of kids want an iPad
The Nielsen Company presented a cadre of individuals with a list of nice, shiny gadgets and let them cross off anything and everything they'd like to buy in the next six months, and 31 percent of kids 6-12 picked the iPad as one of them.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why is MS making it so difficult to pay for and run two of its OSes? Apple just went ahead and let people do it, very shortly after switching to Intel...
You have to buy Parallels which cost $79.99 to do virtulization on Mac. Why should Microsoft give it away free?
Wah?
If you have XP/Vista now and get Win7 then you just install VirtualPC and install your XP or Vista to it, pretty easy too.
This is more a seamless VM, and most VM use on-chip virtulization anyway. And personally I wouldn't attempt running a software emulated VM anyway.
And this way means you don't even need XP in the first place.
Apple went ahead and did what?
Let third parties sell PC emulation software to run Vista/XP on YOUR OWN HARDWARE?
Supported bootcamp so you can dual boot, AFTER hackers had rewritten howtos anyway?
If you buy a PC, you're allowed to dual boot without asking the permission of the manufacture, and without a funky bootcamp+drivers tool either.
Ok, so Parallels plus the OS, that's $200. I brain farted and was thinking boot camp.
Apple didn't allow for dual boots at first, but very shortly thereafter allowed it, and made it very easy to get the drivers installed to get XP running in boot camp (and it's similarly simple with Parallels).
My point is that it should be far and away easier to do this with two versions of Windows, and not require a higher level of Win7 plus higher system requirements than either OS requires alone. The Apple solution that has been around for years may or may not be easier than the upcoming MS solution, but the Win7/XP combo SHOULD be far better than what a competitor has to offer.
Gotta love how Apple just "allowed" for installing XP on their hardware...as though just formatting and installing it on its own would be impossible without the brilliance of Parallels or something.
And it is somehow MS's fault that OS X isn't "allowed" to be installed on anything running Windows...as though Apple has nothing to do with it.
More importantly, Apple included OS9 emulation in OSX all the way up until the end of the PowerPC line.
I think that's a better example than "allowing" a competitor's product to run. MS isn't including an emulator for Linux or OSX - they are including an emulator for their own product.