On 2007-11-03, [H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>
>> Roy posted it recently, troll.
>
> I'm more than happy to repost it:
>
> DSG blames Microsoft for £20m hit on profits
>
> .----
>| DSG, which runs Dixons, PC World and Currys, warned yesterday that
>| disappointing sales of Microsoft's Vista operating system have cost
>| it £20m in lost profit.
>|
>| The retailer said that sales of computers running Vista, and boxed
>| copies of the software, had failed to meet its expectations.
> `----
>
> http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2194471,00.html

When someone asks for a reference, it is implicit that they want a
reference that actually has something to do with the claim that was
made, not some random quote about some other matter. The latter is what
you have provided. Care to try again?

Tim Smith espoused:
> On 2007-11-03, [H]omer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>>
>>> Roy posted it recently, troll.
>>
>> I'm more than happy to repost it:
>>
>> DSG blames Microsoft for £20m hit on profits
>>
>> .----
>>| DSG, which runs Dixons, PC World and Currys, warned yesterday that
>>| disappointing sales of Microsoft's Vista operating system have cost
>>| it £20m in lost profit.
>>|
>>| The retailer said that sales of computers running Vista, and boxed
>>| copies of the software, had failed to meet its expectations.
>> `----
>>
>> http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2194471,00.html
>
> When someone asks for a reference, it is implicit that they want a
> reference that actually has something to do with the claim that was
> made, not some random quote about some other matter. The latter is what
> you have provided. Care to try again?

If I ever look at your postings, I'm always reminded of why you should
not be here, and why I have you killfiled.

The claim was that Microsoft were stuffing retail channels, but the
retail sales were not happening. The quote, from the Guardian, above,
proves precisely that claim.

DSG have bought both boxed Vista and computers from OEMs with Vista
pre-installed. Neither have sold, so they're left with the inventory,
and a huge hit (5%) on their revenue resulting in £20 millions of lost
profit.

Now please will go you go a suitable group for your postings, because
this is not it.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Jeremy Wembley espoused:
>
> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
> news:50juv4-378.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>> Jeremy Wembley espoused:
>>>
>>> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
>>> news:45euv4-8pf.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>> ray espoused:
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:48:41 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the early days, in the mid 1990s, I used to measure Linux
>>>>>> progress by counting references in Google and comparing them to the
>>>>>> latest versions of Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000,000 for Microsoft Vista. (0.14
>>>>>> seconds)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 327,000,000 for Linux
>>>>>> [definition]. (0.10 seconds)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft says there are 88 million Vista users.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they are counting 'sold copies' - not the same thing as users.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're not even retail-sold, they are merely those which have been
>>>> pushed along the distribution chains. If you look at PC world here,
>>>> they're stuck with warehouses full of Vista-based inventory which
>>>> nobody
>>>> wants.
>>>
>>> Care to back up this claim with a reference. Or should we simply believe
>>> anything you say?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Roy posted it recently, troll.
>>
>

> ... you have no proof or any evidence ...

>

The article has been reposted by Homer in a parallel stream from this
thread. It's from the guardian, and you're welcome to go and look at
the sales of Boxed Vista and preinstalled Vista which DSG did not get,
and the inventory they're stuck with, and the £millions it has cost
them in both revenue and profit.

The problem with trolling here, Mr. Troll, is that we have *all* the
evidence we need. By trolling, you merely get it posted *even more
often* for the world to see.

I'm sure that's not what your employer would like to see, so I suggest
you go to a suitable group. This group is for linux advocacy, and has a
clearly defined faq and charter, the references for which are in my
..sig, below.

If you fail to obey the faq and charter, you risk having your ISP
account terminated.

Consider this a formal & public warning.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:slrnfipbmj.nau.linonut@mlsrock.launchmodem.co m...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Enzyte Bob belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> The number of "hits" or search results to measure OS usage is asinine to
>> begin with.
>
> Now you're talkin' some sense.

You have read and learned well grasshoper. Soon you will be able to grab
the pebble from my hand.....


>> More relevant would be "interest" in a technology or how many
>> people are using Google to search for a product. Enter Google trends.
>
> But then you immediately contradict yourself. Sigh.

But you still have much to learn young grasshoper. Patience and you will
soon see.


>> How many people search for Vista
>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=vista...ate=all&sort=0
>>
>> How many people search for linux (interesting DOWN trend)
>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux...ate=all&sort=0
>>
>> Comparing Vista to linux
>> http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux...ate=all&sort=0
>
> Even given that your search is stupid (it is), you can't even get the
> trend right. From early 2006 onward, the linux trend is flat, tailing
> upward (insignificantly) at the end.

I see a trend that went down then leveled off.


> After the initial spike in Vista interest, the Vista trend is
> essentially flat, tailing downward (insignificantly) at the end.
>
> And get this, in spite the vast dominance of Microsoft, Vista searches
> are only 50% higher than Linux searches.

How have you come to the "50% higher" conclusion young one? Given that the
Y-axis are not labled at all. Is it linear, is it logarithmic, are they on
the same scale. Young grasshoper... it is very unwise to assume such
things.


> No matter which angle one takes, your claim is a self-nuke.

Violence is never the answer. One must be kind and peaceful and only
kick-ass when necessary.


> As a thinker, you have a great future in beach volleyball.

Ahhhh-Yaaaaa!!!! (You have been subdued.)





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

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:40:46 GMT, Linonut wrote:
>
>> So now I enter (with the quotes) "window's vista" and get:
>>
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 16,500 for "window's vista"
>> Did you mean: "windows vista"
>
> And nearly all of those appear to be stupid misspellings of Windows Vista.

No ****, Sherlock. Your point?

>> And at page 74, I get
>>
>> In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
>> entries very similar to the 734 already displayed.
>>
>> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results
>> included.
>>
>> Why didn't I get that same thing with "windows vista"? Fewer
>> semi-duplicate entries.
>
> No, more results and Google has a cuttoff limit for searches.

Why didn't the same cutoff apply for "windows vista", then? Odd.

>> I saw one result in my quick scan, that referred to a normal window's
>> vista.
>
> And what was it?

Didn't check.

>> A multitude of Microsoft munchkins making much of it.
>
> And you don't think the 340,000,000 Linux pages aren't the same thing?

Could be.

>> How about "windows xp"? 252M results. You'd think it, being out there
>> much longer, would have more written about it. But that is not so.
>
> Given the explosion of blogs in the last few years, and the fact that Vista
> was the first major product from Microsoft since that time, and given the
> amount of pre-release speculation and discussion about it, no... i don't
> find that surprising at all.
>
>> Sounds to me like google can indeed be hijacked.
>
> Because you don't like the results.

It has nothing to do with that. Sorry, wrong file dude.

> So what, someone is also hijacking google over the word Linux as well?

Yes.

Here's my point: Google search cannot be relied on as a
statistics-gathering or popularity-evaluation mechanism.

--
Tux rox!

After takin' a swig o' grog, Jeremy Wembley belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> As a thinker, you have a great future in beach volleyball.
>
> Ahhhh-Yaaaaa!!!! (You have been subdued.)

Idiot.

On 2007-11-04, Mark Kent wrote:
>>> DSG blames Microsoft for £20m hit on profits
>>>
>>> .----
>>>| DSG, which runs Dixons, PC World and Currys, warned yesterday that
>>>| disappointing sales of Microsoft's Vista operating system have cost
>>>| it £20m in lost profit.
>>>|
>>>| The retailer said that sales of computers running Vista, and boxed
>>>| copies of the software, had failed to meet its expectations.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2194471,00.html
>>
>> When someone asks for a reference, it is implicit that they want a
>> reference that actually has something to do with the claim that was
>> made, not some random quote about some other matter. The latter is what
>> you have provided. Care to try again?
>
> If I ever look at your postings, I'm always reminded of why you should
> not be here, and why I have you killfiled.
>
> The claim was that Microsoft were stuffing retail channels, but the
> retail sales were not happening. The quote, from the Guardian, above,
> proves precisely that claim.

No, the claim was that Microsoft is counting copies that are in the
channel as sold copies, thus inflating the number of users that they
claim. The above quote says nothing whatsoever that bears upon that.

On Nov 2, 3:04 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:48:41 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
> > Back in the early days, in the mid 1990s, I used to measure Linux
> > progress by counting references in Google and comparing them to the
> > latest versions of Windows.
>
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000,000 for Microsoft Vista. (0.14
> > seconds)
>
> That's strange, I get:
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 348,000,000 for "windows vista". (0.12 seconds)
>
> Why would you choose to leave out the "windows" part of it? Except, of
> course, if you wanted to reduce the number of hits.

I tried just "Vista" and got 441 million hits but even on the first
page, there were lots of hits for things like Volunteers In Service To
America, the Town of Vista, and several other locations with Vista.
Searching "Windows Vista" gave me hits like Pella Windows in Buena
Vista, Monte Vista, and Vista Drive.

Microsoft Vista is pretty distinct.

> > Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 327,000,000 for Linux
> > [definition]. (0.10 seconds)

Did you find any towns called Linux? Did you find a street named
Linux? Did you find something ambiguous.

> > Microsoft says there are 88 million Vista users.
>
> Which is about 8% of the market or so.

Which leaves me curious as to why browser surveys only show Vista with
4%.
Bet then again, we know how unreliable those browser surveys are.

Anybody remember off hand how many PCs were sold in 2001 (the year
Vista came out),
or 1996 (the year Windows 95 came out).

It looks like Vista is doing better than Windows NT 3.x, NT 4.x, and
Windows ME.

Vista might even do better in terms of total unit volumes than Windows
98.

Vista was supposed to create so much demand that PC makers were going
to make big profits for at least 18 months.

> > If you figure 1 user for every 2.5 articles you get 86 million for
> > Windows and 130 million for Linux.
>
> Hell, if you figure that Schestowitz alone has contributed almost 50,000 of
> those hits alone, which get multiplied several times by the different
> usenet -> web services out there, you probably get more like 10 article per
> user for linux.

Let's not forget the gazillion copies of Linux documentation from
LDP.

Linux in google News only yielded 7,871 hits.

On the other hand, "Microsoft Vista" yielded only 4655.

I did get 6,224 hits for "Windows Vista".

That's today.

> I'm sure my theory is just as scientifically valid as yours.

Yep. What's more interesting is the proportion compared to hits from
say, 1997, or 2004.

> > Could it be that Linux is actually more popular than Vista?
>
> Nothing credible would indicate as much.

Perhaps the more interesting question would be "Will Linux" adversely
impact Vista sales?

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Nov 2, 3:04 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:48:41 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> Back in the early days, in the mid 1990s, I used to measure Linux
>>> progress by counting references in Google and comparing them to the
>>> latest versions of Windows.
>>> Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000,000 for Microsoft Vista. (0.14
>>> seconds)
>> That's strange, I get:
>>
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 348,000,000 for "windows vista". (0.12 seconds)
>>
>> Why would you choose to leave out the "windows" part of it? Except, of
>> course, if you wanted to reduce the number of hits.
>
> I tried just "Vista" and got 441 million hits but even on the first
> page, there were lots of hits for things like Volunteers In Service To
> America, the Town of Vista, and several other locations with Vista.
> Searching "Windows Vista" gave me hits like Pella Windows in Buena
> Vista, Monte Vista, and Vista Drive.
>
> Microsoft Vista is pretty distinct.
>
>>> Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 327,000,000 for Linux
>>> [definition]. (0.10 seconds)
>
> Did you find any towns called Linux? Did you find a street named
> Linux? Did you find something ambiguous.
>
>>> Microsoft says there are 88 million Vista users.
>> Which is about 8% of the market or so.
>
> Which leaves me curious as to why browser surveys only show Vista with
> 4%.
> Bet then again, we know how unreliable those browser surveys are.
>
> Anybody remember off hand how many PCs were sold in 2001 (the year
> Vista came out),
> or 1996 (the year Windows 95 came out).
>
> It looks like Vista is doing better than Windows NT 3.x, NT 4.x, and
> Windows ME.
>
> Vista might even do better in terms of total unit volumes than Windows
> 98.
>
> Vista was supposed to create so much demand that PC makers were going
> to make big profits for at least 18 months.
>
>>> If you figure 1 user for every 2.5 articles you get 86 million for
>>> Windows and 130 million for Linux.
>> Hell, if you figure that Schestowitz alone has contributed almost 50,000 of
>> those hits alone, which get multiplied several times by the different
>> usenet -> web services out there, you probably get more like 10 article per
>> user for linux.
>
> Let's not forget the gazillion copies of Linux documentation from
> LDP.
>
> Linux in google News only yielded 7,871 hits.
>
> On the other hand, "Microsoft Vista" yielded only 4655.
>
> I did get 6,224 hits for "Windows Vista".
>
> That's today.
>
>> I'm sure my theory is just as scientifically valid as yours.
>
> Yep. What's more interesting is the proportion compared to hits from
> say, 1997, or 2004.
>
>>> Could it be that Linux is actually more popular than Vista?
>> Nothing credible would indicate as much.
>
> Perhaps the more interesting question would be "Will Linux" adversely
> impact Vista sales?
>
>

Don't think there's a lot to be gained from trying to guess. Nobody is
going to "Persuade" users to change systems as well as Microsoft
themselves can do it

On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Charlie Tame wrote:
>
> Don't think there's a lot to be gained from trying to guess. Nobody is
> going to "Persuade" users to change systems as well as Microsoft
> themselves can do it

You are probably right. Microsoft has done more to sell Linux than
even the most rabid penguinistas.

On the other hand, it's a good idea to have method of determining
patterns.

It's easy to count a small number of users and units.
It's easy to count licenses when you have enforcement and forced
registration/activation mechanisms, which Microsoft has.

On the other hand, counting Linux is much more of a challenge. You
have over 100 distributions, most of which have multiple mirrors,
sometimes hundreds of them, and the downloaded images can be freely
redistributed.

You have magazines and books that never get counted in any of the
software surveys.

You have corporate networks and academic networks that permit massive
downloads.



Bob Young did a very good study that was a wake-up call.

ed writes:

> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:48:41 -0700
> Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> But i did find it interesting.
>>
>> I remember that when Windows NT 4.0 was first relesed,
>> the "Windows NT 4.0" hits outnumbered Linux 30 to 1.
>>
>> I think it was about 8 to 1 with XP.
>>
>> Could it be that Linux is actually more popular than Vista?
>
> It's highly possible. I've not heard anyone talk about anything amazing
> that vista can do. That chap who sits next to me at work (smokes a lot)
> has never once said "hey come and look at this" when he put vista on
> his laptop, but the other guy who likes bleeding edge linux was always

because he's not fiddling with the OS and is actually using it for real
work?

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Charlie Tame wrote:
>> Don't think there's a lot to be gained from trying to guess. Nobody is
>> going to "Persuade" users to change systems as well as Microsoft
>> themselves can do it
>
> You are probably right. Microsoft has done more to sell Linux than
> even the most rabid penguinistas.
>
> On the other hand, it's a good idea to have method of determining
> patterns.
>
> It's easy to count a small number of users and units.
> It's easy to count licenses when you have enforcement and forced
> registration/activation mechanisms, which Microsoft has.
>
> On the other hand, counting Linux is much more of a challenge. You
> have over 100 distributions, most of which have multiple mirrors,
> sometimes hundreds of them, and the downloaded images can be freely
> redistributed.
>
> You have magazines and books that never get counted in any of the
> software surveys.
>
> You have corporate networks and academic networks that permit massive
> downloads.
>
>
>
> Bob Young did a very good study that was a wake-up call.
>


Well MS should have better figures than anyone else since all their
updates are centralized (More or less) but even then it's not that
great, after all it could be a million users doing the update or one guy
doing a million reinstalls - bet he's pretty sick of it by now

Seriously though I think there's been a wake up call for a while, but
the Linux community heard it before it got loud and MS seem not to have
taken any notice yet. I mean for all the banter back and forth it seems
to me that Linux has leaped ahead while Microsoft has, well, jumped up
and down a bit and said "WoW". I think they are failing to note the
resentment building in their user base

On Nov 4, 11:51 pm, Charlie Tame wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Charlie Tame wrote:
> >> Don't think there's a lot to be gained from trying to guess. Nobody is
> >> going to "Persuade" users to change systems as well as Microsoft
> >> themselves can do it
>
> > You are probably right. Microsoft has done more to sell Linux than
> > even the most rabid penguinistas.
>
> > On the other hand, it's a good idea to have method of determining
> > patterns.
>
> > It's easy to count a small number of users and units.
> > It's easy to count licenses when you have enforcement and forced
> > registration/activation mechanisms, which Microsoft has.
>
> > On the other hand, counting Linux is much more of a challenge. You
> > have over 100 distributions, most of which have multiple mirrors,
> > sometimes hundreds of them, and the downloaded images can be freely
> > redistributed.
>
> > You have magazines and books that never get counted in any of the
> > software surveys.
>
> > You have corporate networks and academic networks that permit massive
> > downloads.
>
> > Bob Young did a very good study that was a wake-up call.
>
> Well MS should have better figures than anyone else since all their
> updates are centralized (More or less) but even then it's not that
> great, after all it could be a million users doing the update or one guy
> doing a million reinstalls - bet he's pretty sick of it by now

Microsoft DOES have very good figures and measures, as do major sites
with registered users such as Google, Yahoo, Infoseek, Expedia,
Travelocity, and several others. These measures are taken using
persistent cookies or persistent Identities.

In both the US and EU antitrust cases, Microsoft executives argued
that Linux had a substantially higher percentage of the market than
previously suspected. In the DOJ case (1999), Microsoft asserted that
Linux had 14% of the market. In the EU case, Microsoft changed the
number to 17%. These were statements made under oath, and would only
have been made if Microsoft were prepared to back up those numbers.

In neither trial did the prosecution challenge those numbers. This
may have been because they had similar information. Of course, this
was probably percentage of previous year based on GROWTH in counts of
servers.

> Seriously though I think there's been a wake up call for a while, but
> the Linux community heard it before it got loud and MS seem not to have
> taken any notice yet.

Microsoft was aware of Linux as early as 1993. Microsoft had also
been following the progress of UNIX, BSD, BSD/386, and FreeBSD. Most
versions of AT&T Unix had a "floor" price of $700 per copy. Even SCO
tried to demand a royalty payment of $700 per server in their demands
for revenue from Linux users. In 1991, the BSD ownership was
transferred from University of California at Berkeley to the
University of Colorado of Boulder. A commercial license for BSD was
granted to BSDi in Colorado Springs, and open source versions were
available as free downloads.

Microsoft knew it could defend itself against a $700 per copy Unix
License, but the possibiliity of a fully functional version of Unix or
a Unix-like operating system such as Mach/BSD, Mach/OSF, or Linux
being available in a format that would make it possible to make UNIX-
like workstations for under $1000 per unit, and UNIX-like servers for
under $1200 - that would be a very real problem and a very real threat
to Windows.

Microsoft knew about X11R4 and even licensed the HP Interviews package
on a nonexclusive basis. It was actually an important part of Windows
NT 3.x, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 2000. Microsoft knew
that if Unix PCs made it to retail shelves in 1990 or 1991, that
Microsoft could lose control of the PC market. Bill Gates was so
concerned about it that he announced that Windows NT would be a
"Better Unix than Unix".

By 1994, Microsoft was watching Linux and Novell UnixWare very
closely. I haven't ever been able to verify the story, but according
to one e-mail I received back in 1995 or 1996, Microsoft met with the
Novell board of directors and demanded that they stop development on a
UnixWare workstation. Microsoft was also very concerned about the
Linux "plug-and-play" capabilities as well as dual boot capabilities.

According to a lecture given by Bob Young, Red Hat had offered to
license Red Hat Linux to OEMs for as little as $2 per copy as part of
a dual-boot system. The OEMs didn't have to install Linux
exclusively, Red Hat was quite willing to let the OEMs continue to
install Windows. The Red Hat solution would allow the end-user to
boot either Linux or Windows each time the PC was booted.

By the end of 1994, Microsoft pretty much decided that Linux was the
biggest threat. There were multiple distributors, and each was
willing to offer Linux to OEMs at very reasonable terms. The Linux
systems could configure themselves to a wide variety of ISA, EISA,
VESA, and MicroChannel. I think Linux may have even supported the
original PCI standards.

In 1995, while Microsoft scrambled to deliver "Chicago", Ray Noorda
was running a Linux development organization called Caldera, formed by
all of the workstation developers who had been working on the UnixWare
Workstation project. The Caldera organization went after many
franchises, offering a viable alternative to Windows at the cash
register, and to SCO Unix in the "server closet".

The book "The plot to get Bill Gates", provides much more insight on
this whole evolution, and the role of people like Ray Noorda. Bill
Joy and Sun were also actively supporting Linux. Remember that Sun
had established a "Beach-head" of about 15% of the corporate
workstation market in 1990, and Microsoft had killed that market in
1992 by announcing vapor-ware features of Windows NT. Sun retaliated
by contributing OpenLook and the OpenLook Window manager to the Linux
movement. In fact, Linux patches to OLVWM (virtual windows version)
added multiple desktops, ability to act as an X11 client to Motif
(IBM, DEC, and HP) and Open Look (SUN) servers..

Eric Raymond published the first Halloween papers in 1997. Halloween,
by the way, was also the name of one of the earliest Red Hat
releases. The Microsoft memos raising concerns about Linux may have
been triggerd as a result of the Halloween release.

Even with OS/X and Leopard threatening to make Apple the third largest
PC maker, Microsoft is still more concerned with Linux than any other
competitor. Memos from top executives at Microsoft, as well as public
statements by Steve Ballmer say "Win Against Linux AT ALL
COSTS" (capitalization mine).

Even when ordered by the federal court to stop interfering with
attempts to market Linux to OEMs, Microsoft has attempted to force
OEMs to exclude Linux by forcing an "Either/Or" configuration. The
OEMs are not allowed to use dual OS configurations.

By 2001, the Linux community offered "Live-CD" like Knoppix, that
allowed Linux users to test a PC with Linux, without actually having
to install it. These could be coupled with external USB drives to
allow end-users to turn compatible PCs into Linux workstations without
altering the Windows configurations.

> I mean for all the banter back and forth it seems
> to me that Linux has leaped ahead while Microsoft has, well, jumped up
> and down a bit and said "WoW". I think they are failing to note the
> resentment building in their user base

The problem for Microsoft is that Linux has been growing at triple-
digit rates and that growth and growth rate has cascaded through a
number of different markets. Linux "Appliances" have replaced
millions, possibly hundreds of millions of Windows servers used for
file sharing, printer sharing, routing, firewalls, and other key
applications.

The big concern for Microsoft is that there are about 3-4 Million
"Linux Only" workstation users, and that market seems to be growing as
fast as all of the other Linux waves. Microsoft's business model only
requires that windows licenses be sold to OEMs and Corporations,
ideally the same PC could be licensed 2-3 times. Linux was more
like a "squatter". But as people spend more time using LInux, and
more time LIKING Linux, many are beginning to realize they don't need
Windows at all. Point of Sale terminals, Cash Registers, Call Center
workstations, and developer workstations are all excellent candidates
for replacement with Linux.

Microsoft has also watched ODF, OpenOffice, StarOffice, and other ODF
based Office suites become ubiquitious on not only Linux, but Windows
as well. With over 1/2 billion Firefox users, 1/2 billion ODF Office
Suite users, and over 1 billion Java enabled devices, the market is
pushing back. at Microsoft. Many companies are planning preemptive
strikes to take place as soon as the DOJ settlement expires.

Jeremy Wembley wrote:

>Care to

*plonk*

Jim Richardson wrote:

>> Why would you choose to leave out the "windows" part of it? Except, of
>> course, if you wanted to reduce the number of hits.
>
>yeah, 'cause there's no possible way for windows vista to mean anything
>other than a computer system. Not like you can look through windows to
>the nice vista outside or anything...

That's why you should be looking for "windwoes visduh". 8)