Well, I suggest you reread your article in the first place
"the world's largest software maker will use cash and stock to pay part of the $31 a share it has bid for Yahoo in the biggest technology takeover ever. It will raise the rest in a debt sale"
> I would like to know the oppinion of some crappy-Vista sympathizer folks > about that....
> Regards,
> Alexandre Machado
Very conclusive article specially when it comes from a widely known linux zealot aka Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Oh, c´mon!!
I may agree that Windows Vista consumes a lot of resources and this is a serious problem. But I cannot agree that Vista´s security is a joke. Vista´s security is a huge improvement for the Windows platform. Just check how many critical security flaws were issued for Windows Vista Ubuntu, SUSE or Fedora and you will see that Vista´s security is rock solid.
> Well, I suggest you reread your article in the first place
> "the world's largest software maker will use cash and stock to pay part of > the $31 a share it has bid for Yahoo in the biggest technology takeover > ever. It will raise the rest in a debt sale"
> so, where is the cash coming from ?
Remember I had said:
>> In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which >> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft >> received. (and explained it mostly would go to pay salaries and expenses)
And jumped up and said:
> they try to throw it at Yahoo!
Microsoft has long been cash rich and their latest balance sheet shows Cash And Cash Equivalents plus Short Tem Investments totaling $20.6 billion. And as the Bloomburg article said part will come from selling bonds. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT
You really think Vista is going to provide $22.3 billion for the cash portion of the takeover? ;-)
DS wrote: > "Henrick Hellström" <henr...@streamsec.se> je napisal v sporocilo > news:47acf399$1@newsgroups.borland.com ... >> Sure, but being the latest version of Windows, with a combined usage >> of over 90%, one ought to have expected it to grow even faster in a >> year. Windows XP was released October 2001, and in one and a half year >> it had climbed to a 29% usage.
> Well, for one, XP was first »NT« based Windows with 'home edition' > available.
> This replaced 98 (and horror called ME), and provided much improved user > experience. I don't see such huge leap from XP -> Vista, so it's quite > reasonable to expect slower adoption rates.
I think you have to break down the number even further before they start to make sense. Most home users buy OEM versions of Windows, which they do when they buy a new computer. All other things equal, you would expect hardware retailers to throw in the latest version of Windows available. Hence, if we assume corporate customers have been upgrading from XP to Vista in 2007 with the same pace they upgraded from 2000 to XP in 2002 (or else something else is wrong), we have to assume either of the following:
* Win 9x made was so bad it made home users think they needed new computers even though they shouldn't have * In 2002 there was some other, external reasons for home users to buy new computers at a higher pace than expected (such as, due to the evolution of the Internet it started to make sense for people who never had a home computer before to get one; the hardware got cheaper; etc) * In 2002 practically no new home computers were sold with ME OEM installed, but in 2007 a large portion were sold with XP OEM installed. Why?
Dominic Willems wrote: >> And seriously, if you care for those things why would you go to >> Vista to get a half baked copy when the Mac OSX original is obviously >> superior:
> If there is any superiority in interaction, it's only a very recent > evolution, and by no means perpetual, I think.
LOL! If you needed a desktop computer back in '88 or even '96 and you yourself made the decision to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
> LOL! If you needed a desktop computer back in '88 or even '96 and you > yourself made the decision to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most > likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
Almost anyone who bought either a PC or Apple twenty years ago was classified as either a geek or nerd or both. ;-)
I.P. Nichols wrote: > In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which > Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft > received. Most of it went to pay employee salaries and infrastructure > costs with some also going to reward investors. However you split the > pie, most of it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe > their families, pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their > taxes, etc. Society benefits from such enterprise.
> Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being > sold those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how > would the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and > clothe their families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving > aside the Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100 > million copies of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?
"seamus" wrote: > I.P. Nichols wrote: >> In the last year 100 million Vista licenses have been sold for which >> Microsoft received a "gob" of money. What happens to the money Microsoft >> received. Most of it went to pay employee salaries and infrastructure >> costs with some also going to reward investors. However you split the >> pie, most of it ends up in the pockets of employees who feed and clothe >> their families, pay their mortgages, educate their children, pay their >> taxes, etc. Society benefits from such enterprise.
>> Question - if instead of 100 million boxes with Vista licenses being sold >> those 100 million boxes were sold with Linux factory installed how would >> the people who developed Linux be rewarded? How do they feed and clothe >> their families, pay mortgages and educate their children? Leaving aside >> the Richard Stallman arguments, how does society benefit from 100 million >> copies of Linux which the FOSS developers provided for free?
> Ah, The Broken Windows Fallacy! :)
LOL!
Question - If all software was FOSS since the establishment of The Free Software Foundation in 1985 who would be developing software all those many years just to give away the fruits of his labor? What would be the state of the art today without the for-profit software that has resulted from the Wintel monopoly? And lastly, without Vista what would we have to moan and whine about, Ubuntu? ;-)
Dominic Willems wrote: > Henrick Hellström wrote: >> to buy a PC instead of a MAC you were most >> likely a geek or a nerd. ;)
> Or someone with two neurons to rub together. :)
Seriously, though, in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the desktop market in Sweden. The typical user was a University student, primarily due to competitive discounts offered by the reseller. If you were a student and had a PC you probably (a) belonged to those who built your own spectrum when you were 12, and (b) bought a second hand compaq from some local company.
I.P. Nichols wrote: > And lastly, without Vista what would we have > to moan and whine about, Ubuntu? ;-)
Probably, yes, but isn't that an integral part of the Linux community culture? The fact that people have to search and ask for drivers for particular hardware is what binds the community together, and if you are just complaining about the lack of drivers without being prepared to develop them yourself or pay someone for it you are a n00b. ;)
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear) wrote: > Henrick Hellström wrote: >> Seriously, though, in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the >> desktop market in Sweden.
> I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
> I didn't see many Macs at all in Sweden in the late '80s, early '90s > or any other time.
IIRC there were some 10000 MAC users in Lund alone, which, at the time, was a fairly large percentage of the total number of desktop computer users in the entire country. PCs dominated other segments.
Henrick Hellström wrote: > in the late '80s and early '90s MAC dominated the > desktop market in Sweden.
Wow.
> The typical user was a University student, > primarily due to competitive discounts offered by the reseller. If > you were a student and had a PC you probably (a) belonged to those > who built your own spectrum when you were 12, and (b) bought a second > hand compaq from some local company.
Odd. The typical student here thought that a 5-inch bundle of black and white pixels was just too much of a hassle, and they didn't always have a paperclip handy to operate the appliance. <eg>
> Dunno bout other companies. For mine it offers 0 benefits > and lots of headaches. I actually stocked up some XP > licenses.
How do you plan to use that stock of XP licenses. Buy new boxes from someone like Dell or HP and replace the factory installed Vista or build your own new boxes or sell them next year on eBay? ;-)
> How do you plan to use that stock of XP licenses. Buy new boxes from > someone like Dell or HP and replace the factory installed Vista or build > your own new boxes or sell them next year on eBay? ;-)
I'd never buy brand name system, it is just a waste of money. All the components are available in Chinatown computer district for much cheaper price. As for why I stock licenses, it seems that over the time I need more and more computers.
"Henrick Hellström" wrote: > I.P. Nichols wrote: >> And lastly, without Vista what would we have to moan and whine about, >> Ubuntu? ;-)
> Probably, yes, but isn't that an integral part of the Linux community > culture? The fact that people have to search and ask for drivers for > particular hardware is what binds the community together...
And all this time I thought it was their virulent hatred of Microsoft. ;-)
> * In 2002 there was some other, external reasons for home users to buy new > computers at a higher pace than expected (such as, due to the evolution of > the Internet it started to make sense for people who never had a home > computer before to get one; the hardware got cheaper; etc)
This seems quite right.
I remember that around that time period people and companies were constantly upgrading hardware and buying new one. Practically each new release of big sofware suites (as f.e. Office) made using them on even two year old mid-range PCs somewhat painfull experience.
This trend seems to have slown down somewhat - you can pretty much get away with using 4-5 year old PC now.
Of course, Vista sets bar much higher, especially for those 'business' PCs with integrated graphics controllers. I guess many people just don't see need to upgrade.
> Hardly matters now the deal has fell through, but I was > fauvoring you Bruno ;-)
The deal hasn't fallen through, as expected the Yahoo BOD wants more premium, $40 vs $31/share that is offered and intend to notify Microsoft on Monday that they reject the $31 offer. They have a real dilemma on their hands, no one else is likely to come anywhere near Microsoft's offer yet Yahoo is unlikely to convince their share holders that they can resituate the company and meanwhile their friendly white knight Google is gleefully over the excitement of possibly securing Yahoo's share of the search market and sticking a thumb in Microsoft's eye. One way or another Yahoo's goose is gonna get roasted.
|
