http://bit.ly/eAsApp

Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share of 
25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily to 
just above 50%.

Market researcher StatCounter drawn this conclusion from the analysis of 
Internet data. Analysts expect the use of Windows 7 will increase the speed 
next time. The emerging service pack 1 is for business users often purchase 
one argument. The Christmas buying period for many a time to replace their 
old PC. Windows 7 to 93% of all new PC's preinstalled.

Windows 7 is expected around the end of next year overtake Windows XP as the 
most used version of Windows. According to Microsoft, 94% of PC users 
satisfied with Windows 7 and will be 88% of companies in 2011 to switch to 
Windows 7.

--
Linux has 100% Desktop marketshare in.................... North Korea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS 

On 2010-12-09, Clogwog <clogwog@anon.eu> wrote:
> http://bit.ly/eAsApp
>
> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share of 

    Big newsflash.

    The new monopoly product takes over for the old monopoly product.

[deletia]

> old PC. Windows 7 to 93% of all new PC's preinstalled.

     In other words: the consumer doesn't have much choice.

[deletia]

-- 
    It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it.               |||
								    / | \

Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?

On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?

Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide, 
after 20 years or more of trying?

On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:

> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share 
of 
> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily 
to 
> just above 50%.

Yep.

Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted in 
this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be sold 
with W7 pre-installed.

In message <OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:

> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
> 
> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
> after 20 years or more of trying?

Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors running 
Linux, for example.

On 2010-12-09, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>
>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share 
> of 
>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily 
> to 
>> just above 50%.
>
> Yep.
>
> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted in 
> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be sold 
> with W7 pre-installed.

Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.

-- 
She had more Chins than the Chinese phonebook!
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>
>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share
>> of
>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily
>> to
>>> just above 50%.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted in
>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be sold
>> with W7 pre-installed.
>
> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.
>

But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just 
stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a 
certain quota?
Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to 
OEM vendors..

Gordon pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share
>>> of
>>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily
>>> to
>>>> just above 50%.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted in
>>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
>>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be sold
>>> with W7 pre-installed.
>>
>> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.
>
> But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just 
> stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a 
> certain quota?
> Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to 
> OEM vendors..

They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking at
them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).

-- 
Kinkler's First Law:
	Responsibility always exceeds authority.

Kinkler's Second Law:
	All the easy problems have been solved.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:03:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Gordon pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>>>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share
>>>> of
>>>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily
>>>> to
>>>>> just above 50%.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted in
>>>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
>>>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be sold
>>>> with W7 pre-installed.
>>>
>>> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.
>>
>> But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just 
>> stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a 
>> certain quota?
>> Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to 
>> OEM vendors..
> 
> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking at
> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).

That's because they are way overpriced.
The smart people are across the street at BestBuy or online.

I rarely see people in Office Depot.
I wonder how they survive?
Corporate sales maybe.

-- 
flatfish+++
Mariana Trench.
Desktop Linux doesn't suck, it's just ignored. 
Here are Linux desktop usage figures:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

"flatfish+++" <flatfish99_spmrmv@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:z1v54mbw27v1$.1m872lmo7jhch$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:03:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Gordon pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>>> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>>>>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market 
>>>>>> share
>>>>> of
>>>>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops 
>>>>>> steadily
>>>>> to
>>>>>> just above 50%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I 
>>>>> predicted in
>>>>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 
>>>>> 2010.
>>>>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be 
>>>>> sold
>>>>> with W7 pre-installed.
>>>>
>>>> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.
>>>
>>> But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just
>>> stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a
>>> certain quota?
>>> Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to
>>> OEM vendors..
>>
>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking 
>> at
>> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).

Don't worry about all of those published reports. Your sample of one at your 
local Office Depot is all the "proof" most advocates need. After all - the 
standard advocate position that msft controls the 
press/newspapers/television/etc so you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St. 
Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.


> That's because they are way overpriced.
> The smart people are across the street at BestBuy or online.
>
> I rarely see people in Office Depot.
> I wonder how they survive?
> Corporate sales maybe.

Not very well. Staples (SPLS) is the clear winner in the 'office supply' 
space but they're not exactly going gang-busters either.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ODP&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=

On 2010-12-10, flatfish+++ <flatfish99_spmrmv@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:03:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Gordon pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>>> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>>>>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
[deletia]
>>> But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just 
>>> stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a 
>>> certain quota?
>>> Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to 
>>> OEM vendors..
>> 
>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking at
>> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>
> That's because they are way overpriced.

    What? People avoiding spending money when they don't need too?

    Surely you must be joking?

-- 
    In a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only        |||
    has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a        / | \
    new version of the relevant shovelware is released.

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:

>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking 
>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>
> Don't worry about all of those published reports. Your sample of one at your 
> local Office Depot is all the "proof" most advocates need. After all - the 
> standard advocate position that msft controls the 
> press/newspapers/television/etc so you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St. 
> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.

Whatever, dude.  It's just an anecdote.  Why so keen to blast it to
smithereens, like an elephant trouncing a mouse?

Besides, everybody knows that a lot of those numbers (the ones from
Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.

>> That's because they are way overpriced.
>> The smart people are across the street at BestBuy or online.
>>
>> I rarely see people in Office Depot.
>> I wonder how they survive?
>> Corporate sales maybe.

I bought this laptop at Office Depot.  If you get there at the right time,
you can get prices that are quite competitive with online sales.  Plus I
get to stick in a live CD and see how it boots to Debian.

I'm not so sure about Best Buy's prices.  They don't seem to be much of a
bargain.

> Not very well. Staples (SPLS) is the clear winner in the 'office supply' 
> space but they're not exactly going gang-busters either.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ODP&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=

I like Staples, too.  They've been dumping Acer 20" monitors lately, so I
bought a couple.  Nice little units.

Here's the thing, though.  Personally, I rarely buy from these places, for
the simple reason that I already have all the equipment I want/need.  You
can sell only so much gear before people are sated, at least for awhile.

-- 
"But officer, I was only trying to gain enough speed so I could coast
to the nearest gas station."

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even 
>>>> looking
>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>
>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>
>
> Besides, everybody knows that ...

You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."

> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.

Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.

Now be a good advocate and claim that it's up to me to prove that they are 
*not* channel-stuffing.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:23:20 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
> news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even 
>>>>> looking
>>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>>
>>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>>
>>
>> Besides, everybody knows that ...
> 
> You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."
> 
>> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
>> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.
> 
> Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.
> 
> Now be a good advocate and claim that it's up to me to prove that they are 
> *not* channel-stuffing.

Liarmutt has been Rope-A-Doped.
Once again.


-- 
flatfish+++
Mariana Trench.
Desktop Linux doesn't suck, it's just ignored. 
Here are Linux desktop usage figures:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
> news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even 
>>>>> looking
>>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>>
>>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>>
>> Besides, everybody knows that ...
>
> You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."
>
>> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
>> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.
>
> Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.
>
> Now be a good advocate and claim that it's up to me to prove that they are 
> *not* channel-stuffing.

To do that, you need two numbers:  the number of Win 7 licenses sold, and
the number of Win 7 machines sold (or activated).

Or, you can simply note that most vendors have a deal with Microsoft where
they buy a license for Windows for every machine they sell, whether or not
it is loaded with Windows.

   http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192319/Microsoft_Windows_7_beat_expectations

   "It's hard to say that Windows 7 is not a hit," echoed Michael Silver, an
   analyst with Gartner Research. But like Cherry, Silver offered a caveat.
   "Windows 7 is doing much better [than Vista] but not every license
   they've shipped is being used, either."

   Silver has a point. Microsoft may tout 240 million licenses, but many of
   those are accounted for by standing agreements that allow enterprises
   copies of Windows 7 that they may not actually deploy for months, or even
   years, as they retire older systems running Windows XP.


They did it for XBox, and they're doing it for Win 7.  Heck, they did it for
parked domains.

-- 
The animals are not as stupid as one thinks -- they have neither
doctors nor lawyers.
		-- L. Docquier

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
news:idthph$v3o$8@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>> news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>
>>>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>>>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>>>
>>> Besides, everybody knows that ...
>>
>> You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."
>>
>>> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
>>> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.
>>
>> Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.
>>
>
> Or, you can simply note that most vendors have a deal with Microsoft where
> they buy a license for Windows for every machine they sell, whether or not
> it is loaded with Windows.
>
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192319/Microsoft_Windows_7_beat_expectations
>
>   "It's hard to say that Windows 7 is not a hit," echoed Michael Silver, 
> an
>   analyst with Gartner Research. But like Cherry, Silver offered a caveat.
>   "Windows 7 is doing much better [than Vista] but not every license
>   they've shipped is being used, either."
>
> Silver has a point. Microsoft may tout 240 million licenses, but many of
>  those are accounted for by standing agreements that allow enterprises
>  copies of Windows 7 that they may not actually deploy for months, or even
>  years, as they retire older systems running Windows XP.

Kudos for providing "channel stuffing" evidence but this is as close to 
"channel stuffing" as getting a parking ticket makes one a criminal. By this 
criteria Campbells Soup is also channel stuffing because all those soup cans 
in the grocery isle haven't been sold yet.

At <employer> we have a bunch of Win7 licenses. Some developers (who need 
it) were given Win7 machines but most people still run XP. As new machines 
are deployed most of them now get Win7 so we also have licenses we bought 
but aren't using yet.

When I search our customer database and get a report of "support cases by 
OS"  we see the same thing. (100% of our customers are corporate). The 
number of Win7 machines is steadily increasing as they slowly roll-out the 
new OS.

Companies including us aren't interested in 'let's install the latest OS' 
because we can. Which is also why many of our customers still use old 
versions of Linux - if it's not broke don't fix it. Running their business 
is more important than upgrading the OS on a whim. Because a company bought 
some OS licenses, toner-cartridges or engine parts that they're not using 
yet is not the definition of "channel stuffing."

On 10/12/2010 15:45, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
>> news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>
>>>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even 
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>>>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>>>
>>> Besides, everybody knows that ...
>>
>> You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."
>>
>>> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
>>> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.
>>
>> Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.
>>
>> Now be a good advocate and claim that it's up to me to prove that they are 
>> *not* channel-stuffing.
>
> To do that, you need two numbers:  the number of Win 7 licenses sold, and
> the number of Win 7 machines sold (or activated).
>
> Or, you can simply note that most vendors have a deal with Microsoft where
> they buy a license for Windows for every machine they sell, whether or not
> it is loaded with Windows.
>
>    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192319/Microsoft_Windows_7_beat_expectations
>
>    "It's hard to say that Windows 7 is not a hit," echoed Michael Silver, an
>    analyst with Gartner Research. But like Cherry, Silver offered a caveat.
>    "Windows 7 is doing much better [than Vista] but not every license
>    they've shipped is being used, either."
>
>    Silver has a point. Microsoft may tout 240 million licenses, but many of
>    those are accounted for by standing agreements that allow enterprises
>    copies of Windows 7 that they may not actually deploy for months, or even
>    years, as they retire older systems running Windows XP.
>
>
> They did it for XBox, and they're doing it for Win 7.  Heck, they did it for
> parked domains.

And don't forget Dixons Stores Group International, which owns Dixons,
Currys and PC World, whose profits for the first half of 2007 were �20
million lower than expected. The company's Group Finance Director, Kevin
O'Byrne, blamed the news on the slow uptake of Windows Vista products,
explaining that the company had been forced to clear stock by offering it
at lower prices.  Although DSG did not mention how many copies of
Vista were sold, the Financial Director, Kevin O'Byrne, said that estimates
were missed by as much as 50,000 copies worth at least �3m based on the
retail price. 

Read more:
http://www.itproportal.com/2007/10/18/dixons-profits-hit-vista-flop/#ixzz17jNgpsqG

Yes, that's right, Vista was *so* bad that they had to sell it at *lower
prices*, & thus DSG got their fingers burned. But you can bet that, at
the time, M$ claimed that Vista was selling well.

-- 
FireFox - Why, wtf did he do?
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
> news:idthph$v3o$8@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:idtge1$v3o$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>>
>>>>>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even
>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>> at them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't worry about all of those published reports....
>>>>>.... you can't trust the NY-Times, Wall St.
>>>>> Journal, Newsweek, etc. So you can't believe the established press.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, everybody knows that ...
>>>
>>> You meant to write - "Besides, every advocate knows that..."
>>>
>>>> a lot of those numbers (the ones from
>>>> Microsoft) are channel-stuffing.  Whoop-de-do.
>>>
>>> Your complete lack of  "channel-stuffing" evidence noted.
>>>
>>
>> Or, you can simply note that most vendors have a deal with Microsoft where
>> they buy a license for Windows for every machine they sell, whether or not
>> it is loaded with Windows.
>>
>> 
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192319/Microsoft_Windows_7_beat_expectations
>>
>>   "It's hard to say that Windows 7 is not a hit," echoed Michael Silver, 
>> an
>>   analyst with Gartner Research. But like Cherry, Silver offered a caveat.
>>   "Windows 7 is doing much better [than Vista] but not every license
>>   they've shipped is being used, either."
>>
>> Silver has a point. Microsoft may tout 240 million licenses, but many of
>>  those are accounted for by standing agreements that allow enterprises
>>  copies of Windows 7 that they may not actually deploy for months, or even
>>  years, as they retire older systems running Windows XP.
>
> Kudos for providing "channel stuffing" evidence but this is as close to 
> "channel stuffing" as getting a parking ticket makes one a criminal. By this 
> criteria Campbells Soup is also channel stuffing because all those soup cans 
> in the grocery isle haven't been sold yet.
>
> At <employer> we have a bunch of Win7 licenses. Some developers (who need 
> it) were given Win7 machines but most people still run XP. As new machines 
> are deployed most of them now get Win7 so we also have licenses we bought 
> but aren't using yet.
>
> When I search our customer database and get a report of "support cases by 
> OS"  we see the same thing. (100% of our customers are corporate). The 
> number of Win7 machines is steadily increasing as they slowly roll-out the 
> new OS.
>
> Companies including us aren't interested in 'let's install the latest OS' 
> because we can. Which is also why many of our customers still use old 
> versions of Linux - if it's not broke don't fix it. Running their business 
> is more important than upgrading the OS on a whim. Because a company bought 
> some OS licenses, toner-cartridges or engine parts that they're not using 
> yet is not the definition of "channel stuffing."

Don't know if this is accurate, but:

   http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-sales-upgrade,9013.html

   Windows 7 Initial Sales Blast Past Windows Vista
   November 5, 2009 

   According to NPD Group sales data, Windows 7 sales were 234 percent
   higher for retailed boxed editions than for Vista in the initial releases
   of both products.

   . . .

   Sales of Windows 7-based PC hardware, however, were six percent below
   that of Windows Vista during its launch. . . .

Sounds like channel stuffing to me.  OS sales 234% over Vista, but hardware
sales 6% less than under Vista.  Or are all those sales to users
who are buying upgrade packs? ;-)

-- 
Don't guess -- check your security regulations.

On 10/12/2010 18:06, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>
> Don't know if this is accurate, but:
>
>     http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-sales-upgrade,9013.html
>
>     Windows 7 Initial Sales Blast Past Windows Vista
>     November 5, 2009
>
>     According to NPD Group sales data, Windows 7 sales were 234 percent
>     higher for retailed boxed editions than for Vista in the initial releases
>     of both products.
>
>     . . .
>
>     Sales of Windows 7-based PC hardware, however, were six percent below
>     that of Windows Vista during its launch. . . .
>
> Sounds like channel stuffing to me.  OS sales 234% over Vista, but hardware
> sales 6% less than under Vista.  Or are all those sales to users
> who are buying upgrade packs? ;-)
>

I expect a large proportion of those were people like me - I bought a 
Vista machine and was so pissed off with it that I signed up for the 
Beta testing of Windows 7. That allowed me to pre-order the full version 
of Windows 7 at a VERY reduced rate compared to the final retail price...
It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all those 
copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet there's a 
substantial difference...

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:45:00 +0000, Gordon wrote:

> On 10/12/2010 18:06, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>>
>> Don't know if this is accurate, but:
>>
>>     http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-sales-upgrade,9013.html
>>
>>     Windows 7 Initial Sales Blast Past Windows Vista
>>     November 5, 2009
>>
>>     According to NPD Group sales data, Windows 7 sales were 234 percent
>>     higher for retailed boxed editions than for Vista in the initial releases
>>     of both products.
>>
>>     . . .
>>
>>     Sales of Windows 7-based PC hardware, however, were six percent below
>>     that of Windows Vista during its launch. . . .
>>
>> Sounds like channel stuffing to me.  OS sales 234% over Vista, but hardware
>> sales 6% less than under Vista.  Or are all those sales to users
>> who are buying upgrade packs? ;-)
>>
> 
> I expect a large proportion of those were people like me - I bought a 
> Vista machine and was so pissed off with it that I signed up for the 
> Beta testing of Windows 7. That allowed me to pre-order the full version 
> of Windows 7 at a VERY reduced rate compared to the final retail price...
> It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all those 
> copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet there's a 
> substantial difference...

Yawwwwwnnn....

Yet through all of this, and yes Vista was a POS, Linux's desktop
market share was still flat lined. People would rather endure Vista
and it's problems rather than move to Linux and have nothing *but*
problems.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

So why did you buy Windows 7 instead of switching to Linux Gordon?

-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our Hall Of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux doesn't suck, it's just ignored. 
Here are Linux desktop usage figures:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192319/
> Microsoft_Windows_7_beat_expectations
> 
>    "It's hard to say that Windows 7 is not a hit," echoed Michael Silver,
>    an analyst with Gartner Research. But like Cherry, Silver offered a
>    caveat. "Windows 7 is doing much better [than Vista] but not every
>    license they've shipped is being used, either."
> 
>    Silver has a point. Microsoft may tout 240 million licenses, but many
>    of those are accounted for by standing agreements that allow
>    enterprises copies of Windows 7 that they may not actually deploy for
>    months, or even years, as they retire older systems running Windows XP.
> 
> They did it for XBox, and they're doing it for Win 7.  Heck, they did it
> for parked domains.

Many organization buy Microsoft licenses in bulk, because they are much 
cheaper that way. All those licenses are obviously not used immediately, and 
some probably will never be used. Even so, used or not, Microsoft still gets 
payed, and their profits increased.

Regards.
..

Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> Many organization buy Microsoft licenses in bulk, because they are much
> cheaper that way. All those licenses are obviously not used immediately, and
> some probably will never be used. Even so, used or not, Microsoft still gets
> payed, and their profits increased.

Plus there can be double-dipping.

For example, we're getting in some new PCs and they shipped with Win7
on them ... but local IT will be throwing those away and installing
our Site License on Vista, since it has completed the local Enterprise
qualification testing (and Win7 hasn't done so).

Thus, one laptop + 2 OS licenses "sold" by MS.



-hh

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:00:51 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:

> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>> Many organization buy Microsoft licenses in bulk, because they are much
>> cheaper that way. All those licenses are obviously not used immediately, and
>> some probably will never be used. Even so, used or not, Microsoft still gets
>> payed, and their profits increased.
> 
> Plus there can be double-dipping.
> 
> For example, we're getting in some new PCs and they shipped with Win7
> on them ... but local IT will be throwing those away and installing
> our Site License on Vista, since it has completed the local Enterprise
> qualification testing (and Win7 hasn't done so).
> 
> Thus, one laptop + 2 OS licenses "sold" by MS.
> 
> 
> 
> -hh

IBM does that.
Their current Lenovo corporate laptops ship with Vista or Windows 7
licenses but most of them get Windows XP or in some cases Linux
installed on them.

-- 
flatfish+++
Please visit our Hall Of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux doesn't suck, it's just ignored. 
Here are Linux desktop usage figures:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
news:idt89v$i3p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking 
> at
> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).

Well, the important thing is that Microsoft has been paid by the OEM when 
the unit shipped to Office Depot and the OEM involved has billed Office 
Depot so that the sale shows up in the OEM's quarterly revenues.  Office 
Depot has to sell it, of course, in order to further their own business. 
Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to show 
up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait. 

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
news:idthph$v3o$8@news.eternal-september.org...

> Or, you can simply note that most vendors have a deal with Microsoft where
> they buy a license for Windows for every machine they sell, whether or not
> it is loaded with Windows.
>
I don't think that is at all true, nut.  It would be completely counter to 
the 1995 court settlement that prohibited that sort of licensing deal by 
Microsoft.  You better check your sources.

As to the number of licenses sold, they are reported in the SEC filings as 
revenues that are audited, so however you want to spin them or count them, 
they are worth quite a bit of money and that money you can take to the bank.
 

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:idtsf9$39n$1@news.eternal-september.org...


> It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all those 
> copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet there's a 
> substantial difference...

The operating income for the Windows division at Microsoft is over a billion 
dollars a month, Gordon, so you can start with that.  This is money that 
they took to the bank after deducting their expenses but before paying their 
taxes.  Go figure. 

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message 
news:fffdb6e0-06c9-4368-b5dc-fbff29e02bec@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>> Many organization buy Microsoft licenses in bulk, because they are much
>> cheaper that way. All those licenses are obviously not used immediately, 
>> and
>> some probably will never be used. Even so, used or not, Microsoft still 
>> gets
>> payed, and their profits increased.
>
> Plus there can be double-dipping.
>
> For example, we're getting in some new PCs and they shipped with Win7
> on them ... but local IT will be throwing those away and installing
> our Site License on Vista, since it has completed the local Enterprise
> qualification testing (and Win7 hasn't done so).
>
> Thus, one laptop + 2 OS licenses "sold" by MS.
>
That isn't the way it worked where I was.  The corporation had a Microsoft 
"site volume license" for just about everything, specifically MS Office, 
VS.NET, MNSDN, and all OS versions.  We bought Dell computers mostly and 
they had nothing pre-installed.  IT ghosted on whatever the individual 
wanted or the department manager dictated.  I don't know if the licenses 
were ever counted at all.  Microsoft never knew what we did specifically, we 
just had a negotiated price for the site license each year. 

On Sunday 12 December 2010 13:48 amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> 
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
> news:idt89v$i3p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking 
>> at
>> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
> 
> Well, the important thing is that Microsoft has been paid by the OEM when 
> the unit shipped to Office Depot and the OEM involved has billed Office 
> Depot so that the sale shows up in the OEM's quarterly revenues.  Office 
> Depot has to sell it, of course, in order to further their own business. 
> Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to show 
> up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait.

Hmmm.... is there a freudian slip or two there?

  "Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to
   show up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait"

That seems to imply that you think that:-

1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...

2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to 
wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.

It's the way you tell 'em!

On Friday 10 December 2010 12:01 Sinister Midget III wrote:

> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>
>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share 
>> of 
>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops 
steadily 
>> to 
>>> just above 50%.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I predicted 
in 
>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be 
sold 
>> with W7 pre-installed.
> 
> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.

Heh :-)  Not at all.....

My statement/estimate was along the lines of what was the *minimum* that MS 
must do, just to "stay level".  It wasn't exact - just an estimate of mine 
based on available figures.

I said 28% by end 2010.  It's not yet the end of 2010.

Also, it depends where you look.
Clogwog's quote itself quotes Statcounter, which showed 24.12 % for Windows 
7 for November.  WebApplications shows only 19.69%, and I have no theory for 
the difference.

As Clogwog's quote says, the "Corporate Effect" has still to be felt.  We'll 
see :-)

On Friday 10 December 2010 12:38 Gordon wrote:

> On 10/12/2010 12:01, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>> On 2010-12-09, bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  claimed:
>>> On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03 Clogwog wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market 
share
>>> of
>>>> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops 
steadily
>>> to
>>>> just above 50%.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Exactly 15 months ago, and before it was officially released, I 
predicted in
>>> this very group that Windows 7 would be showing 28% by the end of 2010.
>>> The figure was calculated entirely on the number of PCs that would be 
sold
>>> with W7 pre-installed.
>>
>> Then Winders 7 is a failure at 3% less than it ought to be.
>>
> 
> But are all these licenses on SHIPPED machines or are they just 
> stockpiled by the OEM vendors because they are contracted to take a 
> certain quota?
> Shipped Machines should be the benchmark - not licences sold by MS to 
> OEM vendors..

No Gordon.  We are talking here web statistics, not the number of licences 
that MS claims to have sold.
What is being said is that, according to StatCounter almost 25% of web 
accesses are now being done from Windows 7.  NetApplications makes it nearly 
20%.

On Sunday 12 December 2010 15:36 bbgruff wrote:

Of dear - I'm getting worse...

> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
                         buy!
> 
> 2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to 
                                        *so* easy to come by
> wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.

On 12/9/2010 6:30 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
>>
>> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
>> after 20 years or more of trying?
>
> Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors running
> Linux, for example.


You know I don't believe you, right?

On 12/12/2010 10:00 AM, bbgruff wrote:
> On Sunday 12 December 2010 15:36 bbgruff wrote:
>
> Of dear - I'm getting worse...
>
>> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>                           buy!
>>
>> 2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to
>                                          *so* easy to come by
>> wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.
>

LOL, you people are totally ridiculous.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8mk8g1F822U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Sunday 12 December 2010 13:48 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>> news:idt89v$i3p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> They got them piling up at Office Depot.  Rarely see anyone even looking
>>> at
>>> them (the Win 7 laptops, that is).
>>
>> Well, the important thing is that Microsoft has been paid by the OEM when
>> the unit shipped to Office Depot and the OEM involved has billed Office
>> Depot so that the sale shows up in the OEM's quarterly revenues.  Office
>> Depot has to sell it, of course, in order to further their own business.
>> Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to 
>> show
>> up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait.
>
> Hmmm.... is there a freudian slip or two there?
>
>  "Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to
>   show up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait"
>
> That seems to imply that you think that:-
>
> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>
Everyone buys Windows 7 laptops, bb, just not from Office Depot where the 
nut seems to think no one but fools purchase things.  Curiously, he seems to 
go there often.  Perhaps just to watch the demo TV programs?

> 2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to
> wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.

Sucking is certainly a relative term, bb, but the intended context was that 
the nut sees so many of us as less insightful as he.


>
> It's the way you tell 'em!
> 

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8mk9smFighU3@mid.individual.net...
> On Sunday 12 December 2010 15:36 bbgruff wrote:
>
> Of dear - I'm getting worse...
>
>> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>                         buy!
>>
>> 2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to
>                                        *so* easy to come by
>> wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.
>
In his own estimation, of course.  Yours, too? 

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:36:32 +0000, bbgruff wrote:

> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...

I don't know. When you buy a cheap laptop that will actually run Windows 
7, it'll run like a green-striped ape with Linux installed.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

bbgruff wrote:

>> 1. Only a sucker would buy a Windows 7 laptop, and...

Here in US, we have little choice. It is not offered. One pays the Windows
tax, wipes or reconfigures the hard drive to either Linux or dual boot
Linux / Win7. (Dual boot reconfig of the hard disk counts as 1 hardware
modification against the OEM license.) If one dual boots, the other tax is
the anti-virus / personal firewall. I prefer an non-M$ solution, keeps the
fox out of the hen house.

-- 
HPT

On 2010-12-12, bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:
> On Sunday 12 December 2010 13:48 amicus_curious wrote:

>> Well, the important thing is that Microsoft has been paid by the OEM when 
>> the unit shipped to Office Depot and the OEM involved has billed Office 
>> Depot so that the sale shows up in the OEM's quarterly revenues.  Office 
>> Depot has to sell it, of course, in order to further their own business. 
>> Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to show 
>> up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait.
>
> Hmmm.... is there a freudian slip or two there?
>
>   "Obviously they will have to wait for a bigger sucker than yourself to
>    show up to complete the deal, but that should not be too long of a wait"
>
> That seems to imply that you think that:-
>
> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>
> 2. Since bigger suckers than Chris are no easy to come by (not long to 
> wait), Chris is not a sucker at all.
>
> It's the way you tell 'em!

anal_curiosity looks like he started to tell the truth more than once
there. Either he's drunk or his eyes are opening. If it's the former he
could find himself looking for a job soon. If it's the latter, maybe
he'll learn to walk pretty soon as well.

-- 
Nobody's ugly after 2 a.m.
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Friday 10 December 2010 00:30 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:
> 
>> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
>> 
>> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
>> after 20 years or more of trying?
> 
> Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors running 
> Linux, for example.

Actually, quite likely higher than the whole of Windows!

The big change that's starting to happen though is that these Linux systems 
(and Apple too), on smartphones, tablets, slates, netbooks, all-in-ones etc. 
are now being used more and more to access the web.  Thus, we are starting 
to see a change in the Web Stats - and the Windows boys don't like that one 
little bit:-)

RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:36:32 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>
>> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>
> I don't know. When you buy a cheap laptop that will actually run Windows 
> 7, it'll run like a green-striped ape with Linux installed.
                      =================

Is that a form of life on Barsoom?

-- 
-- Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minikin.
-- Members of an avian species of identical plumage congregate.
-- Surveillance should precede saltation.
-- Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity.
-- It is fruitless to become lachrymose over precipitately departed
	lacteal fluid.
-- Freedom from incrustations of grime is contiguous to rectitude.
-- It is fruitless to attempt to indoctrinate a superannuated
	canine with innovative maneuvers.
-- Eschew the implement of correction and vitiate the scion.
-- The temperature of the aqueous content of an unremittingly
	galled saucepan does not reach 212 degrees Farenheit.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:31:39 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:36:32 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>>
>> I don't know. When you buy a cheap laptop that will actually run
>> Windows 7, it'll run like a green-striped ape with Linux installed.
>                       =================
> 
> Is that a form of life on Barsoom?

I don't know. When I grew up, when a car was fast it "ran like a green 
striped (pronounced 'stripe-ped') ape." And I'm not even from the South.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On 12/12/2010 14:10, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>
> "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:idtsf9$39n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>> It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all
>> those copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet
>> there's a substantial difference...
>
> The operating income for the Windows division at Microsoft is over a
> billion dollars a month, Gordon, so you can start with that. This is
> money that they took to the bank after deducting their expenses but
> before paying their taxes. Go figure.

Another financially-ignorant idiot along the lines of hardon.
Money banked does NOT necessarily equal sales revenue (ever heard of 
selling on credit?)  and CERTAINLY doesn't have anything to do with 
BUDGETED sales revenue.

On Dec 12, 10:18=A0am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fffdb6e0-06c9-4368-b5dc-fbff29e02bec@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> >> Many organization buy Microsoft licenses in bulk, because they are muc=
h
> >> cheaper that way. All those licenses are obviously not used immediatel=
y,
> >> and
> >> some probably will never be used. Even so, used or not, Microsoft stil=
l
> >> gets
> >> payed, and their profits increased.
>
> > Plus there can be double-dipping.
>
> > For example, we're getting in some new PCs and they shipped with Win7
> > on them ... but local IT will be throwing those away and installing
> > our Site License on Vista, since it has completed the local Enterprise
> > qualification testing (and Win7 hasn't done so).
>
> > Thus, one laptop + 2 OS licenses "sold" by MS.
>
> That isn't the way it worked where I was. =A0The corporation had a Micros=
oft
> "site volume license" for just about everything, specifically MS Office,
> VS.NET, MNSDN, and all OS versions. =A0We bought Dell computers mostly an=
d
> they had nothing pre-installed.

Easiest thing to do is to check to see if those Dells had one of MS
blue "hologram" OS labels on it.  Odds are that it is there and as
such, then you're in the same situation as I described.

FWIW, we also order Dells; I'll try to remember to check a few of them
for this today.


> =A0Microsoft never knew what we did specifically, we
> just had a negotiated price for the site license each year.

MS is sure to know, due to "phone home" elements that they use for
anti-piracy, which includes how many licenses at a "site", since IIRC,
these prices are pro-rated by site size.


-hh

RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:31:39 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:36:32 +0000, bbgruff wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Only a sucker would by a Windows 7 laptop, and...
>>>
>>> I don't know. When you buy a cheap laptop that will actually run
>>> Windows 7, it'll run like a green-striped ape with Linux installed.
>>                       =================
>> 
>> Is that a form of life on Barsoom?
>
> I don't know. When I grew up, when a car was fast it "ran like a green 
> striped (pronounced 'stripe-ped') ape." And I'm not even from the South.

I'm comin' at ya like a spider monkey!  :-)

-- 
A company is known by the men it keeps.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8ml312Fd0jU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Friday 10 December 2010 00:30 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
>>>
>>> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
>>> after 20 years or more of trying?
>>
>> Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors 
>> running
>> Linux, for example.
>
> Actually, quite likely higher than the whole of Windows!
>
> The big change that's starting to happen though is that these Linux 
> systems
> (and Apple too), on smartphones, tablets, slates, netbooks, all-in-ones 
> etc.
> are now being used more and more to access the web.  Thus, we are starting
> to see a change in the Web Stats - and the Windows boys don't like that 
> one
> little bit:-)
>
>
You are losing the big picture, bb.  The only use for a market share value 
is to determine where your product is in the market.  People who buy 
computers do not check the web stats to see whether they should buy a Wintel 
or a Mac or even a Lintel box, if they know what it is.  They look at their 
perceptions of Mac vs Windows.  OTOH, when a company needs to see how it is 
doing in the market, it will check the market statistics, but no one at 
Microsoft is going to be misled by someone using a phone to connect to the 
internet and think that Windows is losing market share.  They are not in the 
same ball park or market.

The airlines do not worry about how many people drive from New York to 
Chicago when they set up their schedules to compete with other airlines. 
And people who want to go from one to the other are not swayed by how many 
people might drive.  They have their own criteria for choosing the 
conveyance.

 

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ie4qgj$r2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/12/2010 14:10, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:idtsf9$39n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>> It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all
>>> those copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet
>>> there's a substantial difference...
>>
>> The operating income for the Windows division at Microsoft is over a
>> billion dollars a month, Gordon, so you can start with that. This is
>> money that they took to the bank after deducting their expenses but
>> before paying their taxes. Go figure.
>
> Another financially-ignorant idiot along the lines of hardon.
> Money banked does NOT necessarily equal sales revenue (ever heard of 
> selling on credit?)  and CERTAINLY doesn't have anything to do with 
> BUDGETED sales revenue.

You seem to be an idiot, Gordon.  Have you had this problem for a very long 
time or is it something new?

No one seems to have heard of "budgeted sales revenue", with or without 
caps.  Do you perhaps mean "projected sales" as often mentioned in corporate 
statements to financial analysts?  MSFT has been "beating the street" as of 
late in this regard as well.  Where have you been hiding? 

On 13/12/2010 13:42, amicus_curious wrote:

>
> No one seems to have heard of "budgeted sales revenue", with or without
> caps. Do you perhaps mean "projected sales" as often mentioned in
> corporate statements to financial analysts? MSFT has been "beating the
> street" as of late in this regard as well. Where have you been hiding?

You obviously know NOTHING about the financial operations of businesses, 
whether large or small.
No I do NOT mean "projected" sales. Every business, whether large or 
small makes an annual BUDGET of sales, cost of sales, overheads and net 
profit BEFORE the financial year begins, based on market knowledge, 
possible customer spends, any payroll and tax changes, and also 
inflation (amongst a large number of factors). This is to measure 
performance against. In addition, many businesses also have a rolling 
Forecast, which is updated on a reporting period basis in order to 
ascertain how accurate the budgeting process was in the first place.

I mean comparing ACTUAL sales with BUDGETED sales. (Businesses also 
compare actual with forecast and the prior year, but that's not such an 
important measure)

On Dec 9, 4:03=A0pm, "Clogwog" <clog...@anon.eu> wrote:
> http://bit.ly/eAsApp

> Windows 7 has more than one year after introducing a global market share =
of
> 25 percent and is largely beyond Windows Vista. Windows XP drops steadily=
 to
> just above 50%.

Windows 7 isn't one of the great disasters - like Windows NT 3,
Windows ME, or Vista, but it isn't a block-buster like Windows 95, or
Windows XP either.

Of course, Windows 95 was Microsoft's attempt to replace Windows 3.1,
without losing market share to competitors like Linux or FreeBSD or OS/
2 or UnixWare.  Windows 95 followed the "flop" of Windows NT 3.
Windows XP followed the "flop" of Windows ME, and Windows 7 followed
the "Flop" of Vista.

Of course, there are now court records of how Microsoft "Force Fed"
Windows 95 and Windows XP to the OEMs.  Are there attempts to "force
feed" corporations?

Historically, the "Flop" followed by "Fair" - has had the benefit to
Microsoft of allowing Microsoft to announce the end of support for
popular products like Windows 3.1 when Windows 95 was released,
Windows 2000 and Windows 9x for XP, and Windows XP for Windows 7.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, many corporations have prepared for such
a termination of support, adopting plans which would allow them to
replace some or all Windows machines with Linux machines, much the
same way they planned the ability to migrate from NT 4.0 when
Microsoft attempted price increases with upgrades to Windows Server
2003.

Microsoft is aware that price increases are probably a bad idea,
especially in this global economy.  In fact, Microsoft may even have
to reduce prices to keep Windows on Corporate desktops, and many
corporate customers are looking at Linux with Windows virtualization.
"Windows on Linux" makes it possible to use the Windows XP licenses
they have already purchased - on newer machines that have more memory,
hard drive, and CPU than 32 bit Windows XP can handle.

> Market researcher StatCounter drawn this conclusion from the analysis of
> Internet data. Analysts expect the use of Windows 7 will increase the spe=
ed
> next time. The emerging service pack 1 is for business users often purcha=
se
> one argument. The Christmas buying period for many a time to replace thei=
r
> old PC. Windows 7 to 93% of all new PC's preinstalled.

StatCounter, especially the promotional statistics - which you don't
pay for, are probably the most unreliable source of statistics.  Steve
Ballmer has made presentations to Microsoft employees showing that
Linux has a market share as large as Apple's.  Since Microsoft has
many sites where customers do register and conduct business, such as
Expedia, MSNBC, MSN, CarPoint, and Monster, the figure from Ballmer is
probably MUCH more reliable.

> Windows 7 is expected around the end of next year overtake Windows XP as =
the
> most used version of Windows.

This would make sense.  It assumes that roughly 250 million Windows XP
PCs will be replaced with 250 million PCs running Windows 7, or at
least LICENSED for Windows 7.  Keep in mind that Microsoft only needs
to count how the machines were originally licensed to claim victory.

> According to Microsoft, 94% of PC users
> satisfied with Windows 7 and will be 88% of companies in 2011 to switch t=
o
> Windows 7.

Consumers don't really care which system they use.  As long as they
can get a PC that will do what they need to do - for around $400, they
will probably just use whatever came with the PC.

Corporate customers, on the other hand, have to install corporate
images anyway.  They have already purchased "perpetual" licenses to
Windows XP - as part of a concession for long term support contracts
which promised upgrades to "LongHorn" that weren't delivered and
weren't wanted.

If Microsoft wants to keep corporate customers happy with Windows 7,
they will pretty much have to "give it away" just to keep their market
share.

We've already seen fragmentation of the browser market.  Microsoft now
has to deal with corporate customers who MUST use IE6 (because of
VBScript and JavaScript incompatibilities), and others who stayed with
IE7 and others who are auto-upgrading to IE-8 but have already made it
corporate policy that FireFox is their "Corporate Browser".

Many corporate customers are looking at Linux and many are prepared to
opt for Windows XP on Linux if Microsoft doesn't give them a deal they
like for Windows 7.  Even if there is a transition to Windows 7, it's
likely to be a much more gradual shift.  Corporations don't want to
make the massive expense of an upgrade, typically 20% of payroll, or
50% of profits (100% of dividends) - to pay for a "urgent upgrade" to
the next versions of Windows.

Keep in mind that many banks and insurance companies were still using
Windows 2000 as late is 2009.  And many were so disappointed with
Vista that they began looking more seriously at Linux.

> --
> Linux has 100% Desktop marketshare in.................... North Korea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS

Which is why they could test Nukes without us knowing?
  Talk about security and privacy!

You might want to drop that signature.

Rex
http://www.open4success.org

"Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:8a5f6147-b875-4af3-8462-7c527dc5a9f6@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 4:03 pm, "Clogwog" <clog...@anon.eu> wrote:
> http://bit.ly/eAsApp


10 pages of worthless lies. zero facts or proof.

On 12/13/2010 9:17 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:03 pm, "Clogwog"<clog...@anon.eu>  wrote:
>> http://bit.ly/eAsApp
>

<snipped>

I am sick of you Rex. I am sick of you and your history lessons. You are 
not worth a read anymore. If someone has read one of your history 
lessons, they have read them all, including any ones you post in the future.

On 13/12/2010 18:57, Big Steel wrote:

>
> I am sick of you Rex.

So as a blind  windows fanatic, why are YOU even here?

On 12/13/2010 1:10 PM, Gordon wrote:
> On 13/12/2010 18:57, Big Steel wrote:
>
>>
>> I am sick of you Rex.
>
> So as a blind windows fanatic, why are YOU even here?

What fucking business is it of yours? You should keep your place, 
because I don't need to scrape you off of my shoe.

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:ie4qgj$r2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 12/12/2010 14:10, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:idtsf9$39n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to see the ACTUAL revenue generated by all
>>>> those copies of Windows 7 compared to the BUDGETED revenue - I bet
>>>> there's a substantial difference...
>>>
>>> The operating income for the Windows division at Microsoft is over a
>>> billion dollars a month, Gordon, so you can start with that. This is
>>> money that they took to the bank after deducting their expenses but
>>> before paying their taxes. Go figure.
>>
>> Another financially-ignorant idiot along the lines of hardon.
>> Money banked does NOT necessarily equal sales revenue (ever heard of 
>> selling on credit?)  and CERTAINLY doesn't have anything to do with 
>> BUDGETED sales revenue.
>
> You seem to be an idiot, Gordon.  Have you had this problem for a very long 
> time or is it something new?
>
> No one seems to have heard of "budgeted sales revenue", with or without 
> caps.  Do you perhaps mean "projected sales" as often mentioned in corporate 
> statements to financial analysts?  MSFT has been "beating the street" as of 
> late in this regard as well.  Where have you been hiding? 

Gortard was a bean counter for some high street stationers or something
and thinks he's Warren Buffet. He is on record as calling me an idiot
for thinking that data mining results influence sales campaigns. In
short you are correct. He IS an idiot.

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8ml312Fd0jU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On Friday 10 December 2010 00:30 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
>>>> after 20 years or more of trying?
>>>
>>> Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors 
>>> running
>>> Linux, for example.
>>
>> Actually, quite likely higher than the whole of Windows!
>>
>> The big change that's starting to happen though is that these Linux 
>> systems
>> (and Apple too), on smartphones, tablets, slates, netbooks, all-in-ones 
>> etc.
>> are now being used more and more to access the web.  Thus, we are starting
>> to see a change in the Web Stats - and the Windows boys don't like that 
>> one
>> little bit:-)
>>
>>
> You are losing the big picture, bb.  The only use for a market share value 
> is to determine where your product is in the market.  People who buy 
> computers do not check the web stats to see whether they should buy a Wintel 
> or a Mac or even a Lintel box, if they know what it is

Actually I politely disagree. People do indeed look to the stats to see
which is most used. They feel that other people making a decision cant
be all wrong to agree with.

On Monday 13 December 2010 13:37 amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> 
> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8ml312Fd0jU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On Friday 10 December 2010 00:30 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <OIydnYMfbPQFw5zQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2010 4:49 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let’s see, that is what ... 6% of the world’s computers?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see, that is what percentage of Linux below Windows 7 worldwide,
>>>> after 20 years or more of trying?
>>>
>>> Quite likely higher than Windows 7. Look at all the ARM processors 
>>> running
>>> Linux, for example.
>>
>> Actually, quite likely higher than the whole of Windows!
>>
>> The big change that's starting to happen though is that these Linux 
>> systems
>> (and Apple too), on smartphones, tablets, slates, netbooks, all-in-ones 
>> etc.
>> are now being used more and more to access the web.  Thus, we are 
starting
>> to see a change in the Web Stats - and the Windows boys don't like that 
>> one
>> little bit:-)
>>
>>
> You are losing the big picture, bb.  The only use for a market share value 
> is to determine where your product is in the market.  People who buy 
> computers do not check the web stats to see whether they should buy a 
Wintel 
> or a Mac or even a Lintel box, if they know what it is.  They look at 
their 
> perceptions of Mac vs Windows.  

Nobody, least of all me, suggested anything of the sort.
The statistics simply show what people are using, and in this case they show 
what people are using to access the web.

Phones per se are perhaps the least of Microsoft's worries in that respect 
at the moment, but increased use of other devices will I suspect be of 
considerable concern to them.  In particular, a very large proportion of 
these Other Devices tend to be not-Windows.
Granted, some will be "additional devices", but many will actually be 
replacing desktops/laptops.  That's not to say that the number of 
desktops/laptops will fall, merely that the number of desktops/laptops in 
use will not be as high as it would have been in their absence, and that 
will be to Microsoft's detriment.


> OTOH, when a company needs to see how it is 
> doing in the market, it will check the market statistics, but no one at 
> Microsoft is going to be misled by someone using a phone to connect to the 
> internet and think that Windows is losing market share.  They are not in 
the 
> same ball park or market.

It depends what you mean by "Windows losing market share".
As I say, it's not so much that they will sell less, but rather that they 
will sell less than they would have done had these alternative devices not 
been around.
Microsoft at the moment seems to be rather weak in this phones/slates area.  
I note your lack of concern, but I get the impression that Mr. Ballmer does 
not share it.
 
> The airlines do not worry about how many people drive from New York to 
> Chicago when they set up their schedules to compete with other airlines. 
> And people who want to go from one to the other are not swayed by how many 
> people might drive.  They have their own criteria for choosing the 
> conveyance.

An apt analogy, although you miss the point again, and fail to recognise the 
lesson!
Just go back a few decades.
The "new devices" that we are talking about are perhaps best considered in 
the light of the situation when travel was done by horse, stage-coach and 
train.  The Statistics for the New Devices (cars, and later aircraft) must 
have been of VERY great concern to the Microsoft Railway Company of the day 
- even though we all knew that the horse and its iron version were here 
forever :-)

On 13/12/2010 19:16, Big Steel wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 1:10 PM, Gordon wrote:
>> On 13/12/2010 18:57, Big Steel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am sick of you Rex.
>>
>> So as a blind windows fanatic, why are YOU even here?
>
> What fucking business is it of yours? You should keep your place,
> because I don't need to scrape you off of my shoe.

Lovely. One turd talking shit. Of course that's the stock MS employee 
reply isn't it - abuse instead of reason.

Gordon <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 13/12/2010 19:16, Big Steel wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 1:10 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2010 18:57, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sick of you Rex.
>>>
>>> So as a blind windows fanatic, why are YOU even here?
>>
>> What fucking business is it of yours? You should keep your place,
>> because I don't need to scrape you off of my shoe.
>
> Lovely. One turd talking shit. Of course that's the stock MS employee 
> reply isn't it - abuse instead of reason.

And you base that on what Gortard? How many "MS Employees" do YOU know?
Considering you were a bean counter you sure have a lot of opinions in
disciplines and arenas you clearly know nothing about. Still, being a
dishonest embittered turd like you seem to be is all part of being an
"advocate". What FOSS have you contributed to recently? All you seem to
do is talk nonsense about MS.

On 14/12/2010 09:34, Gordon wrote:

> On 13/12/2010 19:16, Big Steel wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 1:10 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2010 18:57, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sick of you Rex.
>>>
>>> So as a blind windows fanatic, why are YOU even here?
>>
>> What fucking business is it of yours? You should keep your place,
>> because I don't need to scrape you off of my shoe.
>
> Lovely. One turd talking shit. Of course that's the stock MS employee 
> reply isn't it - abuse instead of reason.

References: earthlink.com   Sounds like you're replying to one of the
troll Duane Arnold's nyms.

-- 
Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ie5a8o$j1h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 13/12/2010 13:42, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>> No one seems to have heard of "budgeted sales revenue", with or without
>> caps. Do you perhaps mean "projected sales" as often mentioned in
>> corporate statements to financial analysts? MSFT has been "beating the
>> street" as of late in this regard as well. Where have you been hiding?
>
> You obviously know NOTHING about the financial operations of businesses, 
> whether large or small.
> No I do NOT mean "projected" sales. Every business, whether large or small 
> makes an annual BUDGET of sales, cost of sales, overheads and net profit 
> BEFORE the financial year begins, based on market knowledge, possible 
> customer spends, any payroll and tax changes, and also inflation (amongst 
> a large number of factors). This is to measure performance against. In 
> addition, many businesses also have a rolling Forecast, which is updated 
> on a reporting period basis in order to ascertain how accurate the 
> budgeting process was in the first place.
>
> I mean comparing ACTUAL sales with BUDGETED sales. (Businesses also 
> compare actual with forecast and the prior year, but that's not such an 
> important measure)

Well, Gordo, I cannot help you if you insist on being so stupid.  Perhaps 
you should try to get into a real business school rather than continue to 
build these fantasies in your own head.
 

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:ie5a8o$j1h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 13/12/2010 13:42, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No one seems to have heard of "budgeted sales revenue", with or without
>>> caps. Do you perhaps mean "projected sales" as often mentioned in
>>> corporate statements to financial analysts? MSFT has been "beating the
>>> street" as of late in this regard as well. Where have you been hiding?
>>
>> You obviously know NOTHING about the financial operations of businesses, 
>> whether large or small.
>> No I do NOT mean "projected" sales. Every business, whether large or small 
>> makes an annual BUDGET of sales, cost of sales, overheads and net profit 
>> BEFORE the financial year begins, based on market knowledge, possible 
>> customer spends, any payroll and tax changes, and also inflation (amongst 
>> a large number of factors). This is to measure performance against. In 
>> addition, many businesses also have a rolling Forecast, which is updated 
>> on a reporting period basis in order to ascertain how accurate the 
>> budgeting process was in the first place.
>>
>> I mean comparing ACTUAL sales with BUDGETED sales. (Businesses also 
>> compare actual with forecast and the prior year, but that's not such an 
>> important measure)
>
> Well, Gordo, I cannot help you if you insist on being so stupid.  Perhaps 
> you should try to get into a real business school rather than continue to 
> build these fantasies in your own head.

He's not the brightest is he?