Paul Thurrot defines "real" vs. "anecdotal"
Craig Koller
e.htm
From the article:
"There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
anecdotal info ("the percentage of online Macs running Apple零 operating
system has climbed from the long-flat 3 per cent to 5.6 per cent") that,
um, doesn't really prove much at all. You can decide which is more
relevant, of course."
The "real" numbers come from Bill Gates (his 40-million-sold figure) and
the "anecdotal" numbers come from WebSideStory, a major web analytics
company.
The hard fact is that given Microsoft's monopoly and Apple's niche-hood,
by definition the only way Apple can gain share is at Redmond's expense.
And with the Intel Macs and the John Hodgeman marathon of Mac ads (have
you seen the web-only banner ads yet?) Apple is certainly making a real
play to steal share. MS can't easily defend/maintain 90% forever,
especially when they need HP and Dell to do the fighting for them.
MS is probably going to lose some market share, Vista or no Vista. It
was an amazing run, but nothing lasts forever. And the arrival of
Apple's Leopard this Fall is just icing on the cake. How hard can it be
for Apple to look at MS's 90% and find some vulnerable users ripe for
the taking?
Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims. But
Vista does suffer from the "ho hum" factor
(http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17992/), and the crazy thing
is that the whole Vista/OSX argument has little to do with Macs as a Mac
can run OSX and/or Vista or Linux, etc. It doesn't matter.
Some people want an OS choice, even more than a hardware choice. They
don't want to be locked into Windows or MacOS. And besides the Win PC
gearheads who love to swap motherboards and $200+ GPUs (I'd love to know
what percentage they ultimately make up) many folks are happy with the
Mac hardware model and pricing structure, especially on the laptop
front, as their 10% retail sales position indicates.
Or is that evidence merely "anecdotal"?
Snit
cwkollertwo-DF32...@news.giganews.com on 5/15/07 11:24 PM:
> http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-appl
> e.htm
>
> From the article:
>
> "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
> anecdotal info ("the percentage of online Macs running Apple¹s operating
There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and no
amount of evidence can sway them.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Craig Koller" <cwkol...@netscape.net> stated in post
> cwkollertwo-DF32...@news.giganews.com on 5/15/07 11:24 PM:
>
> > http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-appl
> > e.htm
> >
> > From the article:
> >
> > "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
> > anecdotal info ("the percentage of online Macs running Apple零 operating
This post of yours was baiting.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-9F2E09.08...@News.Individual.NET on 5/15/07 11:55 PM:
>>> Or is that evidence merely "anecdotal"?
>>
>> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
>> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
>> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and no
>> amount of evidence can sway them.
>
> This post of yours was baiting.
>
Wow... talking about how people ignore strong evidence is, to you, baiting.
OK.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-9F2E09.08...@News.Individual.NET on 5/15/07 11:55 PM:
>
> >>> Or is that evidence merely "anecdotal"?
> >>
> >> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
> >> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
> >> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and no
> >> amount of evidence can sway them.
> >
> > This post of yours was baiting.
> >
> Wow... talking about how people ignore strong evidence is, to you, baiting.
As a reply to a post that has nothing to do with the issues you are
having with these supposed peoples, is indeed baiting.
Also called Thread Hijacking.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
The topic of strong evidence was most certainly *on* topic.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-142CA6.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/16/07 12:31 AM:
>
> > In article <C26FFF5C.816BB%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-9F2E09.08...@News.Individual.NET on 5/15/07 11:55 PM:
> >>
> >>>>> Or is that evidence merely "anecdotal"?
> >>>>
> >>>> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
> >>>> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
> >>>> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and no
> >>>> amount of evidence can sway them.
> >>>
> >>> This post of yours was baiting.
> >>>
> >> Wow... talking about how people ignore strong evidence is, to you, baiting.
> >
> > As a reply to a post that has nothing to do with the issues you are
> > having with these supposed peoples, is indeed baiting.
> >
> > Also called Thread Hijacking.
>
> The topic of strong evidence was most certainly *on* topic.
The topic was not your agenda, but you managed to bring it up
nonetheless. That's your game. You will find any angle to rev up your
Circus again.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Ah... my horrid "agenda" of focusing on evidence. The horror!
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
> >>>>>> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
> >>>>>> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and
> >>>>>> no
> >>>>>> amount of evidence can sway them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This post of yours was baiting.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Wow... talking about how people ignore strong evidence is, to you,
> >>>> baiting.
> >>>
> >>> As a reply to a post that has nothing to do with the issues you are
> >>> having with these supposed peoples, is indeed baiting.
> >>>
> >>> Also called Thread Hijacking.
> >>
> >> The topic of strong evidence was most certainly *on* topic.
> >
> > The topic was not your agenda, but you managed to bring it up
> > nonetheless. That's your game. You will find any angle to rev up your
> > Circus again.
> >
> Ah... my horrid "agenda" of focusing on evidence.
Nopes, it's dragging up your issues in every place possible. If you
wanted to focus on "evidence", there are a million things you could
have talked about that didn't have anything to do with your usual
Circus here, yet you saw this as an opporunity to bait the ones you
have these issues with in this thread as well.
Thread hijacking.
--
Sandman[.net]
-hh
> http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-...
> e.htm
>
> From the article:
>
> "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
> system has climbed from the long-flat 3 per cent to 5.6 per cent") that,
> um, doesn't really prove much at all. You can decide which is more
> relevant, of course."
Seems that Mr. Thurrot doesn't understand a lot of stuff:
"real numbers" = marketing spin from a corporate mouthpiece
"anecdotal info" = hard data collected by an independent firm
Granted, the market share reports are _inferential_ to hardware/OS
sales, but they're also a very direct measurement of who's really
using what. The utility depends on who you are.
> Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
> he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims.
Agreed - and too bad he has to try to rewrite the English language in
order to make his spin.
-hh
Snit
> In article <C2700752.816E2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
>>>>>>>> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
>>>>>>>> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> amount of evidence can sway them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This post of yours was baiting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow... talking about how people ignore strong evidence is, to you,
>>>>>> baiting.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a reply to a post that has nothing to do with the issues you are
>>>>> having with these supposed peoples, is indeed baiting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also called Thread Hijacking.
>>>>
>>>> The topic of strong evidence was most certainly *on* topic.
>>>
>>> The topic was not your agenda, but you managed to bring it up
>>> nonetheless. That's your game. You will find any angle to rev up your
>>> Circus again.
>>>
>> Ah... my horrid "agenda" of focusing on evidence. The horror!
>
> Nopes, it's dragging up your issues in every place possible. If you
> wanted to focus on "evidence", there are a million things you could
> have talked about that didn't have anything to do with your usual
> Circus here, yet you saw this as an opporunity to bait the ones you
> have these issues with in this thread as well.
>
> Thread hijacking.
>
Ah... my horrid "agenda" of focusing on evidence. The horror!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Polly want a cracker?
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
> http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-...
>
> From the article:
>
> "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
> system has climbed from the long-flat 3 per cent to 5.6 per cent") that,
> um, doesn't really prove much at all. You can decide which is more
> relevant, of course."
>
> Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
> he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims. [snip]
It wasn't long ago that Thurrot was saying nice things about Apple and
the Mac,and you MacClowns were citing him as an authority.
All it takes is a few words of his support for your 'enemy', MS, for
you guys to spin on your heels and do an about face.
Tom Reestman
in news:1179307646.7...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Craig Koller <cwkoller...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-
stop-...
>> e.htm
>>
>> From the article:
>>
>> "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
>> anecdotal info ("the percentage of online Macs running Apple零
operating
>> system has climbed from the long-flat 3 per cent to 5.6 per cent")
that,
>> um, doesn't really prove much at all. You can decide which is more
>> relevant, of course."
>
> Seems that Mr. Thurrot doesn't understand a lot of stuff:
>
> "real numbers" = marketing spin from a corporate mouthpiece
>
> "anecdotal info" = hard data collected by an independent firm
>
>
> Granted, the market share reports are _inferential_ to hardware/OS
> sales, but they're also a very direct measurement of who's really
> using what. The utility depends on who you are.
>
>
>> Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
>> he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims.
>
> Agreed - and too bad he has to try to rewrite the English language in
> order to make his spin.
>
>
> -hh
>
>
Yes, Thurrot misses the "real" number of Apple having their best second
quarter ever in the face of the Vista launch (a huge testament to the
failure of Vista).
He also misses MS's initial sales figures of Vista were called into
question, and were nothing like the 20M in 30 days MS claimed.
What bothers me most about that Thurrot site is he posts short "sound
bite" comments with no critical analysis, and hides behind the fact that
the site does not accept comments. I can see why, since nearly every one
of his posts would be refuted by relevant facts. Still, the solution
should be for Thurrot to clean up his reporting, not disallow comments.
--
Tom
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:24 am, Craig Koller <cwkoller...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-...
>
> > Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
> > he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims. [snip]
>
> It wasn't long ago that Thurrot was saying nice things about Apple and
> the Mac,and you MacClowns were citing him as an authority.
Was it "MacClowns" who did that or was it Craig Koller? If it wasn't
Craig Koller, how is the claims from a supposed group of people whose
existence we can't verify relevant to a post from Craig?
> All it takes is a few words of his support for your 'enemy', MS, for
> you guys to spin on your heels and do an about face.
Does "you guys" include me or not? Because I've never stated anything
about Mr Thurrot's being an authority or not.
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
> On May 16, 1:24 am, Craig Koller <cwkoller...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/05/microsofts-vista-fails-to-stop-...
> > e.htm
> >
> > From the article:
> >
> > "There are real numbers that support Vista's success, and then there's
> > anecdotal info ("the percentage of online Macs running Apple零 operating
> > system has climbed from the long-flat 3 per cent to 5.6 per cent") that,
> > um, doesn't really prove much at all. You can decide which is more
> > relevant, of course."
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Thurrot is a longstanding Windows apologist and thus just doing what
> > he's supposed to do by refuting the vistablorge.com article claims. [snip]
>
> It wasn't long ago that Thurrot was saying nice things about Apple and
> the Mac,and you MacClowns were citing him as an authority.
Are you familiar with the phrase "statement against interest"?
>
> All it takes is a few words of his support for your 'enemy', MS, for
> you guys to spin on your heels and do an about face.
It's the fact that his support is so lame that matters here.
--
"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon
rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote.
I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin
nospamatall
>>> Or is that evidence merely "anecdotal"?
>> There are those who will deny evidence no matter how strongly it is
>> supported... from Apple's sales figures, Web surfing stats, w3.org,
>> WayBackMacine... on and on... they get an idea stuck in their head and no
>> amount of evidence can sway them.
>
> This post of yours was baiting.
>
was indeed, I'll prob have to kill another thread! oh well.
Steve de Mena
> He also misses MS's initial sales figures of Vista were called into
> question, and were nothing like the 20M in 30 days MS claimed.
Source? Or is this another one of your own opinions.
I am sure you realize that "20 million in 30 days"
included coupons for Vista sold with systems
during the holidays.
And the additional 20 million copies after that is
very impressive.
Why can't you accept it that Vista is selling?
Steve
Tom Reestman
in news:464c11e7$0$15283$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
We had this discussion when the press release came out.
Oh, but you figured it out. The 20M figure includes coupons going back to
end of October. Which means it wasn't 30 days at all, was it? It was 20M
in four months, so the press release was corporate BS spin.
I have NEVER denied Vista was selling. What I have stated over and over
again is that it's selling at the same rate XP would have. Why can't you
accept that?
--
Tom