On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:17:11 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99 wrote:
[color=blue]
> May 9, 2008, 8:57 pm
> XP and Vista: A Look at the Numbers
> Posted by Ben Worthen
>
> Popular opinion is that Microsoft¢s Windows Vista operating system is
> a dud, a view fueled in part by a low adoption rate among businesses.
> But a look back at history shows why it may be premature to write
> Vista off.
>
> Numbers never lie. But they don¢t always tell the whole truth.
> By the end of 2007, businesses computers running Vista accounted for
> just 3% of the nearly 1 billion computers in use worldwide, according
> to the research company Gartner. Sounds dismal, but that¢s the same
> percentage that ran the business version of Microsoft¢s previous OS,
> XP, in 2002, the first year after its release. (Out of 582 million
> total computers.) By the end of 2003, business computers running XP
> accounted for 10% of the total. Gartner projects that by the end of
> this year, business computers running Vista will make up 13% of all
> computers.
>
> That puts Vista ahead of its predecessor¢s pace, and bolsters
> Microsoft¢s argument that Vista adoption is inline with the company¢s
> expectations.[/color]

Poor Linux..

Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support at
0.6 percent of the desktop market share.

It's pretty sad when something that is free can't take market share from
Windows or Mac and climb above the 1 percent mark.

Even the BBC had Linux pegged a 0.8 percent which is one reason why they
are not supporting Linux for the multimedia streams.

Why bother?
There are not enough Linux users to make it worthwhile for the BBC.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
[url]http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/[/url]

"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...
[color=blue]
> Poor Linux..[/color]

Yep, they don't empty your pocket.
[color=blue]
> Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support
> at
> 0.6 percent of the desktop market share.[/color]

Paid NA desktop support numbers. Linux being mostly free isn't going to
register the way Micro$oft measures it.
[color=blue]
> It's pretty sad when something that is free can't take market share from
> Windows or Mac and climb above the 1 percent mark.[/color]

It is, that is why Microsoft is now going to offer XP on EeePC at preditory
pricing. They wouldn't revive an old OS like XP and price it for $16/$32 a
copy if Linux wasn't eating their lunch would they?

They are not offering Vista as everyone knows it is too fat of a pig for low
end PCs.

The fact is, Microsoft is losing market share. It starts slowly. They know
or they would not be.

Keep up the FUD, sooner or later you will be talking to yourself.

> Keep up the FUD, sooner or later you will be talking to yourself.


Hearing voices?


Rich, who says, when pretend time is over you are left with the way it is ;)

"Rich" <r.green@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OTDD8AvsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Keep up the FUD, sooner or later you will be talking to yourself.[/color]
>
>
> Hearing voices?
>
>
> Rich, who says, when pretend time is over you are left with the way it is
> ;)[/color]

According to the "know it all" advocates here Vista is going to be a flop
and will put Microsoft out of business.

The same way they predicted that XP would be a flop and put MS out of
business.

And the same way they predicted that Win2k would be a flop and put MS out
of business.



** Posted from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url] **

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:fspVj.259858$pM4.134577@pd7urf1no...[color=blue]
>
>
> Keep up the FUD, sooner or later you will be talking to yourself.
>
>
>[/color]

You are stupid low-life human being you broke clown. You're no good at this
and you should keep your trap shut. However, you can repeat orders given to
you while you're on the grill at the Waffle House, wananbe.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:01:45 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Canuck57 wrote:[color=green]
>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
>> news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Poor Linux..[/color]
>>
>>
>> Yep, they don't empty your pocket.[/color]
>
>If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today, then
>you're the definition of a real loser![color=green]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support
>>>at
>>>0.6 percent of the desktop market share.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Paid NA desktop support numbers. Linux being mostly free isn't going to
>> register the way Micro$oft measures it.[/color][/color]

Well Frankie poo, since you keep telling us how rich you are, why
don't you buy everyone in the world a copy of Vista?

Adam Albright wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:01:45 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Canuck57 wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Poor Linux..
>>>
>>> Yep, they don't empty your pocket.[/color]
>> If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today, then
>> you're the definition of a real loser![color=darkred]
>>>
>>>> Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support
>>>> at
>>>> 0.6 percent of the desktop market share.
>>>
>>> Paid NA desktop support numbers. Linux being mostly free isn't going to
>>> register the way Micro$oft measures it.[/color][/color]
>
> Well Frankie poo, since you keep telling us how rich you are, why
> don't you buy everyone in the world a copy of Vista?
>[/color]

Some of us don't want it! :)

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:24:14 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:17:11 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> May 9, 2008, 8:57 pm
>> XP and Vista: A Look at the Numbers
>> Posted by Ben Worthen
>>
>> Popular opinion is that Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system is a
>> dud, a view fueled in part by a low adoption rate among businesses. But
>> a look back at history shows why it may be premature to write Vista
>> off.
>>
>> Numbers never lie. But they don’t always tell the whole truth. By the
>> end of 2007, businesses computers running Vista accounted for just 3%
>> of the nearly 1 billion computers in use worldwide, according to the
>> research company Gartner. Sounds dismal, but that’s the same percentage
>> that ran the business version of Microsoft’s previous OS, XP, in 2002,
>> the first year after its release. (Out of 582 million total computers.)
>> By the end of 2003, business computers running XP accounted for 10% of
>> the total. Gartner projects that by the end of this year, business
>> computers running Vista will make up 13% of all computers.
>>
>> That puts Vista ahead of its predecessor’s pace, and bolsters
>> Microsoft’s argument that Vista adoption is inline with the company’s
>> expectations.[/color]
>
> Poor Linux..
>
> Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support
> at 0.6 percent of the desktop market share.
>
> It's pretty sad when something that is free can't take market share from
> Windows or Mac and climb above the 1 percent mark.
>
> Even the BBC had Linux pegged a 0.8 percent which is one reason why they
> are not supporting Linux for the multimedia streams.
>
> Why bother?
> There are not enough Linux users to make it worthwhile for the BBC.[/color]

.... maybe you can tell us why you are still using Linux.

--
Rick

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Adam Albright wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:01:45 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Poor Linux..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, they don't empty your pocket.
>>>
>>> If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today,
>>> then you're the definition of a real loser!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life
>>>>> support at
>>>>> 0.6 percent of the desktop market share.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paid NA desktop support numbers. Linux being mostly free isn't
>>>> going to register the way Micro$oft measures it.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Well Frankie poo, since you keep telling us how rich you are, why
>> don't you buy everyone in the world a copy of Vista?
>>[/color]
>
> Some of us don't want it! :)
>[/color]


hehehe...yeah, I paid for all of our Vista seats cause I earned the
money to do so.
If aa is so broke then he should get a job.
But I'm figuring he's unemployed for a good reason...re:he's
unemployable...LOL!
Frank

Rick wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:01:45 -0700, Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Canuck57 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Poor Linux..
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, they don't empty your pocket.[/color]
>>
>>If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today, then
>>you're the definition of a real loser![/color]
>
>
> Maybe you can tell me awhere I can buy Vista... real Vista, not "leave
> everything out" for $90.[/color]

Best Buy has/had Vista Premium at that price. I've seen Ultimate for
$169/189.[color=blue]
>
> And Vista is surely NOT the best available today.[/color]

I think it is and so do millions of others.
But no one is twisting anyone's arm to use it, right?
Frank

In article <4826294a$0$7701$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today, then
>you're the definition of a real loser![/color]

Ok, I'll bite. (I wish you COULD bite trolls but oh well...)

I can't afford 90 bucks for vista because that's REALLY 90 bucks
for mostly-useless home basic, AND because that's really 90 bucks PLUS
105 for a copy of XP Home to upgrade from. Or 169 for a "full" copy of
mostly useless Home Basic. So I install Linux. Why should I spend
a grand or more every couple of years just so I can run Microsoft's
latest manifestation of cynical greed? I'm typing this on an Athlon
2000+ I built in like 2000. I did all my graduate work on this machine too.
My laptop dual boots CentOS and 2K (and I'd never replace it because you
can't get a machine with a serial port any more and I use that more than
the network!) and I don't miss all the eye candy or the endless wasted time
of "Ok, where did they move THAT to?".

My hobby is restoring old computer equipment. I can put together
a reasonably useful system in the 2000+ class for less than a hundred
bucks. I usually buy a pallet of parts, combine the useable ones, and
donate the resulting systems to the scouts or something, although I'll
occasionally sell a particularly nice batch to get money for the next pallet.
Thing is, I'd LOVE to put Windows on these things, but I can't. It would
turn a 100 dollar system into a 300 dollar system, and for 400 you can get a
brand new dual core. Not that Vista would run on them. So I install Linux.


Now, if I was building a system for my ex-wife I'd put Vista on it.

She deserves Vista. In fact, for some reason that whole UAC
thing reminds me of her a lot...

In article <48266314$0$7711$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>Best Buy has/had Vista Premium at that price.[/color]

Bull****, Frank. They want 129 for it.

[url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8758141&type=product&id=1202650191714[/url]

I saw home basic upgrades for 99 bucks at CompUSA's goodbye sale.
[color=blue]
>I've seen Ultimate for $169/189.[/color]

I've never even seen the upgrade for less than 200.
[color=blue]
>I think it is and so do millions of others.[/color]

It's not even the best gaming platform. Xp is.
[color=blue]
>But no one is twisting anyone's arm to use it, right?[/color]

Well, nobody but Microsoft.

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<g066mr$p42$1@reader2.panix.com>...
[color=blue]
> In article <4826294a$0$7701$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,[/color]
[color=blue]
> Frank <fb@sto.cln> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >If you can't afford $90USD for Vista, the best OS available today, then[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >you're the definition of a real loser![/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Ok, I'll bite. (I wish you COULD bite trolls but oh well...)[/color]
[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> I can't afford 90 bucks for vista because that's REALLY 90 bucks[/color]
[color=blue]
> for mostly-useless home basic, AND because that's really 90 bucks PLUS[/color]
[color=blue]
> 105 for a copy of XP Home to upgrade from. Or 169 for a "full" copy of[/color]
[color=blue]
> mostly useless Home Basic. So I install Linux. Why should I spend[/color]
[color=blue]
> a grand or more every couple of years just so I can run Microsoft's[/color]
[color=blue]
> latest manifestation of cynical greed?[/color]



Stupid statement...biased and without objectivity.





I'm typing this on an Athlon
[color=blue]
> 2000+ I built in like 2000. I did all my graduate work on this machine
> too.[/color]
[color=blue]
> My laptop dual boots CentOS and 2K (and I'd never replace it because you[/color]
[color=blue]
> can't get a machine with a serial port any more and I use that more than[/color]
[color=blue]
> the network!) and I don't miss all the eye candy or the endless wasted
> time[/color]
[color=blue]
> of "Ok, where did they move THAT to?".[/color]



Not relevant.


[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> My hobby is restoring old computer equipment. I can put together[/color]
[color=blue]
> a reasonably useful system in the 2000+ class for less than a hundred[/color]
[color=blue]
> bucks. I usually buy a pallet of parts, combine the useable ones, and[/color]
[color=blue]
> donate the resulting systems to the scouts or something, although I'll[/color]
[color=blue]
> occasionally sell a particularly nice batch to get money for the next
> pallet.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Thing is, I'd LOVE to put Windows on these things, but I can't. It would[/color]
[color=blue]
> turn a 100 dollar system into a 300 dollar system, and for 400 you can get
> a[/color]
[color=blue]
> brand new dual core. Not that Vista would run on them.[/color]



Not relevant. Try doing that in a corporate environment!



So I install Linux.



Which one...hopefully one that actually works and does not require the
commitment of someone into resotring old computer equipment. Sheesh. What
stupidity!


[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Now, if I was building a system for my ex-wife I'd put Vista on it.[/color]
[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> She deserves Vista. In fact, for some reason that whole UAC[/color]
[color=blue]
> thing reminds me of her a lot...[/color]
[color=blue]
>[/color]

On May 11, 12:19*am, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:[color=blue]
>
> * * * * I can't afford 90 bucks for vista because that's REALLY 90bucks
> for mostly-useless home basic, AND because that's really 90 bucks PLUS
> 105 for a copy of XP Home to upgrade from. *Or 169 for a "full" copy of
> mostly useless Home Basic. *[/color]

I got a full, working version of Vista Ultimate for $3 in SE Asia. It
may be pirate, and I probably will not install the upcoming Service
Pack, though it's tempting to see if it installs properly.
[color=blue]
>
> * * * * My hobby is restoring old computer equipment. *I can puttogether
> a reasonably useful system in the 2000+ class for less than a hundred
> bucks. *I usually buy a pallet of parts, combine the useable ones, and
> donate the resulting systems to the scouts or something, although I'll
> occasionally sell a particularly nice batch to get money for the next pallet.
> Thing is, I'd LOVE to put Windows on these things, but I can't.[/color]

I built an old Pentium II running Windows 2000 on 256k RAM and it
works fine--a bit slow perhaps--but fine for a dialup modem.

RL

"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw******.com> wrote in message
news:gbraqyu1ok95$.1bs4y37k5ufhp$.dlg@40tude.net...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:17:11 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> May 9, 2008, 8:57 pm
>> XP and Vista: A Look at the Numbers
>> Posted by Ben Worthen
>>
>> Popular opinion is that Microsoft¢s Windows Vista operating system is
>> a dud, a view fueled in part by a low adoption rate among businesses.
>> But a look back at history shows why it may be premature to write
>> Vista off.
>>
>> Numbers never lie. But they don¢t always tell the whole truth.
>> By the end of 2007, businesses computers running Vista accounted for
>> just 3% of the nearly 1 billion computers in use worldwide,[/color][/color]

That's because they were using Windows 2000

according[color=blue][color=green]
>> to the research company Gartner. Sounds dismal, but that¢s the same
>> percentage that ran the business version of Microsoft¢s previous OS,
>> XP, in 2002, the first year after its release. (Out of 582 million
>> total computers.) By the end of 2003, business computers running XP
>> accounted for 10% of the total. Gartner projects that by the end of
>> this year, business computers running Vista will make up 13% of all
>> computers.[/color][/color]

XP was a big improvement over Win 98. Vista is not over XP. Businesses used
XP after SP2 came out not when it was in its infancy.
Use Vista when it is perfected, if ever.[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> That puts Vista ahead of its predecessor¢s pace, and bolsters
>> Microsoft¢s argument that Vista adoption is inline with the company¢s
>> expectations.[/color]
>
> Poor Linux..
>
> Even after 10+ years of being free, it is still hovering on life support
> at
> 0.6 percent of the desktop market share.
>
> It's pretty sad when something that is free can't take market share from
> Windows or Mac and climb above the 1 percent mark.
>
> Even the BBC had Linux pegged a 0.8 percent which is one reason why they
> are not supporting Linux for the multimedia streams.
>
> Why bother?
> There are not enough Linux users to make it worthwhile for the BBC.
>
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
> [url]http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/[/url][/color]