Hey, why you all knocking Intel? They make a DX10 capable/ready integrated graphics chip and you're all complaining? These DX10 capable/ready chips will be integrated in almost all the PC's and Laptops in the high street. They are doing little Johnny and his cash strapped parents a favour in this pressing economic environment, now they can finally tell little Johnny that the sticker on the PC is letting them know that this baby is capable/ready to rock his world with DX10 glory. So don't knock Intel, I am sure they wouldn't fool the honest consumer. They are our friend.

Andir 3.0. There is nothing 'illegal' about transferring an OEM copy of Windows from machine to another. All you have done is breach the licensing agreement. This would be a civil matter and not a criminal matter, and therefore it isn't illegal.

As for the EULA, it isn't worth the paper its printed on. I couldn't honestly see a judge getting too upset about you being in breach of the EULA if you removed the OS from the original machine as well, could you?

What is your problem? This benefits American companies just as much as as does Europeans. We are talking about protocols that MS refused to disclose to other programmers. You cannot reverse engineer them to find out what they are. Its like trying to code with one arm behind your back, regardless if that arm is American, African, European or Asian.

The US should have broken MS into two divisions. One for the OS, and one for the Applications. If you really believe that MS is not blatantly being anticompetitive then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Having thought about it for a minute or two, I have an analogy for you guys.

Imagine you're a pianist. And MS makes pianos. In fact, MS makes 95% of the pianos in use in all the concert halls, in all the homes, and in all the theatres and recording studios. Now, unless you work for MS making music then you find that half the keys don't work because MS won't give them to you. No matter how great a pianist you are, you are always going to be at a disadvantage to an MS musician.

That was pretty much the situation before the 2004 ruling.

Some very misinformed comments. The EU is doing what the US should have done, except the government at the time were bankrolled by MS.

It isn't about giving competitors MS code, it is about providing the API's that MS does not disclose.

So the reason MS is anti-competitive is because MS can write code for its OS that will always be more efficient than its competitors because MS fails to disclose all the application interfaces to the OS. How can anyone write a more efficient program than MS is they only have half the 'language' to communicate with the OS that MS does?

Incidentally this does not only affect European companies, but also American companies, Australian Companies. In fact, anyone who wants to write code for Windows and wants the same API's that Microsoft does. You might want to think about that before you claim the EU is being out of order, its just done everyone a favour.

Also MS wanted nearly 5% of the royalties from code you wrote (patent license) that used these 'undislosed' API's, and that is what the EU found unreasonable. Now you can pay 10,000 euros, compete on an even keel with MS, and only have to pay 0.4%. If MS would have done this in 2004 then they would not be being fined again today.

Oh look, a bunch of ugly acne ridden American teenagers start acting as though someone has just pissed in their cornflakes. Face it guys, your worst nightmares are coming true. The PS3 is outselling your beloved console. Go choke on dick.

Someone is taking the piss.

Who actually cares really. Its just another phone in a market sopping full of them. We should stop being such a disposable society.

Boom! Headshot...

(The game made me do it, m'lord)

Dude, after watching that I am sharpening my machete. Lord help the next person who knocks at MY door.