So how is Microsoft going to counter the $50 Netbooks?
Fritz Wuehler
So how is Microsoft planning to counter these? With a $600 Windows 7 Netbook with 1GB of RAM, a 80GB hard disk and a nVidia GPU? At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7, which will crush their revenue and profits and force them to make choices, just like any 'normal' company. They won't be able to fund pet projects indefinitely and may have to give up on Internet search completely.
Terry Porter
Hash: SHA1
Fritz Wuehler wrote:
Probably by using the same bully boy tactics as always ?
1) Close distribution channels
2) Lobying governments etc
4) FUD via fake grass roots orgs
Then they go broke ....
- --
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklnPIIACgkQcdP5ryw/tH+j3wCeOUqs0YKHgESYRBYhUgASyzg1
xXAAn2XZW3e6eGL+sc5h7CUpyIt8AfRV
=BCiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hadron
writes:
> During 2009 the world will see $50 Netbooks appear in stores around
> the world. With ultra easy-to-use user interfaces and being limited to
> web browsing (but including Flash and Flash video), e-mailing, instant
> messaging (including Skype), PDF viewing and word processing plus some
> simple games. But this will be enough for millions and millions of
> people and these machines will be completely free of viruses and
> malware.
Yes, but as the consumers choice of XP has shown it wont be enough and
will in no way impact the purchase of "real" computers for doing
the books, screwing to the desk at him, playing games, organising photos
(most people still dont make use of free web based storage).
>
> So how is Microsoft planning to counter these? With a $600 Windows 7 Netbook with 1GB of RAM, a 80GB hard disk and a nVidia GPU? At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7, which will crush their revenue and profits and force them to make choices, just like any 'normal' company. They won't be able to fund pet projects indefinitely and may have to give up on Internet search completely.
>
I'm not sure if, under your latest nym, you are trying to be dimmer than
usual, but the netbook novelty has seen some interesting
developments. And cheapest is not one of them. It has shown that people
really do want a "real computer". A lot saw the netbook as something for
nothing and soon got a surprise when they realised they could not play
GTA IV on the move on them. Frankly I believe the Linux ones are more
than adequate for most people but unfortunately entrenched thinking,
laziness on their parts and a desire to stick with what they know and
the SW they already own means that the XP version wins hands down.
I think the 50 dollar netbook will be a novelty and will ultimately fail
as people realise they dont need email 24x7 and dont like the limited
functionality.
--
- "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
"we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
High Plains Thumper
> Fritz Wuehler writes:
>
>> During 2009 the world will see $50 Netbooks appear in stores
>> around the world. With ultra easy-to-use user interfaces and
>> being limited to web browsing (but including Flash and Flash
>> video), e-mailing, instant messaging (including Skype), PDF
>> viewing and word processing plus some simple games. But this
>> will be enough for millions and millions of people and these
>> machines will be completely free of viruses and malware.
>
> Yes, but as the consumers choice of XP has shown it wont be
> enough and will in no way impact the purchase of "real"
> computers for doing the books, screwing to the desk at him,
> playing games, organising photos (most people still dont make
> use of free web based storage).
Ah, so Hadron comes to the defense of Windows again, so willing
is he to defend the Windows shillness he is.
>> So how is Microsoft planning to counter these? With a $600
>> Windows 7 Netbook with 1GB of RAM, a 80GB hard disk and a
>> nVidia GPU? At the very least they will have to continue
>> selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and much lower
>> profit margins) than Windows 7, which will crush their
>> revenue and profits and force them to make choices, just
>> like any 'normal' company. They won't be able to fund pet
>> projects indefinitely and may have to give up on Internet
>> search completely.
>
> I'm not sure if, under your latest nym, you are trying to be
> dimmer than usual,
Again, with an inability to read headers, Hadron accuses the
poster as a nymshifter, adds ad hominem, accusing of lack of
intelligence. This is not the first time:
[quote]
Hadron wrote:
> I assume from your inability to understand the simplest of
> threads that your first language is not English. And for that,
> I apologise unreservedly for pointing out the holes in your
> vapid posts.
Oh, so now we've gone from idiot to racist, excellent advocacy,
eh Hadron?
[quote]
> but the netbook novelty has seen some interesting
> developments. And cheapest is not one of them. It has shown
> that people really do want a "real computer". A lot saw the
> netbook as something for nothing and soon got a surprise when
> they realised they could not play GTA IV on the move on them.
This hypothesis assumes that all people want a powerful gaming
computer. Not all are into real time 3D action simulation games.
> Frankly I believe the Linux ones are more than adequate for
> most people but unfortunately entrenched thinking, laziness on
> their parts and a desire to stick with what they know and the
> SW they already own means that the XP version wins hands down.
Again, Hadron puts in another barb for Windows, inferring Linux
inferiority.
> I think the 50 dollar netbook will be a novelty and will
> ultimately fail as people realise they dont need email 24x7
> and dont like the limited functionality.
Again, Hadron downplays that capability of these netbooks. Price
is definitely a factor. Netbooks are far more capable than just
E-mail. Windows grew more bloated, requiring more hefty hardware
to support it. Linux in contrast supports other architectures,
runs leaner, giving the same performance capabilities.
There is a reason for this cheerleading. At $50 to $100 a pop,
Microsoft will have difficulty competing. The only way they have
been able to compete is lower the price of XP to that which it
would have been priced at any way, if there were true competition
and not a monopoly.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
[quote] It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not
found to have been illegally acquired, see United States v.
Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to
have been illegally maintained. [/quote]
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
--
HPT
amicus_curious
"Fritz Wuehler" <fr...@spamexpire-200901.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in message
news:bdf325de062d4caa...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
the world's cheapskates are satisfied with a $50 product, that will surely
sound the death knell for Microsoft's ability to sell Windows7 for any
significant amount of money. Microsoft will just have to virtually give it
away and pray that there are still enough customers for conventional
notebooks and desktops in order to continue their highly profitable business
there.
When you speculate on all this, you can almost see where the cheap netbook
is a form of attack on Apple that is doubtless being underwritten by secret
Microsoft funding. By destroying the price umbrella for portable computers,
Apple is crushed, but Microsoft, with essentially zero replication cost for
its software, can ride out the storm until it once again has the means to
effect some useful price realization from a system that would remain
dependent on Windows.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> Fritz Wuehler writes:
>>
>>> During 2009 the world will see $50 Netbooks appear in stores
>>> around the world. With ultra easy-to-use user interfaces and
>>> being limited to web browsing (but including Flash and Flash
>>> video), e-mailing, instant messaging (including Skype), PDF
>>> viewing and word processing plus some simple games. But this
>>> will be enough for millions and millions of people and these
>>> machines will be completely free of viruses and malware.
>>
>> Yes, but as the consumers choice of XP has shown it wont be
>> enough and will in no way impact the purchase of "real"
>> computers for doing the books, screwing to the desk at him,
>> playing games, organising photos (most people still dont make
>> use of free web based storage).
>
> Ah, so Hadron comes to the defense of Windows again, so willing
> is he to defend the Windows shillness he is.
Where was I defending Windows?
I said "real computers". This includes Linux desktops.
You really need help.
With regard to my comment on XP above that was clearly in relation to
the netbooks and their preference for bigger hard drives and non tied
down OSen. I highly disapprove of the attempt by SOME Linux netbook
distros to lock them down and limit what people can do.
>
>>> So how is Microsoft planning to counter these? With a $600
>>> Windows 7 Netbook with 1GB of RAM, a 80GB hard disk and a
>>> nVidia GPU? At the very least they will have to continue
>>> selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and much lower
>>> profit margins) than Windows 7, which will crush their
>>> revenue and profits and force them to make choices, just
>>> like any 'normal' company. They won't be able to fund pet
>>> projects indefinitely and may have to give up on Internet
>>> search completely.
>>
>> I'm not sure if, under your latest nym, you are trying to be
>> dimmer than usual,
>
> Again, with an inability to read headers, Hadron accuses the
> poster as a nymshifter, adds ad hominem, accusing of lack of
> intelligence. This is not the first time:
What inability to read headers? What headers? What are you talking
about?
You really are not the sharpest knife in the draw High Plains
Hypocrite. You need to go back to sniffing leather in "reeky".
amicus_curious
"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gk7mh9$6vv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> There is a reason for this cheerleading. At $50 to $100 a pop, Microsoft
> will have difficulty competing. The only way they have been able to
> compete is lower the price of XP to that which it would have been priced
> at any way, if there were true competition and not a monopoly.
>
You are such a bright fellow that it is hard to understand how you can hold
such an unenlightened theory of the markets. If such a beast as the $50
netbook ever comes to be, Microsoft will surely be willing to sell their
wares at whatever price they can justify. Do you not think that OEMs and
customers both will see any value in having an OS that provides
functionality compatible with their past experience? The price for more
functional machines will allow for a higher margin for the OS software as
well.
Products are priced at perceived value points, not cost points. If
something costs me two cents and is worth a dollar, I am going to sell it
for a dollar, since people are going to be willing to pay for what it is
worth. Perhaps I could stimulate sales by offering it at 50 cents, and
increase my overall profit if, say, sales quadrupled at the lower price, but
I am never going to offer it for two cents.
The OEMs are not interested in killing their markets and are not going to do
so, in spite of what you hope for.
Tim Smith
"amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
> When you speculate on all this, you can almost see where the cheap netbook
> is a form of attack on Apple that is doubtless being underwritten by secret
> Microsoft funding. By destroying the price umbrella for portable computers,
You are joking, but if cheap netbooks hurt (or even threaten to hurt)
Apple sales, you will see people say Microsoft is behind it, just like
we did with some of the more loony "advocates" and the claim that
Microsoft is behind Psystar.
--
--Tim Smith
chrisv
Shouldn't you be airing-out your bloomers right now, Timmy?
Matt
> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
chrisv
Don't hold your breath, buddy.
--
"Why would you recommend a non-perfect solution?" - Erik Funkenbusch
ZnU
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
To the extent that NetBook purchases replace sales of conventional
computers at all (which I think they mostly don't), they're replacing
purchases of $700 Windows laptops, not $2000 MacBook Pros.
Apple's price points have been remarkably stable over the last several
years. In fact, in some segments they've even moved up-market. For
instance, they used to offer mid-range towers, now they only sell
high-end towers. Despite this, the Mac's unit sales growth has been
quite strong.
The emergence of a growing low-end market doesn't really seem to do
anything to damage the mid-range and high-end markets.
Perhaps Apple will eventually decide to play in the NetBook market. And
when they do, they will have certain advantages over other players;
they're among the best in the industry at portable hardware, their OS is
more user-friendly than Linux, and unlike the OEMs shipping
Windows-based NetBooks, they won't have to pay an external supplier for
the OS. They also have an extremely strong consumer brand name and all
those nice Apple stores where people can play around with their stuff.
But I doubt Apple is feeling a huge amount of actual pressure from the
low-end.
Linux-based NetBooks are much more of a threat to Microsoft than to
Apple, for two reasons. First, simply Microsoft *does* sell into the
low-end market at present, whereas Apple mostly doesn't. Secondly and
more importantly, because unlike the Mac, which people generally choose
for its own technical and aesthetic merits, people generally choose
Windows primarily because of advantages that arise from it being the
world's dominant operating system -- primarily its hardware and
application compatibility. If Linux manages to emerge as a major force
in the NetBook market, vendors may start building value networks around
it, releasing more Linux drivers and applications and eroding
Microsoft's advantage in this area. That's Microsoft's worst nightmare.
--
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all
things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in
our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your
answer." -- Barack Obama, November 4th, 2008
ZnU
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is true that NetBook enthusiasm might wane as more users switch to
using laptops as their primary computers. A NetBook is a nice mobile
compliment to a fully-featured desktop. But if your main computer is a
fully-featured laptop... well, some such users might still want NetBooks
because of the increased portability, but the marginal utility is
significantly lower.
William Poaster
He did similar in aolu too. Quotes can be supplied :-)
>> but the netbook novelty has seen some interesting developments. And
>> cheapest is not one of them. It has shown that people really do want a
>> "real computer". A lot saw the netbook as something for nothing and soon
>> got a surprise when they realised they could not play GTA IV on the move
>> on them.
>
> This hypothesis assumes that all people want a powerful gaming computer.
> Not all are into real time 3D action simulation games.
>
>> Frankly I believe the Linux ones are more than adequate for most people
>> but unfortunately entrenched thinking, laziness on their parts and a
>> desire to stick with what they know and the SW they already own means
>> that the XP version wins hands down.
>
> Again, Hadron puts in another barb for Windows, inferring Linux
> inferiority.
'Twas ever thus.
>> I think the 50 dollar netbook will be a novelty and will ultimately fail
>> as people realise they dont need email 24x7 and dont like the limited
>> functionality.
>
> Again, Hadron downplays that capability of these netbooks. Price is
> definitely a factor. Netbooks are far more capable than just E-mail.
> Windows grew more bloated, requiring more hefty hardware to support it.
> Linux in contrast supports other architectures, runs leaner, giving the
> same performance capabilities.
>
> There is a reason for this cheerleading. At $50 to $100 a pop, Microsoft
> will have difficulty competing. The only way they have been able to
> compete is lower the price of XP to that which it would have been priced
> at any way, if there were true competition and not a monopoly.
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
>
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
>
> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
>
> MEMORANDUM OPINION
>
> [quote] It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found to
> have been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d
> 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally maintained.
> [/quote]
>
> COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
> United States District Judge
--
No room for the horrors
of Micro$oft here!
-- Stephen Fry - Room 101 --
Sinister Midget
> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
> I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
That's the party line. The truth is it *is* Vista, warts 'n' all. Only
maybe more costly and missing a couple of minor bugs.
--
"Andrew Lloyd Webber's music is everywhere, but so is AIDS.
--Malcolm Williamson
Tim Smith
Sinister Midget <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
> > I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
>
> That's the party line. The truth is it *is* Vista, warts 'n' all. Only
> maybe more costly and missing a couple of minor bugs.
So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of technology
is known to be rather poor, or the several reviews that have been
published by people running betas, said reviews disagreeing with
Sinister Midget's claims. Hmmmm.....this is an easy choice.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
No, it is not.
I would believe those claims of W7 being faster than Vista when some
institution/magazine etc I trust publishes it. With the final version.
"Reviews by people running betas" is worthless at best.
Nobody can say for sure what will be in the final version, as MS pulled
that "remove feature X"trick far too often with vista. Why trust them that
W7 will be anything like the current beta?
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
Doug Mentohl
> .. the several reviews that have been published by people running betas ..
said COLAs chief Linux Advocate ..
Terry Porter
> In article <9a8l36-...@home.harry.net>,
> Sinister Midget <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
>> > I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
>>
>> That's the party line. The truth is it *is* Vista, warts 'n' all. Only
>> maybe more costly and missing a couple of minor bugs.
>
> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget,
Is that a trick question ?
OF COURSE we will believe Sinister Midget, he has credibility on COLA.
Sadly, I cant say the same about you, being a Wintroll. Nothing personal.
> whose understanding of technology
> is known to be rather poor,
Hahaahahaahah, SPLORF!
Straight out of the wintroll FUD book.
STEVE! book this troll half a days pay, for a third rate effort.
You know Microsoft can't afford to waste money on FUDsters who don't get
results, with the ship going down and all that ?
> or the several reviews that have been
> published by people running betas, said reviews disagreeing with
> Sinister Midget's claims. Hmmmm.....this is an easy choice.
Absolutely.
I was easily able to chose the word of Sinister Midget over the layers of
fake grass roots windows fanboys trolling COLA about Vista 7.
Terry Porter
You spelt it wrong Doug, it's spelt this way 'COLAs chief wintroll" :)
DFS
> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of
> technology is known to be rather poor,
Nobody can unscrew an oil filter and drain plug faster than Gidget.
Sinister Midget
There were a lot of raves about Vista when it wasn't released yet. Even
some of the PC rags had glowing reviews. Look what happened to that.
Some of those same rags are calling Windows 7 "Vista in a new dress"
(my wording, their sentiment).
It matters not what a bunch beta-testers and shills have to say about a
non-release. If the publishing reviewers say it's nothing new, that
carries more weight than all of the basement dwellers and paid shills
combined. And it's still beta anyway, so how it ends up is still a
little more open, although MS seems to like to get the good press
*before* things ship and people find out it's not as good as they read
from the reviewers, basement dwellers and shills.
Maybe it won't be a dog when it starts shipping. But it will probably
have to be in beta for a long, long time if that's the goal.
Timmy has trouble following through to achieve rational thoughts.
Unlike his namesake (and character evidently modeled after Timmy Smith)
on South Park. He has no historical base since his world begins anew
daily.
--
I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when
you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really
terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right.
-- Frank Zappa
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Fritz Wuehler writes:
>>>
>>>> During 2009 the world will see $50 Netbooks appear in
>>>> stores around the world. With ultra easy-to-use user
>>>> interfaces and being limited to web browsing (but
>>>> including Flash and Flash video), e-mailing, instant
>>>> messaging (including Skype), PDF viewing and word
>>>> processing plus some simple games. But this will be
>>>> enough for millions and millions of people and these
>>>> machines will be completely free of viruses and malware.
>>>> So how is Microsoft planning to counter these? With a
>>>> $600 Windows 7 Netbook with 1GB of RAM, a 80GB hard disk
>>>> and a nVidia GPU? At the very least they will have to
>>>> continue selling XP for eternity at much lower cost (and
>>>> much lower profit margins) than Windows 7, which will
>>>> crush their revenue and profits and force them to make
>>>> choices, just like any 'normal' company. They won't be
>>>> able to fund pet projects indefinitely and may have to
>>>> give up on Internet search completely.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if, under your latest nym, you are trying to
>>> be dimmer than usual,
>>
>> Again, with an inability to read headers, Hadron accuses the
>> poster as a nymshifter, adds ad hominem, accusing of lack of
>> intelligence. This is not the first time:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3a24nk
>>
>> [quote] Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I assume from your inability to understand the simplest of
>>> threads that your first language is not English. And for
>>> that, I apologise unreservedly for pointing out the holes
>>> in your vapid posts.
>>
>> Oh, so now we've gone from idiot to racist, excellent
>> advocacy, eh Hadron? [quote]
>
> He did similar in aolu too. Quotes can be supplied :-)
Like?
[quote]
Hadron wrote:
> It IS because of him and two other useless people in
> particular (CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens
> (probably both Willy nyms) that I started to drift from the
> Ubuntu fan boy zone.
"I got my ass kicked up around my shoulders in AOLU, so in a lame
attempt to hide the ass-kicking I received and deserved, I puffed
out my hollow chest, chortled 'victory' and acted like I walked
away from the group."
[/quote]
:-)
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
William Poaster
He blasted some foreign poster, who did not have English as his first
language. He thus received this reply from an aolu regular:-
> Like?
<quote>
You fucking hypocritical Bitch... When I and NoStop had an issue with
this guy's lack of ability to use and understand English, you jumped all
over us for not being understanding enough. Now, here you are /all/ over
him about his spelling & grammar.
Oh, and when making a spelling or grammar flame, it is best to use proper
spelling /yourself/. Such as capitalization...
Now, please feel free to FOAD...
<unquote>
From: Joe
Message-ID: <172dnaLqc-Oam_Pa...@giganews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Subject: Re: Here's One for the COLA Crowd
> http://tinyurl.com/5fyhev
>
> [quote]
> Hadron wrote:
>> It IS because of him and two other useless people in particular
>> (CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens (probably both Willy nyms)
>> that I started to drift from the Ubuntu fan boy zone.
>
> "I got my ass kicked up around my shoulders in AOLU, so in a lame attempt
> to hide the ass-kicking I received and deserved, I puffed out my hollow
> chest, chortled 'victory' and acted like I walked away from the group."
> [/quote]
>
> :-)
And in reply to Quack:
<quote>
And /yes/, you were soundly trounced regarding OSS and upgrades, and
no amount of pretending you weren't will change the sad reality for
you. No amount of stomping your feet and creaming "Ib nowt!" will
make it go away. /You/ got so /thoroughly/ trounced, troll.
Now FOAD.
<unquote>
From: <Anonymous>
Thursday 20 March 2008
alt.os.linux.ubuntu
RonB
> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of technology
> is known to be rather poor...
You forgot to add "...according to WinTrolls like me..."
But let me try this...
So, who to believe... Tim Smith, whose understanding of technology is known to be rather poor...
Yeah, that's easy to write. It doesn't mean a hell of a lot, but what difference does that make to FUDdites and WinTrolls?
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
And nobody can make absolutely no sense faster than DFS.
Hadron
RonG, you really look rather silly calling Tim technically poor since
time and time again he displays comprehensive knowledge of SW and
Development whereas you are clearly clueless and are merely a recently
converted Windows user who has developed a fanboy fetish for Linux.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of
>>> technology is known to be rather poor,
>>
>> Nobody can unscrew an oil filter and drain plug faster than Gidget.
>
> And nobody can make absolutely no sense faster than DFS.
Gidget the Jiffy Lube associate takes pride in his ability to change a
customer's oil quicker than anyone else in his family.
Sinister Midget
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of
>>> technology is known to be rather poor,
>>
>> Nobody can unscrew an oil filter and drain plug faster than Gidget.
>
> And nobody can make absolutely no sense faster than DFS.
Doofie is jealous. He's only making $8.47/hour at Burger King. He'd
*kill* for the $10-15/hour the people at Jiffy Lube get. If only he
hadn't wasted his time on Excel, he might have a better-paying job
changing toner and ink cartridges.
--
If classical music is the state of the art, then the arts are in a sad
state.
-- Frank Zappa
Sermo Malifer
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
>> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
>
> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
> I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
Who cares? Linux does the job for free.
Hadron
Why don't you use Linux then? Or is not doing YOUR job for free?
,----
| User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
`----
--
"Unfortunately, once again, the user-unfriendly dirtware sucks so bad it's
hard to prove how bad it sucks."
-- "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> writes:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for
>>>> eternity at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than
>>>> Windows 7,
>> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
>>
>>> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the
>>> hardware?
>> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
>>
>>> I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
>> Who cares? Linux does the job for free.
>>
>>
>
> Why don't you use Linux then?
On a $50 Netbook? I will when they go up for sale.
Otherwise I use Linux when I can.
> Or is not doing YOUR job for free?
I have no idea what you're asking me.
>
> ,----
> | User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
> `----
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/#1.1.14
You can get it for yourself there.
Hadron
Crikey. A new whoosh level.
--
"True. Due to a lack of competition, there essentially have been no
improvements to Microsoft's operating system and office software. It
just works."
-- High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Sermo Malifer
> In article <reply_in_group-EEB...@news.supernews.com>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <49674c00$0$19451$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>> When you speculate on all this, you can almost see where the
>>> cheap netbook is a form of attack on Apple that is doubtless
>>> being underwritten by secret Microsoft funding. By destroying
>>> the price umbrella for portable computers,
>> You are joking, but if cheap netbooks hurt (or even threaten to
>> hurt) Apple sales, you will see people say Microsoft is behind it,
>> just like we did with some of the more loony "advocates" and the
>> claim that Microsoft is behind Psystar.
>
> To the extent that NetBook purchases replace sales of conventional
> computers at all (which I think they mostly don't), they're replacing
> purchases of $700 Windows laptops, not $2000 MacBook Pros.
There's an assortment of laptops for $500. Please explain how a $50
Netbook can take the place of those, let alone a $700 notebook that
would include more hardware.
<snip>
Sermo Malifer
You'll have to make a point before it can whoosh over my head.
Hadron
He was not referring to the 50$ netbook was he?
--
"If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
Hadron
Sermo Malifer
The point is you know how to copy and paste?
Sermo Malifer
Is there anything else in the thread title?
Hadron
Are you being purposely dim?
It's called a thread.
--
"Vista actually requires more ram than a 32bit cpu can
address."
-- A Z Nomad in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
Sermo Malifer
I've done my fair share of reading, and copy and pasting.
Were you going to get around to making a point?
Sermo Malifer
It's not like I'm the one who needed to be told what ZnU was referring
to. He has made the same remark at least twice in this thread.
> It's called a thread.
Ask whoever told you that to tell you about titles and context.
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
I was referring to the NetBooks on the market right now (note the use of
present tense), which are more typically in the $200-400 range.
--
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all
things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in
our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your
answer." -- Barack Obama, November 4th, 2008
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> >
> >> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
> >> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
>
> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
>
> >
> > What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
>
> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
That depends on how much money Microsoft expects to get for Windows on a
$50 computer.
Remember, Microsoft already makes lots of money on Windows. If they
wanted to, they could make it free or nearly free for very low end
computers. And it would benefit them to do so; Microsoft would much
rather have users running a free version of Windows than a free version
of Linux. They don't make money from either one, but the free version of
Windows strengthens Microsoft's market position, while the free version
of Linux erodes it.
And Microsoft isn't going to be stupid about this. You know what
Microsoft charged for XP on the OLPC machine? $3. (No, that's not a typo)
> > I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
>
> Who cares? Linux does the job for free.
--
Sermo Malifer
It would have been nice if you had said so earlier, given the thread
title.
You still need to explain why $200-$400 Netbooks would hurt $700 PC
laptop sales, which are machines that come with more hardware then a
$2000 MacBook Pro, but not take any sales away from the MacBook Pro.
Sermo Malifer
> In article <gkfuir$26l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
>>>> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
>> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
>>
>>> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
>> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
>
> That depends on how much money Microsoft expects to get for Windows on a
> $50 computer.
Do they expect to get $0.00? I don't think so.
> Remember, Microsoft already makes lots of money on Windows. If they
> wanted to, they could make it free or nearly free for very low end
> computers. And it would benefit them to do so; Microsoft would much
> rather have users running a free version of Windows than a free version
> of Linux.
It's a specious argument to say it would be better for Microsoft to give
away free Windows for $50 Netbooks than to sell Windows for $700 laptops.
> They don't make money from either one, but the free version of
> Windows strengthens Microsoft's market position, while the free version
> of Linux erodes it.
Netbooks haven't eroded anything. They're a new computing category,
not a replacement for better notebook computers.
> And Microsoft isn't going to be stupid about this. You know what
> Microsoft charged for XP on the OLPC machine? $3. (No, that's not a typo)
Please document your claim.
Sermo Malifer
> On 2009-01-10, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> claimed:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, who to believe...Sinister Midget, whose understanding of
>>>> technology is known to be rather poor,
>>> Nobody can unscrew an oil filter and drain plug faster than Gidget.
>> And nobody can make absolutely no sense faster than DFS.
>
> Doofie is jealous. He's only making $8.47/hour at Burger King. He'd
> *kill* for the $10-15/hour the people at Jiffy Lube get. If only he
> hadn't wasted his time on Excel, he might have a better-paying job
> changing toner and ink cartridges.
Remarks like that only degrade the person who made them, and bring down
the quality of the NG.
chrisv
>Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>> Doofie is jealous. He's only making $8.47/hour at Burger King. He'd
>> *kill* for the $10-15/hour the people at Jiffy Lube get. If only he
>> hadn't wasted his time on Excel, he might have a better-paying job
>> changing toner and ink cartridges.
>
>Remarks like that only degrade the person who made them, and bring down
>the quality of the NG.
? It seemed about "par for the course" in this NG... 8)
Sinister Midget
If "Sermo" doesn't like it, (s)he can find h[is|er] way out of here the
same way (s)he found h[is|er] way in.
--
No change in musical style will survive unless it is accompanied by a
change in clothing style. Rock is to dress up to.
-- Frank Zappa
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
Because a $700 laptop used to be the bottom of the market. A certain
fraction of buyers at the bottom of the market are there because they
simply buy the cheapest thing they can find. When even cheaper choices
emerge, they're likely to switch to them instead.
> which are machines that come with more hardware then a
> $2000 MacBook Pro, but not take any sales away from the MacBook Pro.
Irrelevant to the above argument even if true, which is isn't.
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <gkfuir$26l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
> >>>> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
> >> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
> >>
> >>> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
> >> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
> >
> > That depends on how much money Microsoft expects to get for Windows on a
> > $50 computer.
>
> Do they expect to get $0.00? I don't think so.
>
> > Remember, Microsoft already makes lots of money on Windows. If they
> > wanted to, they could make it free or nearly free for very low end
> > computers. And it would benefit them to do so; Microsoft would much
> > rather have users running a free version of Windows than a free version
> > of Linux.
>
> It's a specious argument to say it would be better for Microsoft to give
> away free Windows for $50 Netbooks than to sell Windows for $700 laptops.
Good thing I never made such an argument.
> > They don't make money from either one, but the free version of
> > Windows strengthens Microsoft's market position, while the free version
> > of Linux erodes it.
>
> Netbooks haven't eroded anything. They're a new computing category,
> not a replacement for better notebook computers.
>
> > And Microsoft isn't going to be stupid about this. You know what
> > Microsoft charged for XP on the OLPC machine? $3. (No, that's not a typo)
>
> Please document your claim.
http://gizmodo.com/391054/windows-xp-on-olpc-xo-laptop-now-official
"The price increase for the OLPC loaded with XP will be about $3 on top
of the $200 price tag. Users who want a dual boot version to the OLPC
will pay $7 extra. The XP operating system will come preloaded on an
additional 2GB flash chip, offering 3GB of storage space total (1.5
usable after OS install)."
You know, rereading that, I might have it wrong. It might be the case
that Microsoft provided Windows for free and there's simply a $3 charge
for installation.
Either way, it's foolish to expect Microsoft to sit around completely
paralyzed as Linux takes over a substantial market segment when a simple
change in pricing policy would have a substantial chance of preventing
such a takeover.
Remember, it's writing software that Microsoft isn't very good at.
Clever maneuvering to destroy competition in the OS market... that's
their specialty.
> >>> I thought it was supposed to be a lot smaller and faster than Vista.
> >> Who cares? Linux does the job for free.
--
Sermo Malifer
> In article <gkieq0$tnl$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <gkfuir$26l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
>>>>>> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
>>>> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
>>>>
>>>>> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
>>>> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
>>> That depends on how much money Microsoft expects to get for Windows on a
>>> $50 computer.
>> Do they expect to get $0.00? I don't think so.
You didn't answer this, and below you even deny talking about it!
>>> Remember, Microsoft already makes lots of money on Windows. If they
>>> wanted to, they could make it free or nearly free for very low end
>>> computers. And it would benefit them to do so; Microsoft would much
>>> rather have users running a free version of Windows than a free version
>>> of Linux.
>> It's a specious argument to say it would be better for Microsoft to give
>> away free Windows for $50 Netbooks than to sell Windows for $700 laptops.
>
> Good thing I never made such an argument.
I don't see how you can deny it with your argument still present above
in this post.
>>> They don't make money from either one, but the free version of
>>> Windows strengthens Microsoft's market position, while the free version
>>> of Linux erodes it.
>> Netbooks haven't eroded anything. They're a new computing category,
>> not a replacement for better notebook computers.
>>
>>> And Microsoft isn't going to be stupid about this. You know what
>>> Microsoft charged for XP on the OLPC machine? $3. (No, that's not a typo)
>> Please document your claim.
>
> http://gizmodo.com/391054/windows-xp-on-olpc-xo-laptop-now-official
>
> "The price increase for the OLPC loaded with XP will be about $3 on top
> of the $200 price tag. Users who want a dual boot version to the OLPC
> will pay $7 extra. The XP operating system will come preloaded on an
> additional 2GB flash chip, offering 3GB of storage space total (1.5
> usable after OS install)."
>
> You know, rereading that, I might have it wrong. It might be the case
> that Microsoft provided Windows for free and there's simply a $3 charge
> for installation.
You don't know how much Microsoft was paid for Windows on the OLPC, all
you know is $3 more was added to the final price. Somebody might be
underwriting the rest of the increased cost, or they could be doing it
for a tax write-off.
> Either way, it's foolish to expect Microsoft to sit around completely
> paralyzed as Linux takes over a substantial market segment when a simple
> change in pricing policy would have a substantial chance of preventing
> such a takeover.
That would be the market segment that replaces $700 PC laptops with $200
-$400 Netbooks running free copies of Windows, but keeps on buying $2000
MacBook Pros?
> Remember, it's writing software that Microsoft isn't very good at.
Microsoft has written lots of good software.
> Clever maneuvering to destroy competition in the OS market... that's
> their specialty.
So far the only such "maneuvering" has been what you suggested they
ought to do!
Gregory Shearman
> On 2009-01-13, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> claimed:
>> Sermo Malifer wrote:
>>
>>>Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doofie is jealous. He's only making $8.47/hour at Burger King. He'd
>>>> *kill* for the $10-15/hour the people at Jiffy Lube get. If only he
>>>> hadn't wasted his time on Excel, he might have a better-paying job
>>>> changing toner and ink cartridges.
>>>
>>>Remarks like that only degrade the person who made them, and bring down
>>>the quality of the NG.
>>
>> ? It seemed about "par for the course" in this NG... 8)
>
> If "Sermo" doesn't like it, (s)he can find h[is|er] way out of here the
> same way (s)he found h[is|er] way in.
...from under the bridge.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <gkieq0$tnl$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>> In article <gkfuir$26l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> >>> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Matt wrote:
> >>>>> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> At the very least they will have to continue selling XP for eternity
> >>>>>> at much lower cost (and much lower profit margins) than Windows 7,
> >>>> If you're talking about paying much more than $50 for the Netbook.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What is your reasoning for that? W7 will be too much for the hardware?
> >>>> There's no money in the $50 price to pay M$ for W7.
> >>> That depends on how much money Microsoft expects to get for Windows on a
> >>> $50 computer.
> >> Do they expect to get $0.00? I don't think so.
>
> You didn't answer this, and below you even deny talking about it!
The subject of Microsoft giving Windows away was already addressed
further down in the original post. I saw no need to repeat those
comments in the reply.
> >>> Remember, Microsoft already makes lots of money on Windows. If they
> >>> wanted to, they could make it free or nearly free for very low end
> >>> computers. And it would benefit them to do so; Microsoft would much
> >>> rather have users running a free version of Windows than a free version
> >>> of Linux.
> >> It's a specious argument to say it would be better for Microsoft to give
> >> away free Windows for $50 Netbooks than to sell Windows for $700 laptops.
> >
> > Good thing I never made such an argument.
>
> I don't see how you can deny it with your argument still present above
> in this post.
So I can apparently add you to the list of COLA posters with serious
reading comprehension problems, then.
What I say above... and I'm a little confused about why I have to say it
again, because it is, as you note, quoted directly above, is not that
Microsoft would rather give Windows away for $50 computers than sell it
for $700 computers, but that Microsoft would rather have users running
free Windows on $50 computers than running free Linux on $50 computers.
If a market for $50 computers develops, Microsoft won't have the option
of making it go away so people have to buy $700 laptops with paid copies
of Windows again, you see. Microsoft doesn't control the hardware market.
> >>> They don't make money from either one, but the free version of
> >>> Windows strengthens Microsoft's market position, while the free version
> >>> of Linux erodes it.
> >> Netbooks haven't eroded anything. They're a new computing category,
> >> not a replacement for better notebook computers.
> >>
> >>> And Microsoft isn't going to be stupid about this. You know what
> >>> Microsoft charged for XP on the OLPC machine? $3. (No, that's not a typo)
> >> Please document your claim.
> >
> > http://gizmodo.com/391054/windows-xp-on-olpc-xo-laptop-now-official
> >
> > "The price increase for the OLPC loaded with XP will be about $3 on top
> > of the $200 price tag. Users who want a dual boot version to the OLPC
> > will pay $7 extra. The XP operating system will come preloaded on an
> > additional 2GB flash chip, offering 3GB of storage space total (1.5
> > usable after OS install)."
> >
> > You know, rereading that, I might have it wrong. It might be the case
> > that Microsoft provided Windows for free and there's simply a $3 charge
> > for installation.
>
> You don't know how much Microsoft was paid for Windows on the OLPC, all
> you know is $3 more was added to the final price. Somebody might be
> underwriting the rest of the increased cost, or they could be doing it
> for a tax write-off.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4938 describes it as "Microsoft's $3
software package"
You're grasping at straws.
> > Either way, it's foolish to expect Microsoft to sit around completely
> > paralyzed as Linux takes over a substantial market segment when a simple
> > change in pricing policy would have a substantial chance of preventing
> > such a takeover.
>
> That would be the market segment that replaces $700 PC laptops with $200
> -$400 Netbooks running free copies of Windows, but keeps on buying $2000
> MacBook Pros?
Huh? No, they're different market segments. That's the whole point. The
"buy the cheapest laptop available" market segment has virtually no
overlap with the MacBook Pro's market segment, because the MacBook Pro
is not now, and has never been, the cheapest laptop available.
> > Remember, it's writing software that Microsoft isn't very good at.
>
> Microsoft has written lots of good software.
>
> > Clever maneuvering to destroy competition in the OS market... that's
> > their specialty.
>
> So far the only such "maneuvering" has been what you suggested they
> ought to do!
Except for the example of the OLPC. And the fact that Microsoft already
offers a discounted version of Windows (~$30) for existing $200-400
NetBook models.
Sermo Malifer
> In article <gkic4v$qf6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <gkg2i4$7t8$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> There's an assortment of laptops for $500. Please explain how a $50
>>>> Netbook can take the place of those, let alone a $700 notebook that
>>>> would include more hardware.
>>> I was referring to the NetBooks on the market right now (note the use of
>>> present tense), which are more typically in the $200-400 range.
>> It would have been nice if you had said so earlier, given the thread
>> title.
>>
>> You still need to explain why $200-$400 Netbooks would hurt $700 PC
>> laptop sales,
>
> Because a $700 laptop used to be the bottom of the market.
"The market?" The netbook market is not the same as the laptop market.
Netbooks for $200-400, barring some need for tiny size, aren't a good
deal against what you can get in a $500 laptop, such as the ones I
showed you.
> A certain
> fraction of buyers at the bottom of the market are there because they
> simply buy the cheapest thing they can find. When even cheaper choices
> emerge, they're likely to switch to them instead.
I doubt any such people exist. Products have to fill a need, not just
be cheap.
>> which are machines that come with more hardware then a
>> $2000 MacBook Pro, but not take any sales away from the MacBook Pro.
>
> Irrelevant to the above argument
No it's not.
> even if true, which is isn't.
It's absolutely true.
>
ZnU
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <gkic4v$qf6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>> In article <gkg2i4$7t8$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> >>> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> There's an assortment of laptops for $500. Please explain how
> >>>> a $50 Netbook can take the place of those, let alone a $700
> >>>> notebook that would include more hardware.
> >>> I was referring to the NetBooks on the market right now (note the
> >>> use of present tense), which are more typically in the $200-400
> >>> range.
> >> It would have been nice if you had said so earlier, given the
> >> thread title.
> >>
> >> You still need to explain why $200-$400 Netbooks would hurt $700
> >> PC laptop sales,
> >
> > Because a $700 laptop used to be the bottom of the market.
>
> "The market?" The netbook market is not the same as the laptop
> market.
You're begging the question.
> Netbooks for $200-400, barring some need for tiny size, aren't a good
> deal against what you can get in a $500 laptop, such as the ones I
> showed you.
It depends on the user's needs.
DFS
Neither the person who made them or the newsgroup can sink any lower, so
it's really no problem.