs. They don't mention the costs in Antivirus associated with Winblows.
Or M$'s illegal activities they try to cover up.
What do you think about these? Seen any particularly aggravating and inaccurate ones?