Regardless of what he *meant* it's worded wrong and should be ammended.
Are we that close minded that any change is seen as flaming? I'd hope not. The wording should be.
"While Windows 2000 was a 32 bit OS, it did not support 32 bit icons, where as Windows XP it's close cousin finally let us have an alpha channel in our icons"
Not:
"In February of 2000, Microsoft released its partially 32bit operating system; Windows 2000"
and
"Unlike Windows 2000, Whistler was a completely 32bit OS. Gone were the base of its 16bit predecessors"
The wording is ambiguous and has nothing to do with 'reading it wrong" or not "reading closely" it has to be do with wording it wrong. You can't say "windows 2000 is a partially 32 bit OS" you can't. Even if you say "Windows 2000 is a partially 32 bit OS in regards to the GUI" that's incorrect as well. The correct wording is "Windows 2000 only supports 24 bits for certain values in the GUI" The GUI itself, and certainly not the OS are at anyway "partially" 32 bit. You're right COLOR is defined as being 32 bit, 24 bit, etc but he never said "Windows 2000 has partial 32 bit color support" he said the "partially 32 bit operating system, Windows 2000". It's wrong.
Look, I was just pointing out a simple mistake. It is a mistake, whether you want to ignore it or not. I was trying to help. Closing you mind and acting like that doesn't help the community.
Aqua-Soft Forums
