Re: I see dead penguins - Microsoft soars after HUGE Vista demand - Linux

[snips]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:20:42 +0100, BearItAll wrote:

> How about going for the max to see what we get, actually I'm hoping for a
> really smooth sine wave, once I have my heart set ....
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>
> Oh, hold on a moment, where is this all time high? You must be talking about
> the year 2000. And I didn't get my sine wave, just a fairly flat line
> graph, oh how dull.


Hmm. Interesting. According to this, one could reasonably conclude that
MS peaked with Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and while they've managed to
maintain sales since then, have actually done jack to produce something of
serious enough interest to spike demand. Oh, wait, wasn't that what the
twonks are saying Vista did? Can't be; even accounting for that, the
"blip" the OP was going on about doesn't even reach the year 2000 high,
nor even the heights of 2001, 2002 or 2003. Which was about when XP and
Windows 2003 - plus the "must have" new versions of Office - should have
been making the same sort of noise they're claiming Vista is making, but
again, not even a hiccup.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:20:42 +0100, BearItAll wrote:
>
>> How about going for the max to see what we get, actually I'm hoping for a
>> really smooth sine wave, once I have my heart set ....
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>>
>> Oh, hold on a moment, where is this all time high? You must be talking
>> about the year 2000. And I didn't get my sine wave, just a fairly flat
>> line graph, oh how dull.
>
>
> Hmm. Interesting. According to this, one could reasonably conclude that
> MS peaked with Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and while they've managed to
> maintain sales since then, have actually done jack to produce something of
> serious enough interest to spike demand. Oh, wait, wasn't that what the
> twonks are saying Vista did? Can't be; even accounting for that, the
> "blip" the OP was going on about doesn't even reach the year 2000 high,
> nor even the heights of 2001, 2002 or 2003. Which was about when XP and
> Windows 2003 - plus the "must have" new versions of Office - should have
> been making the same sort of noise they're claiming Vista is making, but
> again, not even a hiccup.

**** rolls downhill - fast

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s...z=m&q=l&c=lnux

"Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
news:95nlv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:20:42 +0100, BearItAll wrote:
>
>> How about going for the max to see what we get, actually I'm hoping for a
>> really smooth sine wave, once I have my heart set ....
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>>
>> Oh, hold on a moment, where is this all time high? You must be talking
>> about
>> the year 2000. And I didn't get my sine wave, just a fairly flat line
>> graph, oh how dull.
>
>

> Hmm. Interesting. According to this, one could reasonably conclude that
> MS peaked with Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and while they've managed to

No. Only a fool would conclude this. The "peak" had absolutely ZERO to do
with Windows 2000 and Office 2000. The "peak" had everything to do with the
internet bubble.







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[snips]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:14:49 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...=on&z=m&q=l&c=

>> Hmm. Interesting. According to this, one could reasonably conclude that
>> MS peaked with Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and while they've managed to

> No. Only a fool would conclude this. The "peak" had absolutely ZERO to do
> with Windows 2000 and Office 2000.

Ah, I see. So MS *wasn't* selling Windows and Office around then, so the
largest revenue-generating products they have have no bearing on their
revenues or net worth. Got it.

"Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
news:gmnpv4-2sk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:14:49 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
>
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>
>>> Hmm. Interesting. According to this, one could reasonably conclude
>>> that
>>> MS peaked with Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and while they've managed to
>
>> No. Only a fool would conclude this. The "peak" had absolutely ZERO to do
>> with Windows 2000 and Office 2000.
>

> Ah, I see. So MS *wasn't* selling Windows and Office around then, so the
> largest revenue-generating products they have have no bearing on their
> revenues or net worth. Got it.


Actually you see a damn thing. Let's see just how clueless you are.

Microsoft was already a $100+ Billion dollar company. And during 1999-2000
the stock price triples or even possibly quadruples creating this "peak"
that you're talking about.

So what caused this peak:

a) Windows 2000 and Office 2000 were so F'n great that it caused the already
high stock price to triple or quadruple.
b) This little thing called the "internet bubble" where nearly any
technology stock had ridiculous market valuations.

So according to you the primary reason for the "peak" (4x stock price
increase) is because of (A) Win2k and Office2k were so awesome. And you
think that this had nothing to do with (B) the intenet bubble.


Go back to your village now. They surely miss their idiot.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[snips]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:41:18 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

>> Ah, I see. So MS *wasn't* selling Windows and Office around then, so the
>> largest revenue-generating products they have have no bearing on their
>> revenues or net worth. Got it.

> Actually you see a damn thing.

Actually, I see lots of things. Just because I think you're a screaming
bloody moron doesn't mean I don't see quite well, thanks.

> Microsoft was already a $100+ Billion dollar company. And during
> 1999-2000 the stock price triples or even possibly quadruples creating
> this "peak" that you're talking about.
> So what caused this peak:

Take another look at the graph: what peak?

Meanwhile, Vista doesn't seem to be showing us a barking thing there, now
does it?

Yes, well, wasn't that fun and informative. Any more drivelling idiocy
you'd like to regale us with?

"Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
news:7ltqv4-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:41:18 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
>
>>> Ah, I see. So MS *wasn't* selling Windows and Office around then, so
>>> the
>>> largest revenue-generating products they have have no bearing on their
>>> revenues or net worth. Got it.
>
>> Actually you see a damn thing.
>
> Actually, I see lots of things.

Seeing a bogey-man from Microsoft behind every tree and under your bed
doesn't count.


> Just because I think you're a screaming
> bloody moron doesn't mean I don't see quite well, thanks.

Means Jack ****e to me coming from the same person who thinks the peak
during 1999-2000 was due to the release of Win2k and Office2k and completely
neglects the internet bubble.


>> Microsoft was already a $100+ Billion dollar company. And during
>> 1999-2000 the stock price triples or even possibly quadruples creating
>> this "peak" that you're talking about.
>> So what caused this peak:
>
> Take another look at the graph: what peak?

Game. Set. Match. This last statement is all the proof anyone needs to see
what a complete and utter moron you are. What peak???

Let's look at this little URL link and see what we have.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#char...urce=undefined

Wow. Looky that. Right around the year 2000 there's a "peak" where the stock
shoots up from the $30/share range to $60/share and then back down to the
$30's again. Gee... the stock doubled for a short period of time right
during the year 2000 and the local idiot doesn't see a peak.


> Meanwhile, Vista doesn't seem to be showing us a barking thing there, now
> does it?

Vista seems to be doing fine. Who are you to judge given the fact that you
are too blind to see a peak on a simple graph. If you can't understand a
simple 2-axis graph how could you possibly understand something as complex
as retail market dynamics.


> Yes, well, wasn't that fun and informative. Any more drivelling idiocy
> you'd like to regale us with?

Tell us again how there was no peak during the dot-com internet bubble. We
could all use a laugh early in the morning.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[snips]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:58:29 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:

>> Actually, I see lots of things.
>
> Seeing a bogey-man from Microsoft behind every tree and under your bed
> doesn't count.

Indeed. Now, since I've not suggested any such thing, shall we conclude
this entire discussion is little more than a product of your apparently
deranged imaginings?

Any more drivelling idiocy you'd like to share with the group?

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:54:24 -0500, Keith Windsor wrote:

> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
> news:tki105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:58:29 -0400, Keith Windsor wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually, I see lots of things.
>>>
>>> Seeing a bogey-man from Microsoft behind every tree and under your bed
>>> doesn't count.
>>
>> Indeed. Now, since I've not suggested any such thing, shall we conclude
>> this entire discussion is little more than a product of your apparently
>> deranged imaginings?
>>
>> Any more drivelling idiocy you'd like to share with the group?
>
> So your big sister finally showed you how to read a simple chart

I see. My ability - or inability, if you prefer - to read a chart
somehow, in your mind, establishes that I've claimed a bogey-man from
Microsoft under every tree and under my bed.

Yes, yes, all very clear.

You'll let us know when you're back on the meds, right?