| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows Vista Debuts with Strong Global Sales | |
|
||
| Time: 12:21 EST/17:21 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Initial sales figures from Microsoft show its new operating system Windows Vista made a splash in its debut. In the first month of Windows Vista’s general availability, sales exceeded 20 million licenses, more than doubling the initial pace of sales for its predecessor, Windows XP. These initial figures reflect the broad interest in the security and usability enhancements in Windows Vista. “We are encouraged to see such a positive consumer response to Windows Vista right out of the gate,” said Bill Veghte, corporate vice president of the Windows Business Group at Microsoft. “While it’s very early in the product lifecycle, we are setting a foundation for Windows Vista to become the fastest-adopted version of Windows ever. Working with our partners, we are helping our customers leverage new tools and programs to accelerate the transition and provide a great user experience.” Windows Vista license sales after one month of availability have already exceeded the total of Windows XP license sales in the earlier product’s first two months of availability. In January 2002, the company announced sales of Windows XP licenses had exceeded 17 million after two months on the market. The more than 20 million copies shipped represent Windows Vista licenses sold to PC manufacturers, copies of upgrades and the full packaged product sold to retailers and upgrades ordered through the Windows Vista Express Upgrade program from January 30 to February 28. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 252 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/27/2007 2:31:25 PM |
| #24: Upgrading from the 9x line to XP made sense. it was actually a big improvement, given that it was based on the NT kernel, and not just a DOS based program. Windows 2000 to XP also made sense, as it added layers to the NT side of things to make it more useful for non-business stuff, like games and such. It was teh merger of the NT product line and the 9X product line. 3.x to 9x also made sense, as there were significant improvements there as well. I just don't see XP to Vista being in the same league as those other upgrades. And I made those previous upgrades within a day or two of their respective releases, where as I am in no hurry for Vista. I'll give it a try next year sometime, when I upgrade my current hardware, and it comes with Vista pre-installed. Until then, XP is working just fine. And there is currently no software on my "must have" list that is Vista only, so that lessens the need to upgrade as well. |
| #27 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 3/27/2007 3:12:44 PM |
|
Too many consumers have decided to believe that Vista sucks. There is so little understanding of the product that a new PC that I delivered to a local Fire Department was met with "I though Vista cost extra” and “I don't want the eye candy". I explained that they have the Basic version that runs without the 3D eye candy. I also explained that the "eye candy" versions are what would have cost more. After two weeks of use by the fire fighter the response has been excellent. He figured out that Start Search launches everything fast. I trust that as his comfort level grows he'll find many other improvements under the surface. Their six year old printer also worked immediately after plugging it in, which surprised me a bit as I told them that the odds were good that they may need a new printer, mostly because they never gave me the make and model to check for drivers.
Lower ones expectations and they will be delighted with the outcome. |
| #28 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/27/2007 3:16:03 PM |
|
#26 "Except that nobody is buying it."
Well, 1% of the PC's in the world were using it in February. 3% of PC's using Distrowatch are already using it in March. 3% of the Windows install base would be 20-30 million. Thats a lot of "nobody". |
| #29 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/27/2007 3:35:36 PM |
| #31: It is amazing how 3% is a good percentage number when it is Microsoft being discussed, but 10% - 15% is bad when it is a competing product, like Firefox or Linux. I am overwhelmed by your hypocracy. |
| #30 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/27/2007 4:22:50 PM |
|
#32 I am overwhelmed by your stupidity coffee girl. The proper spelling is hypocrisy.
Linux is at .42%, despite 8 or 9 years of "The Year of Linux is ______". Looking at the stats, the Nintendo Wii may pass Linux in 2007 in OS market share. Vista is at 3% in a few months. |
| #31 By 7754 (75.72.148.247) at 3/27/2007 10:04:54 PM |
|
Latch, MysticSentinel: How is MS "deceiving" everyone into buying it? Are you saying that consumers so collectively dense that they'll simply buy something because "everyone else is buying it"? Except no one is... right, whatever. Yeah, those 20 million are all just sitting on shelves somewhere. Unlike when XP hit the market, which everyone agreed it just flew off the shelves?
You guys must think we all have terrible memories. "2000 to XP... made sense"--really? So obviously everyone was in agreement on that when XP was released? 2000 was also one heck of an upgrade over NT 4, but what were people saying when it was released? What were businesses saying about their migration plans? My memory is NOT that short. Don't you recall all the press about how NT 4 domains to AD migration plans had "most" businesses putting 2000 off for years? Or how Novell's NDS would ultimately succeed as the best directory service? Or how about how poor the performance was of 2000 over NT 4, despite "Microsoft's claims to the contrary"? Or about how when XP was released, they were releasing compatibility updates and driver updates for months afterwards? Or how about how many folks were saying "stick with Windows 98" over XP because of the initial poor gaming support? Again, it's ridiculous. It's the same whining, same song-and-dance EVERY Windows release. Please, go back and read the press and reports around the time any other Windows version was released--including 95 over 3.1. It's the same thing, each and every time: yes, it will require greater hardware. Yes, the driver support isn't going to be what it was--initially, keyword--for the previous Windows release. Yes, there will be some application compatibility problems. Yes, businesses will take at least a year before they look at it--as businesses always do (and probably should do). And yeah, many people probably CAN rest assured that not too many people will notice the fact that they usually whine about how "Windows sucks" every other day of the week and yet suddenly say "It works fine for me, I see no need to upgrade." |
| #32 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/28/2007 8:42:19 AM |
|
#34: Are you not reading what I post or do you just not comprehend? Quoting from #26: "MS is trying to spur sales of Vista by deceiving people into thinking that everyone else is buying it, so they should too."
By throwing out useless trivia like "Vista is flying out of the gate at twice the rate of XP!", MS hopes to prod lemming-like users into buying Vista because the user perceives through MS' deception that everyone else is rushing out to buy Vista. After all, it's supposedly selling twice as fast as XP, according to MS. But it really isn't. And if there is no deception, why is every blogger digging deeper to find out the real deal? Nobody believes that Vista is selling twice as fast as XP in the same timeframe, so they want to find out what's at the centre of MS' web of deceit. Turns out it's lies like how an MS month is really 4 months to the rest of us, and unspoken truths like the hardware market is double what it was at the XP launch. Notice how MS doesn't feel like sharing any retail numbers, because that would burst the bubble and show the world how many people are buying Vista, as opposed to how many people are buying a new PC with Vista on it whether they want it or not. |
| #33 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 3/28/2007 11:06:55 AM |
|
#34, Thanks for the sober and responsible observations. I recall quite clearly, how big a hill it was to climb during the move to W2K Server and AD. There was a ton of press that is very similar to what we are reading about Vista. I think it comes from people that write and speak to issues that they have no practical responsibility for - no basis.
For example, Bobsireno's posts clearly benefit from actual use of the technologies his customers are using. They're balanced, practical, optimistic and obviously, genuine. I haven't detected the same basis in Latch's posts [not saying that they aren't based upon practical use - who could know - they just don't reflect it]. The same is true of most blogs - many of which parrot what other blogs reflect. There was once a guy posting here who was a huge *nix advocate - his posts were long, detailed and clearly based upon practical use and experience. He was a link bombing sort of guy - seeking to add weight to his posts. He used to drive Parker wild and their exchanges were as entertaining as they were informative. The guy was so sharp that Windows advocates had to really step up their game, or get trounced by the guy and while I disagreed with much of what he wrote, I sure respected his position and passion - the guy was a believer. I keep trying to find the bottom in posts from Latch and can't - where's the basis - and when asked for it, we're told we're too dim to understand. It's like engaging something without definition - hardly the stuff effective communication depends upon. Sadly, that appears to be the intent - to simply confuse and obfuscate. I do suscpect there is a motive with some noble purpose - it would be nice to know what it is and pathetic if there were not. Cont... |
| #34 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 3/28/2007 11:07:31 AM |
|
Other examples that are good - from tech journalists:
At least guys like Dvorak were honest when pressed about Vista, "I haven't seen it and have avoided it" is what he stated. Cool, so I know I can totally discount anything he has to say about it until he has seen and used the new OS. Dvorak added, "I'm waiting on the new Hybrid Hard Drives. I've seen demonstrations of them and on them, Vista's performance is supposed to be phenominal." As an example of a journalist providing a specific reason for waiting on a move to Vista [the man most likely uses a laptop as his main system], one can respect that. The differences between journalism and blogging/opinion aren't as subtle as might be thought. Specific references to available facts, or practical experiences underwrite journalism and reporting based upon that science. Blogs aren't held to that kind of standard, though all too often, they are shared as though they are. There's a lot to be learned here - many people here are gutsy and transparent - using their own experiences as the basis for their comments. That kind of transparency communicates respect for others. Guys like Latch have chosen to hold a lot of folks here to a pretty high standard - but haven't always exposed themselves to the same.... and we wonder why communication is devolving - it is because it is so easy to focus on what we don't like, because defending what we do like requires that we have a position that is known, and supported by a pragmatic base. That takes courage - especially in our industry, where what we know to be fact one day, may be changed entirely by tomorrow. The risk is that we could be proven wrong. That's what I disliked most about the 60's - lot's of voices speaking to what they did not like - with no offer as to what they did like and why, much less what they would do with every expectation of being held to account for the results. It was the absence of war that they wanted - with no plan for how to affect the changes that clearly needed to be made. Not at all unlike the absence of Microsoft, or Windows that many seem to want - with no intention of being held to account for the consequences attending that absence or for that which might replace them. That is the true defintion of arrogance - beliefs without a pragmatic base. |
| #35 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/28/2007 12:54:34 PM |
|
#36,37: Well, when it comes to transparency of belief, you and others, such as Parkkker, certainly have that. You are quite transparent in your belief that Microsoft should be the only OS player in the market, and that anyone who thinks there might be an alternative for anyone is just delusional, and you put forward the belief quite transparently that you feel that every OS or other software maker who makes anything that competes with any offering by Microsoft should close up shop and simply go away, and let Microsoft do whatever they want to do.
However, those of us with a more varied set of experiences with different hardware and software environments have different opinions. |
| #36 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/28/2007 2:21:06 PM |
| #36: Oh please. Show me where I said anyone was too dim to understand where I'm coming from (well, certain exceptions like Parkkker apply). I tend to not let much info about myself out as I know it will be instantly parlayed into some ad hominem attack. However, this isn't about me, never was, and I will resist attempts to distract from the discussion with irrelevant tangents. I've been posting here for years, complaining about MS' total lack of ethics and some crap software (not all MS software is crap, believe it or not). And yet you are accusing me of being arrogant because I'm not volunteering a solution? Here's one: hey MS, stop being such unethical asswads and start making IT decisions that benefit the world and not just benefit MS at the world's expense. Start by implementing ODF in Office 2007. There, my part is done, right? |
| #37 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 3/28/2007 3:47:11 PM |
|
#36, 37: I read that and survived! I do agree with your point about how it's easy to find fault, but hard to provide solutions. (The Democratic Party is suffering from this right now.)
I believe I take a very pragmatic approach to MSFT. My income comes from using their OS, development, server, and productivity software products. However, I also use other vendors' products and I see where MSFT is not doing the right thing. Being a shareholder, this creates frustration, since money (aka greed) is driving decisions as opposed to doing what is best for an industry. (I do believe that many of MSFT's beneficiaries do demonstrate outstanding benevolence though.) My greatest MSFT frustration comes from the featuritis in Office, the planned obsolescence of developmental technologies and the introduction of an unnecessary languages and runtimes. Office versions 97 and 2000 are still more than sufficient for the vast majority of users. Anyone for a dozen types of data access in the same number of years? The whole .NET fiasco and now you must know C#. What was wrong with C, C++, Java, Delphi, VB, and the assorted quick and dirty scripting languages out there? Nothing, but MSFT had to wrest control of the development language market from Sun and Borland. The best way to do that? Make up a new copy-cat language and with lots of big runtime dependencies. Lean and mean is long gone. C# and .NET have strengths, but we could be doing just as well without them. #40: Love the consistency of "post was edited by"! lol |
| #38 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 3/28/2007 5:56:10 PM |
|
#41, Well said. For certain, there is a dichotomy of interest that is nearly impossible to reconcile opposite public equity and that which is good for the public. We see examples of people and companies getting it wrong all the time and a few of them marched off in metal bracelets for a fun filled date with Rick and Bubba. There is an equal dichotomy affecting what we want from companies like Microsoft and Apple and what we expect of them in the context of citizenry and governance - how well can we expect companies to compete while bracing as we seem to insist against their own responsibilities as members of national and international markets?
In very real ways, these considerations drive much of the discussions here and many of the disagreements - where personal and political motivations influence where each stands. Will any one of such companies get all things right all the time? No. Do they try? Most seem to - including Microsoft. Personally, the challenge I have with some people and positions is that they paint with very large strokes when it works for them and with very fine brushes a moment later - picking and choosing the items that support their position. Using Latch's apparent position [sorry Latch - you can drub me back in a sec. I don't mind - you at least make me think], (favoring FOSS/OSS), I have to ask how such could be sustained - could such sustain millions within a global market? I have to conclude that without incentives, that no, FOSS/OSS cannot sustain large numbers of people with diverse interests as well as an ecosystem made up of proprietary software. Exposing proprietary software to requirements that remove protections from its IP also removes the incentives to create and sustain that IP in the first place. Cont... |
| #39 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 3/28/2007 5:56:46 PM |
|
Sadly, and not at all without irony, I fundamentally agree with Latch - and practice those beliefs each day - by sharing and advancing other beyond that which I might someday have obtained otherwise. That speaks to what one may hope we'll evolve to - where incentives are other than those driving corporations. Regardless, we're not there yet, so the matter is reduced to choices and compromises that best sustain the largest number of people while continuing to improve matters for all. I do assess that Microsoft does do this - although they are and will be a prone to errors as many others.
This by the way, is why I assess small business is so special - where one, or a few principals in a privately held company may make decisions which truly do represent what one might call, "The right thing to do - regardless of the personal consequences" That is what we try to do and happily, we are not at all unique - I see such each day and I am inspired by it. |
| #40 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/28/2007 6:09:49 PM |
|
#39: What planet are you from? Name me any company (in the business of making money) that does anything for the good of the world. All business decisions are driven by profit and nothing else. If a company does do something that benefits the world, it is merely because there is a profit to be made. You are holding Microsoft to a higher standard. Why don't you complain about the auto makers who have been foisting 15mph cars on us for decades when it is well within their means to make the world a better place? Why don't you complain about the Pharmaceutical companies that don’t research and develop drugs for free? Why don’t you complain to Sentinel about not using lubricants?
I’m glad you’re not running any company in which I hold stock. |
| #41 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 3/28/2007 6:44:39 PM |
|
#44: Nice to see ad hominem attacks are still part of your arguments.
Yes, all for profit companies are profit driven. Public companies doubly so. Unfortunately, we live in an economy where the value of a company can be totally trashed in a short time period for the audacity to not be MORE profitable today than it was yesterday. I could run a public company that makes ten billion dollars of pure profit per week, and if next week I only cleared 9.9 billion dollars, then the stock would be savaged and the value of the company would be trashed. And that's without even turning in a loss!! Until the bottom line is made to be less important to those on Wall Street, Bay Street, etc., and good corporate citizenship is valued over profit margins and shareholder dividends and quarter over quarter improvements are forced on corporations, this corporate slavishness towards the bottom line will never end. This is not the fault of Microsoft. Or IBM, or Nortel, or whomever. This is a stock market created problem. Capitalism does have its dark side as well as its bright side. |
| #42 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 3/28/2007 6:57:34 PM |
|
#41: I have to slightly disagree with part of your post. I actually think that Microsoft did a good job with .Net, and especially with C#. I have programmed in C, Objective-C, C++, C#, Java, Pascal, Basic of many flavours (including a brief stint using Vax Basic), Perl, assembler from several different processors, and a few other languages I'd rather forget about. Personally, I like C#. Java is still better, in my opinion, but to be fair, it has also been around a lot longer.
Here is a little story: There once were 2 rivals, Microsoft and Borland. Microsoft made Visual Basic (among others, but this is about VB), and Borland made Delphi (among others, but this is about VB vs. Delphi). There used to be a common belief that if you wanted to see what the next VB release would look like, feature wise, look no further than the current shipping version of Delphi. Microsoft was constantly playing catch up. The person who made Delphi, and made it successful, was Anders Hejlsberg. Eventually, Microsoft got into a battle with Sun Microsystems over Java. Rather than license Java, and have both companies be successful, Microsoft decided to try to co-opt Java, using their usual embrace and extend (and completely take over) strategy. This failed. So, they decided to create their own answer to Java. To do this, they needed some new blood, and new vision, to make it happen. So, they hired Anders Hejlsberg from Borland, and put him in charge of the new .Net platform, and basically gave him carte blanche to make something great. And he did. .Net still has some kinks to be worked out, but overall, it is quite robust for a fairly young environment. I think .Net is definitely in Microsoft's win column. However, that having been said, I would not mourn if VB was killed off. And J# is an abomination that should be euthanized too. |
| #43 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/28/2007 8:43:23 PM |
| #45 careful, or I'll break out the farm animal jokes... |
| #44 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 3/28/2007 10:17:09 PM |
| #44: It is irrelevant that some other companies also act poorly in their respective industries. You'll find no shortage of people beefing about drug companies, insurance companies, etc. Note that none of the examples you gave properly reflect the reality of the situation as there is no dominant monopolist in the auto or drug sectors that I'm aware of. This forum is about Microsoft, and as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the industry I personally care about the most, I do hold them to a higher standard. They have an ethical responsibility to lead by example because of the great power they hold over all aspects of the industry. This does not mean they must flush all their money down the toilet and give all their work away for free, for being a good corporate citizen/industry leader is not a renunciation of profit. They can still make lots of money while doing the right thing. Other companies are very successful, with good reputations; you don't see them in the news for the wrong reasons on a monthly (sometimes weekly) basis. With MS its constant shenanigans. It doesn't have to be this way. |
| #45 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/29/2007 4:55:30 AM |
|
Latch: MS hopes to prod lemming-like users into buying Vista because the user perceives through MS' deception that everyone else is rushing out to buy Vista.
Right... just like my mom used to say that if everyone was jumping off a bridge, will you? Microsoft isn't doing anything other than advertising their product. Oh, but that's off-limits, since it's Microsoft. After all, it's supposedly selling twice as fast as XP, according to MS. But it really isn't. No, it is, but for whatever reason, you refuse to accept the fact that Vista--like every previous version of Windows--is sold by and large through the channel and via OEM licenses. XP WAS NO DIFFERENT. All the arguments about "well, the hardware market has grown" and yada yada yada are completely moot--that is ALWAYS how Windows has been primarily sold. And if those same criteria apply to XP, then why on earth would it some how be different when evaluating Vista using the same criteria? It wouldn't, except in your mind and those of other people that have hating Microsoft as part of their identity. why is every blogger digging deeper to find out the real deal? For the same reason I just mentioned. Some people live to hate Microsoft, and some live simply to be skeptics of everything. Take that away from them, and they'd feel like a big part of them was missing. If you want to include some substantive information on how "Microsoft lied," then please do so. Microsoft is giving hard numbers... what are you giving, exactly, other than conjecture and disbelief? |
| #46 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/29/2007 8:30:18 AM |
|
#49: A lot of people are lemmings, whether you believe it or not. The entire fashion industry is based on this very concept. That's what the marketing term 'buzz' is all about. CReating awareness and groupthink.
You totally miss my point while rushing to defend MS. I don't deny that PC sales are where MS makes most of its sales. For the fricken n-th time, that isn't the problem. Go back and read all my previous posts, which you obviously haven't done or you wouldn't be advancing such silly notions. And yes, every blogger on the planet is out to get poor Microsoft. I'll trot out the same analogy I've used before. Ever notice how someone is a total dick and everyone else hates them, but when you ask the total dick about it, their view is that everyone is just jealous of their wonderfulness. That's what you're now doing. Yep, the blogosphere isn't digging into this because there is the usual MS chicanery, it's because everyone has an irrational hatred for the kindest, gentlest company to ever grace the Earth. Yeah, that must be it. I will say it one more time: the data is not the problem. The presentation of the data is the problem. Many years ago, ATI ran an ad that compared graphic scores between them and Diamond. What you saw in the ad was a large bar graph that showed ATI performance versus Diamond. At a glance, the bar graph appeared to show that ATI was 5 times faster than Diamond, since the ATI bar was 5 times higher than the Diamond bar. What you had to squint to see was that their bar graph scale did not start at zero, but instead started at 100. The ATI card had a score of 125 and the Diamond card had a score of 105. So the reality was that the ATI card was marginally faster, but their deceptive graph made it appear that it was 5 times faster. Their data was 100% correct. Their presentation was deceptive. MS saying Vista is selling twice as fast as XP may be technically correct (we'll have to trust MS on that one unfortunately), but it's not because everyone is twice as anxious to get it as XP 5 years ago. |
| #47 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/29/2007 9:39:22 AM |
|
As in interesting side note, my parents are looking to purchase a new computer. They have choice between what OS comes pre-installed. They can get Vista Home Basic , Vista Home Premium, XP Home, XP Pro, Red Hat, and one other I don't recall. What is interesting is that the XP options are more expensive than the Vista options. So, a consumer who is not as technically savvy, who is mainly thinking with their wallet, would be better off, from a FINANCIAL perspective, to get Cista, as it is a cheaper option. That would certainly tip the scales in Vista's favour when buying from this particular vendor. Don't want to upgrade to Vista? That's fine. That'll cost you extra.
Not that I am complaining about MS discounting Vista to move more copies of it, and charging more for the older product. That is their option. But it is one more bullet point indicating why they are moving more Vista licenses. And I have no problem with them doing so, for the record. |
| #48 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 3/29/2007 9:41:25 AM |
|
#43: This by the way, is why I assess small business is so special...
Agreed. Small businesses are integral to the innovation that emerges from America. I think that small companies move more quickly and, as you said, do that right thing. Small companies tend to do what is right for an industry regardless of personal sacrifice or gain. There is a passion that drives small businesses to thrive. #50: I fully agree with your assertion that the data is not problem as much the presentation. Where do marketers sit on the evolutionary scale? :-) #46: I actually think that Microsoft did a good job with .Net, and especially with C#. Allow me to clarify, I think C# is a fine language, but it was not necessary for the industry to have it. I probably spend about half of my coding time working with C# and .NET. The fiasco I mention regarding .NET is not about the concept or design per se as much as the implementation and, in particular, the marketing of it. I know the story who wrote about. I am intimately familiar with the whole Borland, Microsoft, and Sun saga--I've lived it. I've been a Borland shareholder for a long time and have worked with every version of Turbo Pascal since 2.0; I've owned every version since 5.0 on through to the new Delphi 2007. Owned Turbo C++ and Borland C++ too. I've owned a copy of MS C++ since the "baby coffin" days, used VB, and now Visual Studio--although I use SlickEdit to perform command-line compiles since VS is big, slow, and cumbersome. (They don't do documentation or print quality manuals like they used too.) I was using Java back when it was in beta and struggled through the whole write once, test everywhere dilema. Swing came long after I had mastered hacking for IE, Netscape and OS differences. I don't consider myself an expert of all of these things as much as a verteran. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly in development languages, tools and the developers that use them. |
| #49 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/29/2007 10:45:36 AM |
|
#52: My apologies. I misunderstood what you meant in the original article. My diatribe on the history of .Net was more for those non-developer types who might not know the history of it. I agree it was not a necessary thing. It was done to take midshare and market share away from Sun / Java. Microsoft wants to be a monopoly when it comes to developer environments and languages as well, and they got spanked when they tried to add proprietary hooks into Java in a way that violated the license they signed with Sun. If they could have worked with Sun, instead of against it, things would have been simpler and more straight forward. This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 15:58. |
| #50 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/29/2007 5:12:18 PM |
|
Latch... again, I ask you to contribute anything substantive to back up your claims that Microsoft is somehow being deceptive. You can make all the comparisons and analogies you want... but they don't mean squat unless you have some numbers to back them up. The bloggers can waste their breath all they want... there are certain parts of the world where a good or vast majority believe that the holocaust was a hoax, too. It all means nothing... unless you have hard data to back up your claim. The ATI example... well, any 7th grade math student is usually taught to notice that as well. Splitting graphs scales to show differences is hardly deceptive... it is, in fact, entirely legitimate, and used widely in the sciences and their journals/publications. Besides... the numbers Microsoft is quoting are legitimately double, not just bars on a bar graph made to look double.
If you want to see it as deceptive and you're looking for deception, then you're going to find it all over the place. But that's an issue of perception, not reality. Again... show us some data to show that Microsoft is deceiving us on the sales numbers. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 252 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
