Edwin Digest: 830 million workstations
Sandman
Edwin posted this:
<1108685158....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Where this link was found:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Death-of-the-Workstation-40091.html
Which has this quote:
"The semi-annual JPR Workstation Report found that 830 million
workstations were shipped in the first half of 2004. Out of that
number, PC-derived workstations accounted for approximately 92 percent
of units and 84 percent of revenue."
Now, this quote claims that there was 830 _million_ _workstations_ (i.e. not
PCs) sold in _the first half_ of 2004 (i.e. in 6 months).
Clearly this number is totally bogus, and when told so, Edwin prevailed and
defended the number, or rather said that in order to "prove" (as if it needed
to be disproved) it wrong, we would have to come up with a counter-reference.
Merely referencing logic will not do for Edwin.
Alan Baker actually did the math:
<alangbaker-218BD...@news.telus.net>
"'According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, the total population of the World, projected to 2/22/05 at
23:52:06 GMT (2/22/05 at 6:52:06 PM EST) is 6,420,413,288'
Now, this next part might be hard for you, but try and follow along:
6,420,413,288 / 830,000,000 = 7.735,
or -- just as I said -- 1 workstation for every 8 people (rounded to the
nearest whole number) on Earth. Adults, children, living in poverty
Africa... ...whatever."
And
<alangbaker-E0D5A...@news.telus.net>
"30% of the Earth's population is age 14 and under and another 7% is age
65 plus (source: Population Reference Bureau's 2004 World Population
Data Sheet), but you seem to think it sensible for there to have been a
workstation sold for every 2.5 people on Earth, age 15 to 64? That's
SOLD in 2004. Even as a figure for workstations in *use* it's obviously
ludicrous.
Roughly half of the Earth's population lives in urban environments (48%,
actually), so now we're looking at 1.2 billion people as the potential
market for workstations. Do you see such workstations everywhere, Edwin.
Because you would; brand new workstations for every urban adult in the
entire world."
Edwin Clearly states that his personal belief aren't important:
<1109269618.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"You're not going to get to shift this topic from your failure to
document workstation sales to talking about my personal beliefs."
So how come this erroneous number snuck into an editorial piece like that?
Well, it seems to a be a widely misquoted number, these sites have quoted the
exact same story in the exact same erroneous way:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=98659
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041029085707196
http://marketdata.qtrade.ca/newspaper.asp?Story=20041029/303b2994.xml
And of course the source Edwin quoted:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Death-of-the-Workstation-40091.html
So, apart from relying on actual logic, do we know that this number isn't what
the report found (i.e. that it isn't a misquote, but rather a misprint in the
report)? Well, we could always link to the actual original report.
As it is, the Jon Peddie Report (JPR) summary is actually available here, on
the original site:
http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/Workstation_2ndEd.shtml
Where it clearly says 830,000 - Ooops! And I think Alan Baker said it best:
<alangbaker-86F5D...@news.telus.net>
"Here we go again with you defending an utterly idiotic position to your
last breath. At which point, you'll finally admit you're wrong with
extreme bad grace, *JUST LIKE ALWAYS*!"
I wonder if we'll see a public apology by Edwin now? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
TravelinMan
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I doubt it. He'll just fall back on 'it wasn't my number, anyway, so it
doesn't matter if it's wrong'.
thor...@juno.com
Sandman wrote:
> Welcome to the lastest Edwin digest.
>
> Edwin posted this:
>
> <1108685158....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> Where this link was found:
>
>
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Death-of-the-Workstation-40091.html
>
> Which has this quote:
>
> "The semi-annual JPR Workstation Report found that 830 million
> workstations were shipped in the first half of 2004. Out of that
> number, PC-derived workstations accounted for approximately 92
percent
> of units and 84 percent of revenue."
>
> Now, this quote claims that there was 830 _million_ _workstations_
(i.e. not
> PCs) sold in _the first half_ of 2004 (i.e. in 6 months).
That quote claims it. Not me.
> Clearly this number is totally bogus,
As if that declaration were enough to disprove the figure.
> and when told so, Edwin prevailed and
> defended the number,
Yet another of your enumerable lies, Jonas. When "told so" I said more
was required than the say-so of those who disagreed with the figure.
> or rather said that in order to "prove" (as if it needed
> to be disproved) it wrong, we would have to come up with a
counter-reference.
Yes, it needed to be proven wrong, or disproved, whichever way you want
to state it, by hard facts.
> Merely referencing logic will not do for Edwin.
Merely pulling stuff out of your arse will not do it.
This of course only displays Alan Baker's limited computer knowledge
and worldview, his idea that there is one workstation per user. He
can't envision uses of workstations that would leave them unmanned for
a good part of the time, if not most of the time.
> Edwin Clearly states that his personal belief aren't important:
>
> <1109269618.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> "You're not going to get to shift this topic from your failure to
> document workstation sales to talking about my personal
beliefs."
Correct. If you want to disprove what I quoted, you do it with facts
and figures, not by shifting the discussion to my beliefs.
> So how come this erroneous number snuck into an editorial piece like
that?
> Well, it seems to a be a widely misquoted number, these sites have
quoted the
> exact same story in the exact same erroneous way:
>
> http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=98659
> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041029085707196
>
http://marketdata.qtrade.ca/newspaper.asp?Story=20041029/303b2994.xml
>
> And of course the source Edwin quoted:
>
>
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Death-of-the-Workstation-40091.html
Which goes to prove the repeated Maccie rant "Clearly this number is
totally bogus" was not so 'clear.'
> So, apart from relying on actual logic, do we know that this number
isn't what
> the report found (i.e. that it isn't a misquote, but rather a
misprint in the
> report)? Well, we could always link to the actual original report.
Yes, you could have made that link to the original report from the very
start, but Mac Advocates chose to spend days ranting instead.
> As it is, the Jon Peddie Report (JPR) summary is actually available
here, on
> the original site:
>
> http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/Workstation_2ndEd.shtml
>
> Where it clearly says 830,000 - Ooops! And I think Alan Baker said it
best:
Oops, indeed! That's the kind of proof Mac Advocates where asked for,
but they chose to attack me, rant and rave, to make up stories about
how many computers would be used by what people, and to make counts on
their fingers and toes, instead of just quoting facts.
We also have the possibility that the original source is what got it
wrong, and the other publications printed a correction.
Double oops, for Maccies!
Gee, it makes you wonder why not one of them emailed Linux Insider to
ask, doesn't it, folks?
> <alangbaker-86F5D...@news.telus.net>
> "Here we go again with you defending an utterly idiotic position
to your
> last breath. At which point, you'll finally admit you're wrong
with
> extreme bad grace, *JUST LIKE ALWAYS*!"
>
> I wonder if we'll see a public apology by Edwin now? :)
Why would I apologize when it is all of you who owe an apology to me?
I did nothing other than post a reference and a quote. I did nothing
that requires apology, even if that source and qoute are incorrect. I
did nothing wrong.
The Mac Advocates who insulted me and attacked me (especially Jonas)
are the people who owe me an apology. They owe Usenet readers
everywhere an apology for trying to pass their rants off as logical
arguments and evidence.
--
"My name is Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh
(Jonas is my main name). "-- Sandman
Nashty
'snip"
Crap it's unhealthy to have so much free time on ones hands, really.
Nicolas
thor...@juno.com
TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <mr-52FDD1.22...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> I doubt it. He'll just fall back on 'it wasn't my number,
Was it my number, or was it someone else's number that I quoted? Tell
us which it is, Joe.
> anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's wrong'.
I never said it didnt matter if it's wrong, only that you need proof to
call it wrong.
thor...@juno.com
Blame it on the overly-generous Swedish Welfare System... apparently
one can acculumate enough Swedish Food Stamps to spend the surplus on
Macs... :-D
TravelinMan
TravelinMan
thor...@juno.com wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
> > Welcome to the lastest Edwin digest.
> >
[snip]
> > <alangbaker-86F5D...@news.telus.net>
> > "Here we go again with you defending an utterly idiotic position
> to your
> > last breath. At which point, you'll finally admit you're wrong
> with
> > extreme bad grace, *JUST LIKE ALWAYS*!"
> >
> > I wonder if we'll see a public apology by Edwin now? :)
>
> Why would I apologize when it is all of you who owe an apology to me?
>
Eddie, you're priceless.
dfri...@hotmail.com
I wonder if Eddie will apologize to me for the insults when I just
corrected him on when the PM G5 was first introduced? Or apologize for
the insults he had for me when I asked him why the Perception MP3
player had its price reduced by 67%?
I'm not holding my breath...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Jim Polaski
TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and we all just witnessed the "Dancing Eddie-lost Show" in it's
current performance.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Sandman
>> As it is, the Jon Peddie Report (JPR) summary is actually available
>> here, on the original site:
>> http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press/Workstation_2ndEd.shtml
>>
>> Where it clearly says 830,000 - Ooops! And I think Alan Baker said it
>> best:
>
> Oops, indeed! That's the kind of proof Mac Advocates where asked
> for, but they chose to attack me, rant and rave, to make up stories
> about how many computers would be used by what people, and to make
> counts on their fingers and toes, instead of just quoting facts.
>
> We also have the possibility that the original source is what got it
> wrong, and the other publications printed a correction.
Hahaha! And the sad part is that I really think you could believe that!
This has been extra humiliating for you, Edwin. The fun part is thaat you don't
even realize how much :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Nashty <n...@nogroupthinkmackook.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Crap it's unhealthy to have so much free time on ones hands, really.
Does typing take a long time on a Windows machine, Nicolas? :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashty
Wouldn't know. I've been on a Mac for a few months now. And it's not
just the typing, it's the researching, presentation and everything
involved with creating a post such as yours.
There are days that I barely have time to read csma, let alone post here.
Nicolas
thor...@juno.com
The only one humilated here is you, as evidenced by the massive
snipping you did of the post. Once again you're oblivious to how much
of a grinning idiot you've made of yourself, and that's truly
hilarious.
Linux users: look well upon 'Sandman,' and so be warned of the effects
of Mac use...
Edwin
TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <1109288865....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> thor...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > In article <mr-52FDD1.22...@individual.net>,
> > > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > I doubt it. He'll just fall back on 'it wasn't my number,
> >
> > Was it my number, or was it someone else's number that I quoted?
Tell
> > us which it is, Joe.
Joe Ragosta's cowardice prevents him from answering.
> > > anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's wrong'.
> >
> > I never said it didnt matter if it's wrong, only that you need
proof to
> > call it wrong.
>
> IOW, I was right.
IOW, you're a moron.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <1109288865....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > thor...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > In article <mr-52FDD1.22...@individual.net>,
> > > > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > I doubt it. He'll just fall back on 'it wasn't my number,
> > >
> > > Was it my number, or was it someone else's number that I quoted?
> Tell
> > > us which it is, Joe.
>
> Joe Ragosta's cowardice prevents him from answering.
Wonderfully ironic in light of your cowardice in never answering whether
or not you thought the number was correct...
>
> > > > anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's wrong'.
> > >
> > > I never said it didnt matter if it's wrong, only that you need
> proof to
> > > call it wrong.
> >
> > IOW, I was right.
>
> IOW, you're a moron.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Sandman
thor...@juno.com wrote:
>>> We also have the possibility that the original source is what got it
>>> wrong, and the other publications printed a correction.
>>
>> Hahaha! And the sad part is that I really think you could believe
>> that!
>>
>> This has been extra humiliating for you, Edwin. The fun part is thaat
>> you don't even realize how much :)
>
> The only one humilated here is you, as evidenced by the massive
> snipping you did of the post. Once again you're oblivious to how
> much of a grinning idiot you've made of yourself, and that's truly
> hilarious.
Hahaha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
1109347225.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 2/25/05 9:00 AM:
> The only one humilated here is you, as evidenced by the massive
> snipping you did of the post. Once again you're oblivious to how much
> of a grinning idiot you've made of yourself, and that's truly
> hilarious.
Sandman has sunk to the level where many of his posts are nothing more than
dishonest snipping, lying about others, and other such cowardly games.
Sadly, this is becoming more common in CSMA and, likely, COLA. Look at the
posts of Tim Adams, Steve Carroll, and Sandman... they are all just becoming
cowardly parodies of themselves.
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Steve Carroll
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
chrisv
Can I have some of what you're on?
Snit
td0v1119bq2h723je...@4ax.com on 2/25/05 12:51 PM:
He is on a desperate attempt to avoid hurting his wounded self image.
--
"I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - Tim Adams
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "thor...@juno.com" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1109347225.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 2/25/05 9:00 AM:
>
> > The only one humilated here is you, as evidenced by the massive
> > snipping you did of the post. Once again you're oblivious to how much
> > of a grinning idiot you've made of yourself, and that's truly
> > hilarious.
>
> Sandman has sunk to the level where many of his posts are nothing more than
> dishonest snipping, lying about others, and other such cowardly games.
> Sadly, this is becoming more common in CSMA and, likely, COLA. Look at the
> posts of Tim Adams, Steve Carroll, and Sandman... they are all just becoming
> cowardly parodies of themselves.
Sure, Snit... soon, the entire NG will be a cowardly parody of itself
but *you're* OK, right? LOL!
Snit
noone-9A6057....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/25/05 2:10 PM:
> Sure, Snit... soon, the entire NG will be a cowardly parody of itself
I disagree with you, Steve. I have no reason to think that anyone will sink
to your level... or even to think that most will sink to the level of Tim
Adams and the like.
> but *you're* OK, right?
Quite.
> LOL!
I note that you do not even try to look at comments of mine or other, but
just attack people.
You are a sad parody of yourself.
C Lund
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Sandman has sunk to the level where many of his posts are nothing more than
> dishonest snipping, lying about others, and other such cowardly games.
Snit, that's a circus post. >B(
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
clund-0201E9....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/25/05 2:29 PM:
> In article <BE44CEB8.512D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Sandman has sunk to the level where many of his posts are nothing more than
>> dishonest snipping, lying about others, and other such cowardly games.
>
> Snit, that's a circus post. >B(
Just to be clear - are you saying that Sandman's posts that I reference are,
that mine are, or both?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
> noone-9A6057....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/25/05 2:10 PM:
>
> > Sure, Snit... soon, the entire NG will be a cowardly parody of itself
>
> I disagree with you, Steve.
Well of course you do... delusions are funny like that when reality is
involved.
> I have no reason to think
...therefore you don't? Yes, we know.
> that anyone will sink
> to your level... or even to think that most will sink to the level of Tim
> Adams and the like.
>
> > but *you're* OK, right?
>
> Quite.
>
> > LOL!
>
> I note that you do not even try to look at comments of mine or other, but
> just attack people.
Feeling under 'attack' again, Snit? It's amazing, isn't it? You just
attacked several people and here you are talking about how you are being
attacked. I suppose the medicine chest is empty again...
--
"stop forcing me to confront truths I can't deal with." - Snit
Sandman
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> We also have the possibility that the original source is what got
>>>>> it wrong, and the other publications printed a correction.
>>>>
>>>> Hahaha! And the sad part is that I really think you could believe
>>>> that!
>>>>
>>>> This has been extra humiliating for you, Edwin. The fun part is
>>>> thaat you don't even realize how much :)
>>>
>>> The only one humilated here is you, as evidenced by the massive
>>> snipping you did of the post. Once again you're oblivious to how
>>> much of a grinning idiot you've made of yourself, and that's truly
>>> hilarious.
>>
>> Hahaha!
>
> Can I have some of what you're on?
No, I think you're immune to logic. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
In article <BE44E807.51A1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Snit, that's a circus post. >B(
> Just to be clear - are you saying that Sandman's posts that I reference are,
> that mine are, or both?
edwin's post was not a circus post. It was just the usual
"edwin-drivel". But you replied with a circus post. That's the kind of
thing that gets the circus up and going.
And before the other members of the circus join in to tell me how
awful Snit is - they're all equally bad here.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
I appreciate your comments - but I disagree.
I do point out the games and dishonesty of others - but I do so with
specific examples and direct proof in the form of quotes from them.
Look at Edwin, recently. You can see in my recent posts my pointing out
specific lies of his. He runs from them.
Sure, I could just let them go. It is clear that Edwin will not admit to
his lies - and in that I am guilty. I enjoy watching him squirm, though I
would prefer if he would simply stop telling such lies. If people did not
let he, and Sandman, Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, etc. get away with making
absurd accusations against others, then things would eventually settle down.
Of course, I include myself in that. If I make an accusation against
someone, I should be able to provide clear and direct proof.
The difference between me and the others is I am happy to do so for darn
near any claim I have ever made. Those I list above, sadly, do not. They
can not, for they generally are lying when they make their accusations.