Justin wrote:[color=blue]
> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
> news:OFt0zZlkHHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet computers
>>> at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added five more
>>> Linux
>>> seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction, and we've had no
>>> complaints. The director previously was called to the floor several
>>> times
>>> per day to help patrons with internet difficulties - since Linux, no
>>> calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The machines are
>>> usually
>>> very busy from opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org,
>>> AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all is
>>> cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in
>> a small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any
>> kind of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only
>> fooling yourself.
>> Frank[/color]
>
> Although he brought up a valid point. Linux desktop is pretty much for
> internet use and 99% of the time that's all people report using it for :)[/color]

Please cite a source for your 99% usage figure. Thanks.

--
norm

ray wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet computers
>>> at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added five more Linux
>>> seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction, and we've had no
>>> complaints. The director previously was called to the floor several times
>>> per day to help patrons with internet difficulties - since Linux, no
>>> calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The machines are usually
>>> very busy from opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org,
>>> AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all is
>>> cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
>> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
>> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only fooling
>> yourself.
>> Frank[/color]
>
> Methinks you're fooling yourself, and you've never really given Linux a
> fair shot. What could be more revealing than dumping Linux on a couple of
> hundred folks ranging from pretty much neophytes (who, by the way have
> less trouble with Linux than those indoctrinated with MS) to high school
> computer geeks all with NO training - having them work successfully for
> two years with no compliants? I'm seeing LOTS of complaints here about
> vista, for example. I don't claim that Linux is for everyone - there is a
> certain segment who are so closed minded that they won't consider anything
> that does not say MS on the box. There are a few specialized niches where
> proprietary MS only software is needed for process critical functions. For
> 95% of home users and 60% or more of business uses, Linux would be
> entirely appropriate if given half a chance.
>[/color]
Can you please cite any sources for your 60% and 95% figures? Thanks.

--
norm

"Sasha" <Sasha@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F38E4949-E5EA-4413-9B61-5F176B7123D5@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I spent money on a $300 graphics card, $250 for 2GB of RAM, $200 Logitech
> DiNovo Edge Keyboard, $100 Logitech MX Revolution mouse. Oh and $400 Vista
> Ultimate Full edition. I am NOT rich.[/color]

Cool toys. Must make work quite fun.

norm wrote:

[color=blue]
> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
> experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define whether
> or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.
>[/color]


I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally come up.
4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
Frank

Jim wrote:
[color=blue]
> I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying
> Ubuntu is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to buy a second
> copy
> right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich, Frank!
>[/color]
Probably has a rich mommie and a good allowance. But if he was kid, I won't
let him on computer until he could successfully pass the Grade 4 reading
comprehension program. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris


--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jim wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying
>> Ubuntu is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to buy a
>> second copy
>> right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich, Frank![/color]
>
> No I'm not rich. I have a small business and Vista is a part of my
> business expense. I must be able to interface with the rest of the
> business world otherwise I'm dead in the water, so to speak. I can't
> efficiently or effectively do that with any distro of linux.
> Frank[/color]

So sad, that you lack the basic skills of being able to do something as
mundane as that. From what I've seen of the "business world", read small
business world, all they need to do is read xls files, send email and read
a doc file. Linux can do all this with ease. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

Frank wrote:[color=blue]
> norm wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
>> experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define
>> whether or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.
>>[/color]
>
>
> I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
> Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally come
> up.
> 4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
> Frank[/color]

The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
the needs of more than the percentage listed.

--
norm

norm wrote:[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:
>[color=green]
>> norm wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
>>> experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define
>>> whether or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
>> Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally
>> come up.
>> 4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
>> Frank[/color]
>
>
> The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
> way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
> experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
> whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
> don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
> only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
> whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
> the needs of more than the percentage listed.
>[/color]

Let the numbers (4-7% desktop usage) speak for themselves.
The masses have decided, based on percentage of usage, that obviously
linux is not that easy to use.
Especially given the fact that linux disrtos are free and the masses
don't seem all that interested or they (like me) have tried it and have
no use for it.
Frank

Doris Day - MFB wrote:
[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Jim wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying
>>>Ubuntu is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to buy a
>>>second copy
>>>right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich, Frank![/color]
>>
>>No I'm not rich. I have a small business and Vista is a part of my
>>business expense. I must be able to interface with the rest of the
>>business world otherwise I'm dead in the water, so to speak. I can't
>>efficiently or effectively do that with any distro of linux.
>>Frank[/color]
>
>
> So sad, that you lack the basic skills of being able to do something as
> mundane as that. From what I've seen of the "business world", read small
> business world, all they need to do is read xls files, send email and read
> a doc file. Linux can do all this with ease. <snort>
>
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
>[/color]

How long have you been unemployed?
(snort)
Frank

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> Doris Day - MFB wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying
>>>>Ubuntu is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to buy a
>>>>second copy
>>>>right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich, Frank!
>>>
>>>No I'm not rich. I have a small business and Vista is a part of my
>>>business expense. I must be able to interface with the rest of the
>>>business world otherwise I'm dead in the water, so to speak. I can't
>>>efficiently or effectively do that with any distro of linux.
>>>Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> So sad, that you lack the basic skills of being able to do something as
>> mundane as that. From what I've seen of the "business world", read small
>> business world, all they need to do is read xls files, send email and
>> read a doc file. Linux can do all this with ease. <snort>
>>
>> Love and Kisses,
>> Doris
>>[/color]
>
> How long have you been unemployed?
> (snort)
> Frank[/color]
Speak for yourself Frankie Boy. Child labor is outlawed in most civilized
countries, so I know that you don't work. <snort><fart><snort> Back to your
Grade 4 classroom before I call your teacher.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

norm wrote:
[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:[color=green]
>> norm wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
>>> experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define
>>> whether or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
>> Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally come
>> up.
>> 4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
>> Frank[/color]
>
> The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
> way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
> experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
> whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
> don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
> only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
> whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
> the needs of more than the percentage listed.
>[/color]
Computers generally are hard for Frankie to use. So it's no wonder he'd have
trouble trying to install Linux. The masses can certainly accomplish it
without difficultly. Frankie on the other hand is a *special* child.
Witness his inability to pass his Grade 4 reading comprehension class.
<snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> norm wrote:[color=green]
>> Frank wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> norm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
>>>> experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define
>>>> whether or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
>>> Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally
>>> come up.
>>> 4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
>>> Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
>> way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
>> experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
>> whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
>> don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
>> only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
>> whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
>> the needs of more than the percentage listed.
>>[/color]
>
> Let the numbers (4-7% desktop usage) speak for themselves.
> The masses have decided, based on percentage of usage, that obviously
> linux is not that easy to use.
> Especially given the fact that linux disrtos are free and the masses
> don't seem all that interested or they (like me) have tried it and have
> no use for it.
> Frank[/color]

Trying Linux is a little more than booting up a LiveCD and running Firefox.
I know, it gave you some sense of accomplishment. But really ... there
really is much more to Linux than just that. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

That is what I am going to do - remove it from my old machine and install on
the new machine. I will only be operating the one copy I bought on one
computer. The problem is how do I prove to Microsoft that I have done this
so they will let me authenticate it on the new machine. I am sympathetic to
Microsofts problem and accept that everyone has a right to make a living and
I want to comply with the rules but this has been nerve wracking.

Jim

"Red Swingline Stapler" wrote:
[color=blue]
> =?Utf-8?B?Smlt?= <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:8E7841D1-8E0F-4EE7-B96D-7E824DA9A588@microsoft.com:
>[color=green]
> > The "guy" was someone in sales and he said that I have to buy a
> > separate copy for each machine I have. He said that this is not a new
> > policy but Microsoft has always had this policy. Since I already had
> > put it on my old machine I could not put it on another machine. I
> > realize that Microsoft has probably lost a lot of money through piracy
> > and I guess thats the reason for this.
> >
> > "Red Swingline Stapler" wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> =?Utf-8?B?Smlt?= <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> >> news:B657249D-E5DB-40B9-8B77-ECB73B98F46A@microsoft.com:
> >>
> >> > ade the decision to build a new system
> >> > so I could take advantage of the cool features of Vista. What a
> >> > shock when I found Microsoft would not authenticate Vista on my new
> >> > computer - even though I had salvaged the old computer. It said I
> >> > could only install on one machine (my old one) and I needed to buy
> >> > a new copy of Vista for my new machin
> >>
> >> What "guy" were you talking to? If you remove vista from the old
> >> machine, then call Microsoft you should be able to get authorization
> >> to install the OS on your new system.
> >>[/color][/color]
>
> This is true ONLY if you continue to use the OS on your old computer. If
> you remove it from the old computer, you can install it on the new
> computer.
>[/color]

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message
news:u6dg2DnkHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Seems that the following quote from Frank could be taken as a rather bold
> claim:
> "I'm sure a few people find linux ok but it is not for me and seems not to
> be for the masses."
> He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his experience
> (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define whether or not linux
> is for the masses. ymmv.[/color]

You are correct. His experience does not define that. Reality defines
that.

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message
news:#fmFWFnkHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Justin wrote:[color=green]
>> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
>> news:OFt0zZlkHHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet
>>>> computers
>>>> at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added five more
>>>> Linux
>>>> seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction, and we've had no
>>>> complaints. The director previously was called to the floor several
>>>> times
>>>> per day to help patrons with internet difficulties - since Linux, no
>>>> calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The machines are
>>>> usually
>>>> very busy from opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org,
>>>> AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all
>>>> is
>>>> cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
>>> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
>>> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only
>>> fooling yourself.
>>> Frank[/color]
>>
>> Although he brought up a valid point. Linux desktop is pretty much for
>> internet use and 99% of the time that's all people report using it for
>> :)[/color]
>
> Please cite a source for your 99% usage figure. Thanks.
>
> --
> norm[/color]

[url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=what+do+you+use+linux+for[/url]

Now learn to take a joke.