[News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Microsoft Needs Its Mojo Back ,----[ Quote ] | Somewhere in the Silicon Valley, there's a Doctor Evil holding a test tube | full of Microsoft Mojo. Unlike the golden age of the 1990s, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere

  1. [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Microsoft Needs Its Mojo Back

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Somewhere in the Silicon Valley, there's a Doctor Evil holding a test tube
    | full of Microsoft Mojo. Unlike the golden age of the 1990s, Microsoft isn't
    | generating excitement anymore. Sure, people still care what Microsoft does,
    | but lately it's more like the industry knows the company is headed for a fall
    | and is just rubbernecking to see the inevitable result.
    |
    | Problems are arriving on all fronts. Vista uptake in the enterprise just
    | isn't happening; it's likely that many Vista licenses sold there are being
    | downgraded to XP. Microsoft's plan to combine search forces with Yahoo hardly
    | matters; at this point the both of them are plummeting against Google, which
    | has nearly 70% share. The Zune music player is a minor nuisance to Apple's
    | iPod. Sony just announced price cuts that are likely to push Microsoft into
    | another round of XBox cuts, just as they were starting to eke out a profit.
    | (Microsoft has lost about $7 billion on XBox since 2002.)
    `----

    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...ofts_need.html

    More broken output from Microsoft:

    Microsoft To Sit Out FCC Testing Of White Space Prototype

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft had previously submitted prototypes for white spaces testing
    | alongside other companies at an FCC laboratory, but the devices had technical
    | glitches.
    |
    | The earliest possible use of the white spaces by consumers would be in early
    | 2009.
    `----

    http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...0News/1762388/


    Recent:

    Microsoft stock drops amid slumping sales

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft Corp., whose Windows software dominates the personal-computer
    | market, fell 6.2 percent Fridayin Nasdaq trading after sales slumped, casting
    | doubt on whether PC demand can hold up in a slowing economy. The software
    | maker reported a 24 percent drop in sales of Windows last quarter and
    | forecast earnings that may miss analysts' estimates.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | "The risk is that Linux gets a foothold and then affects their long-term
    | revenue significantly."
    `----

    http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9061263
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkh/icEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5YEgCgo610LMg60duVRVMXtwmD7RL+
    hf4Amwab9AjUFkqzfHaxgAExL6a39FAv
    =x79p
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:1456970.tgXQKKjMvJ@schestowitz.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Microsoft Needs Its Mojo Back


    Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT* the company
    is in such terrible shape. The biggest problem that Microsoft has is what to
    do with the $600 in PROFIT that they make every *second* of every hour of
    every day.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:



    > Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*



    Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux gadgets
    PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    profit per year.



  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year


    "7" wrote in message
    news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    > Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    > wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >
    >
    >
    >> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*

    >
    >
    > Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    > gadgets
    > PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    > Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    > profit per year.
    >


    Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that have
    been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup your
    bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense. Like you
    Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase15% to $19 Billion this year

    The numbers on the total loss to date for Xbox are interesting, if
    true. I recall reading that Microsoft finally made $90 million in
    profit on Xbox---last year, I think. That compares to many billions
    lost in the process of bringing it up.

    I was also trying to remember the breakdown of Microsoft's profit.
    Here's a quote from Sept 2007:


    For Microsoft’s fiscal year 2007, which ended in June, the company
    reported revenues of nearly $11.18 billion for its Windows Server
    products, just over $14.97 billion in Windows desktop sales, but over
    $16.39 billion in revenues from its Microsoft Business Division, 90%
    of which come from sales of Office.

    In terms of annual profits, Microsoft earned $3.9 billion from server
    software, $11.6 billion from Windows, but almost $10.84 billion from
    Office. These figures are all detailed in Microsoft’s earnings
    reports.

    These three enormously profitable businesses allowed the company to
    painlessly absorb nearly $8 billion in losses–in just one year–related
    to its spectacular failures in WinCE, Windows Media, Windows Mobile,
    the Xbox 360 and Zune, its online businesses, and that “Other” black
    hole of what the company calls “corporate level activity.”

    The “Other” losses Microsoft documents every year includes many
    individual fines and lawsuit settlements in the range of hundreds of
    millions of dollars related to its criminal activities around the
    world. In the last half decade, Microsoft has swept over $25 billion
    of these “Other” losses under the rug, in addition to the many
    billions sprayed at failed efforts to establish monopolies in the
    online, mobile, and consumer electronics arenas.

    [The hypocracy of Microsoft defenders...]

    Why do they spew such venom about the iPhone, Linux, and the Mac?
    Because Microsoft’s obscene profits from the sales of its outdated,
    overpriced, and consumer hostile products help to directly support the
    wags’ chatterbox industry.

    Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by spewing ignorance and false
    information are efforts to keep the world stuck in the tech rut of the
    90s, where no critical thinking was required. Lazy pundits like no
    possibility of being wrong, so working to keep the technology world
    enslaved to Microsoft helps them appear to be insightful when they
    prophesy that Microsoft will eventually come out with a copycat
    version of whatever anyone else is doing. Sure enough, it happens.


    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...fits/#more-272

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel

    wrote
    on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:38 -0400
    :
    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    >> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    >> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*

    >>
    >>
    >> Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    >> gadgets
    >> PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    >> Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    >> profit per year.
    >>

    >
    > Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that have
    > been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup your
    > bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense. Like you
    > Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.
    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    Unless "7" can point to specific manufacturers of Linux
    gadgets, I have to agree with ole Zeke here. I will
    note, however, that according to hitslink and the rise
    of desktops in general, we can at least calculate the
    approximate number of new Linux desktops out there,
    especially since the percentage has gone up from 0.47%
    to 0.80% in the space of a year -- a percentage that is
    admittedly tracking a moving target, and that therefore
    the % of Linux boxes bought relative to all boxes is *more*
    than the difference of 0.33% which is implied.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Lost ~$7 billion on XBox, Disasters Everywhere

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Microsoft Needs Its Mojo Back
    >


    --snip--

    > (Microsoft has lost about $7 billion
    > on XBox since 2002.)
    >


    Is that ALL??? I would have bet that it would have been atleast twice that!


    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > Let's be realistic... Microsoft is *not* in the business of creating
    > techinical superiority. I work in the software industry and there's always
    > a "balance" that we need to strike. We could try to create a "perfect"
    > product that has a brilliant internal design and works flawlessly with
    > absolutely zero bugs. If we did that we should have something ready to ship
    > to our customers in about 15-20 years. On the other hand we can't ship just
    > anything so it's a balancing act that we need to strike and come up with a
    > pragmatic solution. The same holds true for most industries... autos,
    > televisions, laptops, etc. Few try to be "technically superior" because
    > it's not practical.



    Ah the old 90/10 argument.

  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:

    > Ah the old 90/10 argument.


    Personally I'd rather spend /more/ to have something /better/ that
    subsequently lasts longer too, provided of course that it /is/ actually
    better, and that I don't have to compromise my Freedom in the process
    (e.g. "IP"). Of course this assumes that market prices bear any
    correlation to quality, which invariably they don't. Prices are
    determined by the maximum consumers are prepared to pay before switching
    to a competitor, assuming there is one, rather than the actual costs
    involved.

    Of course this cost/time consideration is just yet another reason why
    Free Software is better for both businesses and users, since there is no
    pressure on the developers to meet a schedule, and thus they can ensure
    that the result meets their original expectations. This software can
    then be used by businesses at a vastly reduced cost to that of
    proprietary software, and because it is invariably more efficient;
    secure and stable (due to both the time and collaboration factors), it
    requires less overhead to deploy such software, thus improving that
    company's margins. And end-users then benefit from better software /and/
    better services from others who also use that software.

    If physical products could be as easily fabricated at home as software,
    then I think you'd find that would hold true for other products too,
    economies of scale notwithstanding. Of course in a situation where such
    things could be easily fabricated at home, economies of scale would be a
    somewhat moot consideration, certainly for those who owned this
    fabrication equipment.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
    | armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
    | neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
    | technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    14:13:55 up 210 days, 10:49, 3 users, load average: 0.23, 0.25, 0.27

  10. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
    >
    >> Ah the old 90/10 argument.

    >
    > Personally I'd rather spend /more/ to have something /better/ that
    > subsequently lasts longer too, provided of course that it /is/ actually
    > better, and that I don't have to compromise my Freedom in the process
    > (e.g. "IP"). Of course this assumes that market prices bear any
    > correlation to quality, which invariably they don't. Prices are
    > determined by the maximum consumers are prepared to pay before switching
    > to a competitor, assuming there is one, rather than the actual costs
    > involved.
    >
    > Of course this cost/time consideration is just yet another reason why
    > Free Software is better for both businesses and users, since there is no
    > pressure on the developers to meet a schedule, and thus they can ensure
    > that the result meets their original expectations. This software can
    > then be used by businesses at a vastly reduced cost to that of
    > proprietary software, and because it is invariably more efficient;
    > secure and stable (due to both the time and collaboration factors), it
    > requires less overhead to deploy such software, thus improving that
    > company's margins. And end-users then benefit from better software /and/
    > better services from others who also use that software.
    >
    > If physical products could be as easily fabricated at home as software,
    > then I think you'd find that would hold true for other products too,
    > economies of scale notwithstanding. Of course in a situation where such
    > things could be easily fabricated at home, economies of scale would be a
    > somewhat moot consideration, certainly for those who owned this
    > fabrication equipment.
    >



    The trouble with the 90/10 argument in software circles is that its only
    valid as long as everyone else is applying it. If there was one entity
    that didn't apply it and went full hog for the whole "100%" quality
    nirvana then sooner or later that entity will have a product that is
    better than all the others.

  11. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:

    > The trouble with the 90/10 argument in software circles is that its only
    > valid as long as everyone else is applying it. If there was one entity
    > that didn't apply it and went full hog for the whole "100%" quality
    > nirvana then sooner or later that entity will have a product that is
    > better than all the others.


    Actually there is another 90-10 philosophy. Take care of 90% of the
    requirement up front and don't sweat the 10%.

    Example, boss or client needs an answer. Get him an answer right away,
    don't sweat the 10% issues. If they want more, they will clarify.

    However, the trolling here uses the 10-90 rule. Harp on the 10% and
    ignore the 90, hoping no one will notice.

    --
    HPT


  12. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >
    >> The trouble with the 90/10 argument in software circles is that its only
    >> valid as long as everyone else is applying it. If there was one entity
    >> that didn't apply it and went full hog for the whole "100%" quality
    >> nirvana then sooner or later that entity will have a product that is
    >> better than all the others.

    >
    > Actually there is another 90-10 philosophy. Take care of 90% of the
    > requirement up front and don't sweat the 10%.
    >
    > Example, boss or client needs an answer. Get him an answer right away,
    > don't sweat the 10% issues. If they want more, they will clarify.
    >
    > However, the trolling here uses the 10-90 rule. Harp on the 10% and
    > ignore the 90, hoping no one will notice.
    >


    What I meant was the trade off: if you take the imaginary ultimate
    all-singing, all-dancing piece of software then you can please 90% of
    your projected market by getting 10% of the features there, but the
    remaining 90% of the work will only please 10% of your projected market.

  13. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
    >
    > wrote
    > on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:38 -0400
    > :
    >>
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    >>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    >>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    >>> gadgets
    >>> PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    >>> Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    >>> profit per year.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that have
    >> been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup your
    >> bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense. Like you
    >> Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >
    > Unless "7" can point to specific manufacturers of Linux
    > gadgets, I have to agree with ole Zeke here.


    Keeping up to date is hard work?
    Google is your friend.
    Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    the lion's share of it.


    > I will
    > note, however, that according to hitslink and the rise
    > of desktops in general,


    Linux isn't just about Desktops.
    Embedded Linux sells 3 million+ embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY
    alone.

    > we can at least calculate the
    > approximate number of new Linux desktops out there,
    > especially since the percentage has gone up from 0.47%
    > to 0.80% in the space of a year -- a percentage that is
    > admittedly tracking a moving target, and that therefore
    > the % of Linux boxes bought relative to all boxes is *more*
    > than the difference of 0.33% which is implied.



    When these ad hoc micoshaftic methods
    gets adopted as an approved method, call me.



  14. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "7" schreef in bericht
    news:rA5gk.29305$E41.27482@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:38 -0400
    >> :
    >>>
    >>> "7" wrote in message
    >>> news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    >>>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    >>>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    >>>> gadgets
    >>>> PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    >>>> Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    >>>> profit per year.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that have
    >>> been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup your
    >>> bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense. Like
    >>> you
    >>> Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >>
    >> Unless "7" can point to specific manufacturers of Linux
    >> gadgets, I have to agree with ole Zeke here.

    >
    > Keeping up to date is hard work?
    > Google is your friend.
    > Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    > the lion's share of it.


    :-? I only see Red hat and Novell -Suse mentioned as a major competitor..
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=RHT
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=NOVL
    Your link please? Sure you can find it, "Google is *your* friend!"

    >
    >
    >> I will
    >> note, however, that according to hitslink and the rise
    >> of desktops in general,

    >
    > Linux isn't just about Desktops.
    > Embedded Linux sells 3 million+ embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY
    > alone.
    >
    >> we can at least calculate the
    >> approximate number of new Linux desktops out there,
    >> especially since the percentage has gone up from 0.47%
    >> to 0.80% in the space of a year -- a percentage that is
    >> admittedly tracking a moving target, and that therefore
    >> the % of Linux boxes bought relative to all boxes is *more*
    >> than the difference of 0.33% which is implied.

    >
    >
    > When these ad hoc micoshaftic methods
    > gets adopted as an approved method, call me.
    >
    >



























































  15. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7

    wrote
    on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:48:55 GMT
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:38 -0400
    >> :
    >>>
    >>> "7" wrote in message
    >>> news:7ZOfk.28859$E41.26112@text.news.virginmedia.c om...
    >>>> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
    >>>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yeah... since they /only/ make $19 Billion per year in *PROFIT*
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not as much as embedded Linux alone selling 3 million embedded Linux
    >>>> gadgets
    >>>> PER DAY and earning at least 270 billion dollars in revenue.
    >>>> Even a conservative 15% profit would push it past 40 billion dollars
    >>>> profit per year.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Too bad that I can back up my claims with official SEC filings that have
    >>> been independently audited. While you don't have squat to backup your
    >>> bull**** other than some lamer "Google is your friend" nonsense. Like you
    >>> Joseph Michael... your "numbers" are a pathetic joke.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

    >>
    >> Unless "7" can point to specific manufacturers of Linux
    >> gadgets, I have to agree with ole Zeke here.

    >
    > Keeping up to date is hard work?
    > Google is your friend.
    > Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    > the lion's share of it.


    Total market share of *what*?

    Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    :-)

    >
    >
    >> I will
    >> note, however, that according to hitslink and the rise
    >> of desktops in general,

    >
    > Linux isn't just about Desktops.
    > Embedded Linux sells 3 million+ embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY
    > alone.


    I'd like more specifics as to where you find this figure.

    >
    >> we can at least calculate the
    >> approximate number of new Linux desktops out there,
    >> especially since the percentage has gone up from 0.47%
    >> to 0.80% in the space of a year -- a percentage that is
    >> admittedly tracking a moving target, and that therefore
    >> the % of Linux boxes bought relative to all boxes is *more*
    >> than the difference of 0.33% which is implied.

    >
    >
    > When these ad hoc micoshaftic methods
    > gets adopted as an approved method, call me.
    >


    Who is supposed to approve it? You're right in that the
    numbers are rather flawed, especially if one considers
    such things as website bias, dualboots and emulators,
    and embedded devices such as, well, car ignitions, that
    don't *need* to browse the Web to get their job done.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  16. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> Keeping up to date is hard work?
    >> Google is your friend.
    >> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >> the lion's share of it.

    >
    > Total market share of *what*?
    >
    > Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    > :-)



    That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    the authoritative statistic.

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> Keeping up to date is hard work?
    >>> Google is your friend.
    >>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>> the lion's share of it.

    >>
    >> Total market share of *what*?
    >>
    >> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >> :-)

    >
    >
    > That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    > thats the authoritative statistic.


    I can not think of a better one for UK based desktop systems. If
    anything it skews in favour of Linux since most office systems are
    Windows and a lot of people are not allowed to browse such sites from
    work. As you well know.

    --
    "Are Linux systems perfect. Uh, no."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:


    >> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently
    >> thats the authoritative statistic.

    >
    > I can not think of a better *one* for UK based desktop systems. If
    > anything it skews in favour of Linux since most office systems are
    > Windows and a lot of people are not allowed to browse such sites from
    > work. As you well know.


    After I stopped laughing at this drivel I decided on the hope that you
    may be serious to give you the following advice: your problem is the
    eighth word in this paragraph (highlighted for your convenience). One
    site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location, traffic,
    political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the force, or
    alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who uses one site
    as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly stupid or
    pushing an agenda.

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Will increase 15% to $19 Billion this year

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Phil Da Lick!

    wrote
    on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:06:14 +0100
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> Keeping up to date is hard work?
    >>> Google is your friend.
    >>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>> the lion's share of it.

    >>
    >> Total market share of *what*?
    >>
    >> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >> :-)

    >
    >
    > That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    > the authoritative statistic.


    I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):

    http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php

    As of 2005-10-22 (so this is a bit dated):

    XP: 67%
    2k: 16.5%
    98: 6.6%
    Mac various: 4.4%
    Other Windows: 2.1%
    NT: 1.8%
    NT5.2: 0.6% (?)
    Linux various: 0.41% (less than 100,000 requests)
    95: 0.20%
    Solaris: 0.04%
    OS/2 Warp: 0.001%

    So now color me confused here.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Insert random misquote here.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  20. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft Profit ~$17 Billion last year. Willincrease 15% to $19 Billion this year

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>> Look up last years total market and how Linux took
    >>>> the lion's share of it.
    >>> Total market share of *what*?
    >>>
    >>> Desktops? Notebooks? Mobiles? Microwave ovens? Pet rocks?
    >>> :-)

    >>
    >> That would be share of browser statistics at bbc.co.uk. Apparently thats
    >> the authoritative statistic.

    >
    > I'm assuming you're referring to (according to a Google search):


    Well dunno, I'm not in the business of judging the entire computer
    operating system install space by the hits on one particular website but
    I'll assume for the purposes of this thread that this is the data that
    Hadron and the rest of the dummy brigade trumpet...


    > http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/20...r_agents_1.php
    >


    Title of your link: "The software used to access the BBC homepage"
    Subtitle "Studying the software that visits the BBC homepage". Notice
    the common thread?


    > So now color me confused here.


    Easily done by the looks of it.

    I repeat my statement in another thread:

    One site is not indicative of anything regardless of its location,
    traffic, political bias, charitable contributions, sensitivity to the
    force, or alignment with Jupiter on the summer solstice. Anybody who
    uses one site as a means to try to prove anything is either incredibly
    stupid or pushing an agenda.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast