[News] Microsoft Windows Installed Base to Cross 1 Billion..

"Gordon" <gbplinux RemoveThis @gmail.com.invalid> writes:

> "John Locke" <johnlocke98513 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:j18ta39d6a58dpe7s2289qm66c20p7399i@4ax.com...
>>
>> Here's a breakdown on market share taken from
>> a sampling of 125,000 users:
>>
>> 81.82% Windows XP
>> 4.82% Linux

Rubbish. Not in a million years are 5% of machines "in the market place"
installed with Linux. A recent poll I took in two businesses I did some
work for revealed 3 Linux servers and about 6 Macs in a total of about
400 machines. Most had XP and the company were in no hurry to move to
Vista.

What source did this survey come from?

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You cola liars/idiots
>
> Lie. We are not all liars. We are not all idiots.

I don't really have to list the full cadre of bozos each time I use that
term, do I? You're mostly not a liar/idiot (nor is Ghost, kier or thad and
a few others). But the large majority of Linux "advocates" do nothing but
lie about MS and Windows.



>> have to be challenged. For instance, you used to blab
>> that Linux systems ran 50x faster than Windows systems. Why did you
>> discontinue that particular piece of stupidity?
>
> He stopped lying.

He stopped that one lie. Then he posted a bunch of others, including:

* Most of the corporate world runs BSD and Linux servers, relegating
Microsoft IIS to less than marginal statistical use in the server market
* MSN.com STILL runs on Linux servers
* Hotmail.com STILL runs on 15,000 BSD servers
* China officially runs all government infrastructure on Red Flag Linux




>> First it was "does NOT translate into 60 million users" and now it's
>> "definitely doubt". Just so you know, MS doesn't sell to end users.
>> And just so you're clear, you don't know how many Vista systems have
>> been sold.
>
> Do you know? Do you have revenue numbers specific to Vista?

No.



>> Now it's time to admit you make up statements to support your anti-MS
>> hatred. All Linux "advocates" on cola do it.
>
> Lie.

Totally true. You're guilty as well, though less often than most.



>>> I am in the Chain stores doing demonstrations with LiveCDs,
>>
>> This is too weird. Unless you're there as an official
>> representative of a distro or hardware vendor - which is unlikely -
>> it means you hover uninvited around the hardware, and when customers
>> get near you launch into a bad Linux sales pitch, complete with all
>> your lies. Then you try to force a LiveCD into their hand.
>
> You seem to be fantasizing here.

How else can he accomplish what he says he does?



>> You cola idiots can't make a post without multiple lies, can you?
>
> You may well be the biggest one in COLA at this moment, DFS. You're
> deranged on the subject of COLA posters!

I find it amusing that such a cluster of lying paranoids gathers in one
place, and targets one entity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hadron wrote:

>>> Here's a breakdown on market share taken from
>>> a sampling of 125,000 users:
>>>
>>> 81.82% Windows XP
>>> 4.82% Linux
>
> Rubbish. Not in a million years are 5% of machines "in the market
> place" installed with Linux. A recent poll I took in two businesses I
> did some work for revealed 3 Linux servers and about 6 Macs in a total
> of about 400 machines. Most had XP and the company were in no hurry to
> move to Vista.

I wouldn't be so quick to call "rubbish" when your argument against the
other numbers is a self-conducted poll of a (statistically speaking)
insignificantly small segment of the market. As arguments go, you
haven't exactly picked a winner. There are so many holes to poke in it
that I hardly know where to start.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGsbDqd1ZThqotgfgRAoTFAKCLBQzXlyQkTUp/tYgJCxIhr4vofACff1rl
s05ssoidSSq97PR14GNg8fE=
=wZFr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

Linux has a history of standing on the shoulders of giants, while Microsoft has
a history of trying to break giants' legs. The latter is quite less efficient.

Peter Kai Jensen <usenet.TakeThisOut@pekajemaps.homeip.net> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>>>> Here's a breakdown on market share taken from
>>>> a sampling of 125,000 users:
>>>>
>>>> 81.82% Windows XP
>>>> 4.82% Linux
>>
>> Rubbish. Not in a million years are 5% of machines "in the market
>> place" installed with Linux. A recent poll I took in two businesses I
>> did some work for revealed 3 Linux servers and about 6 Macs in a total
>> of about 400 machines. Most had XP and the company were in no hurry to
>> move to Vista.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to call "rubbish" when your argument against the
> other numbers is a self-conducted poll of a (statistically speaking)

But it was "real" - and I dont claim it represents the world. But we all
know Linux is NOT on 5% of machines. Impossible.

> insignificantly small segment of the market. As arguments go, you
> haven't exactly picked a winner. There are so many holes to poke in it
> that I hardly know where to start.

I didn't represent it as a closing argument. I did present it to prove
that in certain sectors 5% is certainly not the truth. I would bet a
penny to a pound that the 5% was plucked from his arse.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:53:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Gordon wrote:
>> Ian Semmel wrote:
>>> ----[ Quote ]
>>
>>> The software giant announced it sold 60 million copies of Windows
>>> Vista this year,
>>
>> Yes, to OEMs. That does NOT translate into 60 million users, far from
>> it....
>
> How do you know?

Simple logic.

If a company ships 100 million units of something to retail outlets, it has
_shipped_ 100 million units. This gives no indication whatsoever of how
many have been sold to consumers; indeed, between time of shipping and
time of arrival, 100 million units have shipped, zero have sold.

To know how many actual sales are involved, you have to examine the actual
outlets which sell to the customers - and, more specifically, examine
their actual sales to customers. Nothing else will tell you sales
figures, shipping features least of all.

One can equivocate somewhat, claiming that MS's release to retail outlets
qualify as "sales" but that strikes me as a tad dishonest; if we're
examining the copies of the product sold, and "sold" in this context
implies "in the hands of the consumer", then these sales-to-vendor
figures simply don't matter.

If we want to count these 60 million as actual sales, we can, but then
we're in a slightly different situation. For example, depending on the
terms of the agreements, MS may have to take back any unsaleable
merchandise, in which case of the 60 million "sold", say 15 million go
back - wouldn't this then count as 45 million sold? Wouldn't quoting "60
million sold" be a very untenable statement?