Microsoft Taking Official Petitions to Keep XP Alive

May 31, 200816 yr

David wrote:

> On May 31, 4:49 pm, Dave <nos...@biteme.com> wrote:

>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>

>>> Its never taken me ten minutes to boot any of my computers. What I will

>>> recommend is not to have a lot of stuff in your start menu Some people

>>> go crazy with that and thats a big problem whether you were running

>>> 95,98, XP, or Vista. It takes mine maybe 2 to 3 minutes max which is

>>> good time to get some coffee, use the can, or make a quick phone call.

>>> Then with Insight 10.0 and wireless router and the built in wireless

>>> card, we are ready to go.

>> My eeepc (screaming 630 Megahertz Celeron) goes from cold start to

>> Xubuntu in ca. 50 seconds. My full-on Ubuntu desktop takes 90 seconds,

>> with a 1.5 gHz Via C7.

>

> Dell, 2.2 Gig Pentium 4,

> One gig memory

> 7200 RPM Disk

> 35 Meg bus:

>

> 0 - XP Desktop == 33 seconds

>

> 0 - Ubuntu Login screen 28 seconds.

>

I use 12 Watts on my desktop tower.

Quote

Mark as Solution

May 31, 200816 yr

Pete KE9OA wrote:

>

> Linux is still my favorite operating platform, but unfortunately, it is

> incompatible with the electrical engineering programs that I use. When it

> eventually grows up, I thing Linux will be the way to go.

Adolescence? Prepubescence?

http://packages.ubuntu.com/gutsy/electronics/

Quote

Mark as Solution

May 31, 200816 yr

On May 31, 2:16 pm, "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungk...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@unixhome.net> wrote in message

>

> news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...

>

> > "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:zLmdnevejfyBJ9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@earthlink.com...

>

> >> "Dave" <nos...@biteme.com> wrote in message

> >>news:H7WdndbTffhKJdzVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com...

> >>> Billy Smith wrote:

>

> >>>>> B> I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web

> >>>> browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like

> >>>> what older models did. XP included.

>

> >>> You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less

> >>> risk and hassle.

>

> >> Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my

> >> machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software

> >> than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other

> >> computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for

> >> toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of

> >> what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of

> >> personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part

> >> of this decade.

>

> >> It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it

> >> Crap versus Mac.

>

> > Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you have

> > ever owned an Apple.

>

> > The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.

>

> I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the

> Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could allegedly

> do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A lot of glitz

> but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for the novice. I

> probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and I was none too

> impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft in anything. The

> only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids wanting to use it for

> graphics. For business operations, office work, etc, it was never worth

> anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the time of day for even audio

> listening or multimedia video and audio.

>

> If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't everyone

> in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in computers and a

> great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the computer industry, then

> Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the facts are that a Microsoft

> based system can be had for 300 to 1000 dolllars and a good one at that.

>

> What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in

> Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any

> Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general respect.

> You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating business

> environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux than Mac and

> thats sad.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

MAC/Apples has three problems to Real Growth and

becoming a the Premier World Wide Standard :

propioritory, Proprietary. PROPRIETARY ! -aka-

single-source, Single-Source. SINGLE SOURCE !

Microsoft 'only' tries to control the Software side or the

Hardware-&-Software Equation letting the Open Market

energize the Hardware side and overall creating a very

Dynamic Consumer and Business Market for their Product.

Microsoft does not Focus on Selling their Product to

Consumers they let an Infinite Number of Hardware

Product providers do that for them. While Apple is

basically a One Company Show in the Consumer

Market and tends to stagnate after a few months

to a year with each new product that is introduced.

The iPod is the Exception because the Apple Hardware

and Apple OS benefits from and Infinite Number of

Softwave Product providers with a near unlimited amount

of Songs and Music -plus- Apple has fround a way to

Monitize the Software side of the Market to make it a

Profit Center for this Business.

The iPhone is a Product whose Profitability is TBD.

it's a vision thing ~ RHF

.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

ANONYMOUS wrote:

> Whether or not Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP, there is

> nothing to stop you from using Windows XP for life. You can use it

> until you get fed up of it or until you feel that it is time to

> update your own IT skills and keep up with the rest of the world! Or

> you could go and live in Amazon Forest where they don't need

> computers <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7427417.stm>.

>

> You don't need MS agreement for this and if you need any assistance,

> you can always post your queries here and some crackpot like you will

> post a solution for you even if it is 31 May 2018!!

>

Right. I think you can still ask questions about Wordstar or VisiCalc.

And even get answers.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

>You can use it until you get fed up of it or until you feel

> that it is time to update your own IT skills and keep up with the rest of

> the world! Or

> you could go and live in Amazon Forest where they don't need computers

1. I don't consider Vista is crap it's just not worth the efforts as I

stated many times.

2. I don't consider its performance is so bad nor performance in terms of a

few seconds of difference is very critical for an average user.

3. I never challenged anyone who likes Vista and I am sure many will.

In particular, Vista presents no problem when people don't look into

productivity- and ROI-related questions and don't ask why do we need

computers in the first place?

But with all due respect, these questions tend to be asked by people with

more knowledge on both business and IT field and they are nothing like what

you've mentioned. On the contrary, those people you have mentioned usually

don't posses critical thinking capabilities and they don't ask why.

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message

news:4841C762.2BDFA2AD@EXAMPLE.COM...

>

> Whether or not Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP, there is nothing to

> stop you from

> using Windows XP for life. You can use it until you get fed up of it or

> until you feel

> that it is time to update your own IT skills and keep up with the rest of

> the world! Or

> you could go and live in Amazon Forest where they don't need computers

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7427417.stm>.

>

> You don't need MS agreement for this and if you need any assistance, you

> can always post

> your queries here and some crackpot like you will post a solution for you

> even if it is 31

> May 2018!!

>

> hth

>

> Clear Windows wrote:

>

>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/30/microsoft-taking-official-petitions-to-keep-xp

>>

>> If you can remember back a few weeks, Steve Ballmer went on record saying

>> that Microsoft would consider extending the life of Windows XP if enough

>> people asked for it. Afterall, many people don't want to upgrade to

>> Windows

>> Vista because they are perfectly content with XP. The problem was there

>> was

>> no way to ask for it. Sure, you could sign one of the many online

>> petitions,

>> but Microsoft considers those "non-official complaints" and the rest of

>> us

>> simply consider them silly.

>>

>> Well, word has been passed down to the tech support teams (and then on to

>> Neowin) that they are to begin logging any calls that come in for the

>> sole

>> purpose of requesting an extension to the retail life of Windows XP. The

>> calls will be logged and, if enough complaints are filed, Microsoft will

>> consider giving XP some more time (no pinky promises, though).

>>

>> If you wish to file an official petition yourself, you can simply call

>> the

>> Windows XP Home Edition support numbers for your country and let the

>> operator know that you wish to file an official complaint. Because we're

>> so

>> nice and want to save you the trouble, here are the numbers for a

>> majority

>> of Neowin's visitors:

>>

>> United States: (866) 234-6020

>> United Kingdom: 0870 60 10 100

>> Canada: (800) 936-8479

>>

>> If your country isn't listed, you can visit the Microsoft Support Site,

>> choose your country, choose Windows XP Home Edition as your product and

>> then

>> go to 'Contacts' for the appropriate support number.

>>

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Billy Smith wrote:

>

> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

> news:H7WdndbTffhKJdzVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com...

>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>

>>>> B> I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web

>>> browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like

>>> what older models did. XP included.

>>

>> You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less

>> risk and hassle.

>

> Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my

> machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software

> than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other

> computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for

> toilet paper.

http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-10878_11-5597-12.html

Some people like the Mac for toilet paper.

> Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of

> what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of

> personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part

> of this decade.

>

> It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it

> Crap versus Mac.

--

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Billy Smith wrote:

>

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...

> Billy Smith wrote:

>>

> How do you explain this?

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people

working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the case

of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that Microsoft

makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does have its use

and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for an operating

system. However, if you consider speed anything you should use Linux. Yet

when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will find that they

aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your drive to use both

Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with what you know.

For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no need

for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux based

systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the computer field

very well might get some usage out of it. For most people, they are content

in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and play applications.

Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run a

program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable uses

that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that advantage

because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of which I have

at least one in each operating system. You can put in any program that is

made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for converting your

system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its not really worth

the time for most people

If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that works

for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer user that

exists in the general public, then most people go for Microsoft. They're not

going to use Linux and I would venture than Microsoft is much more

recognizable than what Linux has been or probably will ever be.

Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going to

catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.

Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're still

stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I would

have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have to use

ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and it was a

joke for phone service but also their customer service section was

incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and know

what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics users,

game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for servers,

internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store here in

Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000 dollars when a

basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts. When Apple learns

to market their computers and systems correctly and produce something worth

really having, then they will take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer

competition wise.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

On May 31, 9:07 pm, Dave <nos...@biteme.com> wrote:

> Billy Smith wrote:

>

> How do you explain this?

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

- and how will Microsoft ad Intel respond to This :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

or this:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37677/113/

Nvidia is on the Horizon for Supercomputing, guys..

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

In article <P6ednWvt7dqlXdzVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@earthlink.com>,

Billy Smith <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the time of day for even audio

>listening or multimedia video and audio.

>

Lol. Ever hear of Pixar Studios? Guess what they do. And with

what.

>If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't everyone

>in the world switch to Macs.

Remember Betmax? The race is not always to the swift.

Followups to junk.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:P6ednWvt7dqlXdzVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

> news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...

>>

>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:zLmdnevejfyBJ9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>

>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

>>> news:H7WdndbTffhKJdzVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>> B> I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web

>>>>> browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like

>>>>> what older models did. XP included.

>>>>

>>>> You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less

>>>> risk and hassle.

>>>

>>> Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my

>>> machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software

>>> than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other

>>> computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for

>>> toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of

>>> what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of

>>> personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part

>>> of this decade.

>>>

>>> It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it

>>> Crap versus Mac.

>>

>> Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you have

>> ever owned an Apple.

>>

>> The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.

>

> I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the

> Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could allegedly

> do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A lot of

> glitz but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for the

> novice. I probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and I

> was none too impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft in

> anything. The only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids

> wanting to use it for graphics. For business operations, office work, etc,

> it was never worth anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the time of

> day for even audio listening or multimedia video and audio.

>

> If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't

> everyone in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in

> computers and a great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the

> computer industry, then Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the

> facts are that a Microsoft based system can be had for 300 to 1000

> dolllars and a good one at that.

>

> What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in

> Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any

> Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general respect.

> You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating business

> environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux than Mac

> and thats sad.

Apples market share is growing. Which stock would you rather own?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL#chart3:symbol=aaplrange=1ycompare=msftindicator=volumecharttype=linecrosshair=onohlcvalues=0logscale=onsource=undefined

Wall Street sees the numbers.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"RHF" <rhf-newsgroups@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:be1e828c-afba-46da-a4d4-bff69c349932@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

>MAC/Apples has three problems to Real Growth and

>becoming a the Premier World Wide Standard :

>propioritory, Proprietary. PROPRIETARY ! -aka-

>single-source, Single-Source. SINGLE SOURCE !

I agree with your statement, the proprietary locking comes at a cost.

Usually in a form of lack of competition. PCs have gone from IBM 8088

4.7MHz @ $8,000 to less than $600.

Software, namely Microsoft has done the opposite, abet not to the same

extreme.

That being said, Apples move to Intel chips makes this less so. Apple could

in theory from this point forward slowly start adding first class driver

support and shift modes out of hardware+software to just software.

Leaveraging the cost advantages of commodity PCs. In essense, todays Apple

is a PC, a modified and much more standaradized version, but a PC none the

less.

The future could get interesting fast.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

news:6bKdneoQktzGT9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@earthlink.com...

> Pete KE9OA wrote:

>>

>> Linux is still my favorite operating platform, but unfortunately, it is

>> incompatible with the electrical engineering programs that I use. When it

>> eventually grows up, I thing Linux will be the way to go.

>

> Adolescence? Prepubescence?

>

> http://packages.ubuntu.com/gutsy/electronics/

Probably is. A simple google search for "linux electrical engineering" gets

lots of hits.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>

> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...

>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>

>> How do you explain this?

>>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

>

> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people

> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the case

> of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that

> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does

> have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for an

> operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should use

> Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will find

> that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your drive to

> use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with what you

> know.

> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no

> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux

> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the computer

> field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people, they are

> content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and play

> applications.

>

> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run a

> program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable

> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that

> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of

> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any

> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for

> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its

> not really worth the time for most people

>

> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that

> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer

> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for Microsoft.

> They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than Microsoft is much

> more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably will ever be.

>

> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going

> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.

>

> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're

> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I

> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have

> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and it

> was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section was

> incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and know

> what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

>

> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics

> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for

> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store

> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000

> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.

> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and

> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until

> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.

If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it has

only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just on

the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is quite

mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always perpetually

evolve.

The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything

change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a

grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't

evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development has

ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next

disruption.

Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...

>

> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>

>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...

>>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>>

>>> How do you explain this?

>>>

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

>>

>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people

>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the

>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that

>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does

>> have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for

>> an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should

>> use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will

>> find that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your

>> drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with

>> what you know.

>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no

>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux

>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the

>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people,

>> they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and

>> play applications.

>>

>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run

>> a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable

>> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that

>> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of

>> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any

>> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for

>> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its

>> not really worth the time for most people

>>

>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that

>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer

>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for

>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than

>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably

>> will ever be.

>>

>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going

>> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.

>>

>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're

>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I

>> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have

>> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and

>> it was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section

>> was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and

>> know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

>>

>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics

>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for

>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store

>> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000

>> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.

>> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and

>> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until

>> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.

>

> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it

> has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

>

> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just

> on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is

> quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always

> perpetually evolve.

>

> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything

> change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a

> grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't

> evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development

> has ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next

> disruption.

>

> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.

>

You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging for

years, but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the

whole picture.

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Canuck57 wrote:

> I place it just on the heals of XP right now

The heals? In knew it was wounded!

mike

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Billy Smith wrote:

>

> "

> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no

> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux

> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the

> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most

> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for

> plug and play applications.

>

That's ridiculous. Unless you are gaming you don't need Windows. If

you're not editing video you don't need a Mac. For what most people do

on a computer (surf, mail, spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing,

media recording and playback, etc.) Linux does it faster, better and

100% cheaper.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

> news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...

>>

>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>

>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

>>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...

>>>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>>>

>>>> How do you explain this?

>>>>

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

>>>

>>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people

>>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the

>>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean

>>> that Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market.

>>> Linux does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be

>>> rather fast for an operating system. However, if you consider speed

>>> anything you should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC

>>> appplications, you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format.

>>> You can partition your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and

>>> Linux or you can stick with what you know.

>>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is

>>> no need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit

>>> Linux based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in

>>> the computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most

>>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works

>>> for plug and play applications.

>>>

>>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to

>>> run a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the

>>> applicable uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems

>>> have that advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98

>>> based software of which I have at least one in each operating system.

>>> You can put in any program that is made for that system and use it.

>>> That cannot be said for converting your system to Linux no matter how

>>> much faster it may be. Its not really worth the time for most people

>>>

>>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that

>>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general

>>> computer user that exists in the general public, then most people go

>>> for Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture

>>> than Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or

>>> probably will ever be.

>>>

>>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not

>>> going to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of

>>> computer users.

>>>

>>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're

>>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the

>>> Iphone. I would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone

>>> but when I have to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to

>>> have Cingular and it was a joke for phone service but also their

>>> customer service section was incompetent at best. I can actually pay

>>> my bill through Verizon and know what I actually owe. Nice concept

>>> isnt it.

>>>

>>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics

>>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for

>>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple

>>> store here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500

>>> to 2000 dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half

>>> those amounts. When Apple learns to market their computers and

>>> systems correctly and produce something worth really having, then

>>> they will take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer competition

>>> wise.

>>

>> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no,

>> it has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

>>

>> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it

>> just on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant,

>> XP is quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will

>> always perpetually evolve.

>>

>> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump

>> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as

>> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous

>> improvement, can't evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode.

>> Its active development has ceased! Understand that. They all moved

>> on to Win 7 for the next disruption.

>>

>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.

>>

>

First the fluff off:

> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging

> for years,

Then the put down:

> but only at user level mainly because users don't understand

> the whole picture.

No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other

versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a

bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP

General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM

was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that

distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to

configure and tweak.

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g1udpt$vdp$1@aioe.org...

> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

>> news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...

>>>

>>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>>

>>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...

>>>>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>> How do you explain this?

>>>>>

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

>>>>

>>>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people

>>>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the

>>>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that

>>>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux

>>>> does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather

>>>> fast for an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything

>>>> you should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC

>>>> appplications, you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format.

>>>> You can partition your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and

>>>> Linux or you can stick with what you know.

>>>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no

>>>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit

>>>> Linux based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the

>>>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most

>>>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works

>>>> for plug and play applications.

>>>>

>>>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to

>>>> run a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the

>>>> applicable uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have

>>>> that advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based

>>>> software of which I have at least one in each operating system. You can

>>>> put in any program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot

>>>> be said for converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster

>>>> it may be. Its not really worth the time for most people

>>>>

>>>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that

>>>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer

>>>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for

>>>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than

>>>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or

>>>> probably will ever be.

>>>>

>>>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not

>>>> going to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of

>>>> computer users.

>>>>

>>>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're

>>>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone.

>>>> I would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I

>>>> have to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have

>>>> Cingular and it was a joke for phone service but also their customer

>>>> service section was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill

>>>> through Verizon and know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

>>>>

>>>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics

>>>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for

>>>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple

>>>> store here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to

>>>> 2000 dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those

>>>> amounts. When Apple learns to market their computers and systems

>>>> correctly and produce something worth really having, then they will

>>>> take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.

>>>

>>> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it

>>> has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

>>>

>>> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it

>>> just on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP

>>> is quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always

>>> perpetually evolve.

>>>

>>> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump

>>> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as

>>> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous

>>> improvement, can't evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its

>>> active development has ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to

>>> Win 7 for the next disruption.

>>>

>>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the

>>> garborator.

>>>

>>

>

> First the fluff off:

>

>> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging

>> for years,

>

> Then the put down:

>

>> but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the whole

>> picture.

>

> No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other

> versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a

> bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP

> General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM

> was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that

> distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to

> configure and tweak.

>

> Alias

For now Linux is seeing better times, but Vista has hoisted the hardware

requirements, and in a couple of years from now, many will have upgraded

their computers. Vista will have improved enough that it is the force to be

reckoned with, and then Windows 7 will release, easily able to run on the

same hardware as Vista.

In the meantime, Linux will make inroads in third world countries where

cheap equipment is all that can be afforded.

The only problem is that the Linux distros trying to compete with Windows

and MacOS get heavier at each release, and may well find themselves out of

the third world 'game'.

You really ought to prepare yourself for disappointment because the gains

seen now may not last long.

Also, the world of Linux distro creation is fast moving. Ubuntu is doing ok

now, but Linux fashions are as fickle as any catwalk display, especially at

home user level.

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Microsoft of course. If you don't mind losing your money, buy apple.

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

news:GJt0k.181226$Cj7.99089@pd7urf2no...

>

> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:P6ednWvt7dqlXdzVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>

>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

>> news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...

>>>

>>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>> news:zLmdnevejfyBJ9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>>

>>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:H7WdndbTffhKJdzVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com...

>>>>> Billy Smith wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> B> I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web

>>>>>> browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like

>>>>>> what older models did. XP included.

>>>>>

>>>>> You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less

>>>>> risk and hassle.

>>>>

>>>> Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of

>>>> my machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing

>>>> software than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like

>>>> that other computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a

>>>> Mac for toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do

>>>> 1/3 of what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a

>>>> lot of personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and

>>>> early part of this decade.

>>>>

>>>> It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it

>>>> Crap versus Mac.

>>>

>>> Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you

>>> have ever owned an Apple.

>>>

>>> The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.

>>

>> I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the

>> Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could

>> allegedly do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A

>> lot of glitz but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for

>> the novice. I probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and

>> I was none too impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft

>> in anything. The only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids

>> wanting to use it for graphics. For business operations, office work,

>> etc, it was never worth anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the

>> time of day for even audio listening or multimedia video and audio.

>>

>> If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't

>> everyone in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in

>> computers and a great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the

>> computer industry, then Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the

>> facts are that a Microsoft based system can be had for 300 to 1000

>> dolllars and a good one at that.

>>

>> What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in

>> Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any

>> Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general

>> respect. You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating

>> business environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux

>> than Mac and thats sad.

>

> Apples market share is growing. Which stock would you rather own?

>

> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL#chart3:symbol=aaplrange=1ycompare=msftindicator=volumecharttype=linecrosshair=onohlcvalues=0logscale=onsource=undefined

>

> Wall Street sees the numbers.

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message

news:A7idnR83wvfSN9_VnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@earthlink.com...

> Billy Smith wrote:

>>

>> "

>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no

>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux

>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the

>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people,

>> they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and

>> play applications.

>>

> That's ridiculous. Unless you are gaming you don't need Windows. If

> you're not editing video you don't need a Mac. For what most people do on

> a computer (surf, mail, spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing,

> media recording and playback, etc.) Linux does it faster, better and 100%

> cheaper.

Linux word processes faster? Will my 30 wpm speed increase if I use Open

Office in Ubuntu?

Who are you to say whether computers users need Windows or MacOS? Isn't the

Linux argument all about giving users freedom of choice without prejudice?

Windows took off because it captured the imagination of everybody. It was

and is commercially and economically possible to write programs for Windows

and MacOS for a living, and as a result, the choice of slick programming is

way better for Windows and MacOS, and it always will be.

Computer users will use whatever OS suits them best, which is how it should

be..

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message

news:OpeRDj%23wIHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.

>

> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging for

> years, but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the

> whole picture.

Most people who spend $1000 for a nice system for home don't know how to

replace or dual boot and install another OS. They just assume the OS is a

native part of the computer. WinMe, I gave it about the same amount of time.

I gave OS2 about the same too. Loved OS2, but the driver support was just

too bad for it to be useful. And I get calls from non-tech friends and

relatives, unanimous, Vista is not the best.

Users (technical or not) understand the _full_ picture absolutely. For

without users, there would be absolutely no need for Microsoft. Microsoft

is in a false sense of security because of the monopoly position with PC

vendors, but with Eee PC (Linux) and a hoard of new systems like it the base

is crumbling.

Problem is Redmond wants to lead myopically and push customers, not service

their needs. They want to pump profits in a commodity market by fast

regurgitation of old tech making it unstable. And are now failing. It will

be slow to start, like the mainframe. But Microsoft zenith has passed if

they don't change course fast.

People are tired of the crash learn of big changes. If they have to, it had

better be cheap.

Businesses are balking at the fast expensive refresh cycle. They expect a

2-3 year old device to work with a PC today. This is NOT unreasonable.

Would you buy a car you couldn't get tires or spare parts for in as little

as 3 years? Or a car that needed a major over haul every 3 years? This is

why many businesses still run W2000.

Software, including the OS needs to be a series of smaller, more planned and

evolutionary steps. Vista is a complete failure in this regard. Thus,

continuous improvement of unfinished Vista is improbable. Just minimal

patchwork. It is in "maintenance" mode while everyone runs off to Win 7.

A few suggestions to Microsoft:

We know you know your software market has hits it's elasticity of growth in

dollars and cents. Software, including the OS is now going to follow

hardware as a commodity item. Microsoft aught to gear for this now, and not

wait for 4 quarters of declining revenue to hear the wake up call.

Evolve the OS with compatibility in mind, perhaps on a subscription basis.

But don't expect $300/3 years for Vista. It needs to be like $20/year tops.

When you buy a PC it is prepaid for 3 years, like a car warranty. Ditto

MS-Office. Only rich fools go out and buy the full MS-Office ultimate.

Let the user chose, loose the WeSaySo corporation attitude. Users know what

they want. This means XP will not die until the users don't want it any

more. Even Ford still makes a Taurus. And due to it's popularity and

longevity, I can still get parts for it 12 years later.

Simplify licensing. Your own people don't understand it very well. Quit

packaging a product like Vista 17 different ways confusing everyone. An OS

isn't a Lamborghini. And it will never sell like it either.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:50:16 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

<mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

>"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message

>> No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other

>> versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a

>> bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP

>> General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM

>> was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that

>> distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to

>> configure and tweak.

>>

>> Alias

>

>For now Linux is seeing better times, but Vista has hoisted the hardware

>requirements, and in a couple of years from now, many will have upgraded

>their computers. Vista will have improved enough that it is the force to be

>reckoned with, and then Windows 7 will release, easily able to run on the

>same hardware as Vista.

Vista will have improved enough?

Funny to watch fanboys change their tune as they constantly move the

goal posts. I though Vista was already the greatest version of Windows

ever. If so, why does it need to improve?

After all that was the song you guys were humming over a year ago.

However now that Vista has been out awhile and proved to be just

another bloated, poorly implemented, bug riddled, sluggish pile of

coding mistakes like every prior version of Windows before it was, you

now say wait to the next version. I'll say one thing good about you

Mike, you sure know how to repeat the party line issued from Redmond.

Microsoft has been saying the same thing for over two decades... just

wait for the next version of Windows, it will knock your socks off.

Sure, right. Only problem is I like tens of millions of others are

tired of waiting and being disappointed over and over again. People

are more seriously starting to look at alternatives to Windows.

>In the meantime, Linux will make inroads in third world countries where

>cheap equipment is all that can be afforded.

You really are clueless and dense on world events aren't you. Would

you consider China third world? Are you sitting down? Right now China

has over 300,000,000 MIDDLE CLASS citizens and that number is growing

at explosive rates. That's as many middle class as the entire

population of the United States. Are you aware Russia soon might have

more millionaires then there are in the United States? Their middle

class is exploding too. While Windows "sales" in China is a drop in

the bucket they already have more Internet users than in the United

States. Hint: Those people are running all those computers on

something, and it isn't paid for copies of Windows.

The reality is Microsoft's time in the sun is fading. That is why

Ballmer tried, but failed to take over Yahoo, to start building a new

cash stream since people are fed-up giving Microsoft piles of money

for one broken OS version after another.

Microsoft's other cash cow Office, has been equaled or surpassed by

FREE Office alternatives. That's not good news for Microsoft either.

Their two biggest product lines, Windows and Office are showing signs

of cracking.

You know what the biggest sign of Microsoft's pending doom really is?

Simple. That would be Bill Gates founder getting ready to throw in the

towel. His belly no longer burns for Microsoft. He's more than willing

to give Microsoft over to flimflam artists like Ballmer while he

starts to give away his billions. That surely can't be good for

Microsoft's future. No, not when the founder only 53 year old decides

he's had enough. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall clearer than

anybody.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 1, 200816 yr

Your argument is totally ridiculous. The primary reason for Microsoft's

popularity is simply because it is so flexible.

What do you want your computer to do? Microsoft's OS does it. Who uses

Microsoft's OS? Everyone. Corporations and businesses alike.

Can't you get that through your head?