Ownership of Microsoft

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:

> "Nedd Ludd" <1313.RemoveThis@Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
> news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>>> funds.
>>>>
>>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>>
>>> Link?
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT
>
>
> I followed your link and all I can say is wow.
>
> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all
> these institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing. Or are the
> 6 anonymous posters here in COLA the ones who don't know what they're
> talking about when they say that Microsoft is doomed and is collapsing.
>
> Then I look at the top companies that own Microsoft stock.
>
> Capital research owns over $14 Billion dollars of stock. Barclays UK Ltd
> owns over $11 Billion dollars of stock. There's more than half a dozen
> companies each of which have over a billion dollars of there own money
> invested in Microsoft.
>
> Anyone with that big of an investment probably did their homework. I
> mean c'mon, you just don't one day decide to invest $14 Billion dollars
> into a company without doing a LOT of homework first. And the people who
> do this homework/research are probably damn good at what they do. With
> this sort of money at stake their carreers are probably on the line too.
>
> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe them. I
> mean they are more likely to know what the hell they're talking about
> than some nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a link to a blog entry
> in Canaduh that claims Microsoft is in trouble. Because if anything it
> looks like they are doing better than ever.

And yet, the two best product lines, Windows and Office can be replaced
by free alternatives. What else in the company is worth that investment?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Voodoo MooGoo wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:

>> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
>> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe
>> them. I mean they are more likely to know what the hell they're
>> talking about than some nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a
>> link to a blog entry in Canaduh that claims Microsoft is in trouble.
>> Because if anything it looks like they are doing better than ever.
>
> And yet, the two best product lines, Windows and Office can be
> replaced by free alternatives.

They can be, but they won't be. The cost to replace Windows and Office
worldwide with Linux and open source would be astronomical. You're talking
many billions (maybe low trillions?) of dollars to rewrite millions of
commercial and custom/internal/corporate apps, and to rip out/replace entire
corporate IT infrastructures.

Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide ecosystem
which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean virtually all apps and
games and lots of PC hardware.

It will NEVER happen. Not in 5 years, or 50 years. The cost to benefit
ratio is not nearly good enough, even with free code. I'd go further, and
would bet most corporations wouldn't take a 100% free replacement of their
Windows software and systems - the disruption to normal operations is too
costly and too troublesome.

Dream on about Linux/OSS ever wholesale replacing Windows/closed source on
anything but the very small scale.



> What else in the company is worth that investment?

Nothing. As I recall, Windows/Office drives

DFS wrote:
> John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, "DFS" <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A different OS and apps and games is very far from necessary.
>> The most successful company of the 21st century is Google -- a Linux
>> company.
>
> MS is far more successful than Google since 2000, but MS is not the most
> successful US company (that would be oil companies as a whole).
>
>
>
>> No company hoping to compete with Google can ever use an OS buy open
>> source Linux.
Not true. BSD is in 29 different versions for many platforms, and has
fast search functions, and is used to build clusters. Another plus it
has is the licenses, for commercial enterprises.

>>
>> Costs alone would prevent them from being competitive.
>
> Google kicks ass, but MSN Search doesn't have to pay MS $300 a license for
> Windows servers hosting their search engines.
Actually, if you were to study business finance 101, you would learn
that each corporate child and each division of any company actually pays
the parent corporation for all purchases of hardware, software, space,
tools, and product.

Without budgeting and finance fully accounted, the tax man and the SEC
(if publicly traded), have a fit! Plus, if the finances aren't proper,
the shareholders revolt, and heads 'roll' as resources evaporate or are
embezzled.

So, yes Dorothy, Accounting logs the full boat of charges, and cuts
checks in payment for all software, hardware, fixtures, no matter the
source.
>
> It's not software costs, it's search results. Google offers the best search
> results (in my experience).

I agree that the million clustered Google units work well, but, they are
text based.

You should try kartoo.com and you will see a different view. Once you
get used to Kartoo, you will enjoy the graphical layout, especially for
unfamiliar search words.

DFS <nospam DeleteThis @dfs_.com> wrote:

> Voodoo MooGoo wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:
>
> >> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
> >> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe
> >> them. I mean they are more likely to know what the hell they're
> >> talking about than some nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a
> >> link to a blog entry in Canaduh that claims Microsoft is in trouble.
> >> Because if anything it looks like they are doing better than ever.
> >
> > And yet, the two best product lines, Windows and Office can be
> > replaced by free alternatives.
>
> They can be, but they won't be. The cost to replace Windows and Office
> worldwide with Linux and open source would be astronomical.

For many users, OpenOffice would serve them perfectly well.

> You're talking many billions (maybe low trillions?) of dollars to rewrite
> millions of commercial and custom/internal/corporate apps, and to rip
> out/replace entire corporate IT infrastructures.
>
> Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide
> ecosystem which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean virtually all
> apps and games and lots of PC hardware.

There's actually no need for anyone to do anything. Software doesn't
wear out, what people have at present is more than adequate for 99.99%
of users, individual and corporate.

People don't seem to understand this, probably because they're dazzled
by the slick Microsoft Marketing Machine. The day they do, Microsoft is
finished.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Peter Hayes" <notinuse2.TakeThisOut@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1i2f7ul.1cv2yr6elybesN%notinuse2@btinternet.com...
> DFS <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> Voodoo MooGoo wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:
>>
>> >> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
>> >> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe
>> >> them. I mean they are more likely to know what the hell they're
>> >> talking about than some nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a
>> >> link to a blog entry in Canaduh that claims Microsoft is in trouble.
>> >> Because if anything it looks like they are doing better than ever.
>> >
>> > And yet, the two best product lines, Windows and Office can be
>> > replaced by free alternatives.
>>
>> They can be, but they won't be. The cost to replace Windows and Office
>> worldwide with Linux and open source would be astronomical.
>
> For many users, OpenOffice would serve them perfectly well.
>

So you SAY, but obviously, after years of FOSS BS about how great it is, the
buyers are not convinced. Your opinion is clearly in the small, small
minority. The combined efforts of the FOSS advocates over many years has
been impotent and the world is changed not one whit.



>> You're talking many billions (maybe low trillions?) of dollars to rewrite
>> millions of commercial and custom/internal/corporate apps, and to rip
>> out/replace entire corporate IT infrastructures.
>>
>> Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide
>> ecosystem which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean virtually
>> all
>> apps and games and lots of PC hardware.
>
> There's actually no need for anyone to do anything. Software doesn't
> wear out, what people have at present is more than adequate for 99.99%
> of users, individual and corporate.
>
How many times have all you folk laughed at Bill Gates for saying much the
same thing about other topics. The facts of the matter are that the people
selling MS Office are still very, very effective and are managing to keep
the ball rolling quite well. You could learn from their methods, but, of
course, you already know it all.

> People don't seem to understand this, probably because they're dazzled
> by the slick Microsoft Marketing Machine. The day they do, Microsoft is
> finished.
>
Thank God that you were born with such a high intellect that you are above
all that.

On 2007-08-05, DFS <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
> John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:

>> See you at the races.
>
> Maybe. If so, I'll arive in an Infiniti FX35, and you'll be driving a Chevy
> Lumina.

Like this one?
http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=172000421&channel=2621254

waterskidoo wrote:
> On 2007-08-05, DFS <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
>
>>> See you at the races.
>>
>> Maybe. If so, I'll arive in an Infiniti FX35, and you'll be driving
>> a Chevy Lumina.
>
> Like this one?
> http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=172000421&channel=2621254

That klutzy goob Bailo would run down 27 people between his apartment
entrance and the bingo hall if you let him loose in one of those.

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide ecosystem
> which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean virtually all apps and
> games and lots of PC hardware.

Except, of course, that much of the "ecosystem" runs on mainframes and
minis, where there isn't a sniff-sniff of Windows.

> Dream on about Linux/OSS ever wholesale replacing Windows/closed source on
> anything but the very small scale.

It probably will not happen, but I wouldn't categorically rule it out.
Might have to wait for Gates to really retire, and Ballmy too.

--
Tux rox!

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide
>> ecosystem which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean
>> virtually all apps and games and lots of PC hardware.
>
> Except, of course, that much of the "ecosystem" runs on mainframes and
> minis, where there isn't a sniff-sniff of Windows.

C'mon guy, open your mind. There's an enormous worldwide set of people and
businesses whose livelihoods and products are tied to MS\Windows.




>> Dream on about Linux/OSS ever wholesale replacing Windows/closed
>> source on anything but the very small scale.
>
> It probably will not happen, but I wouldn't categorically rule it out.
> Might have to wait for Gates to really retire, and Ballmy too.

Get back to me when you hit the big 1-0-0! I imagine by then you'll have
retired as a Windows developer on a fixed pension.

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Replacing Windows implies replacing/updating the entire worldwide
>>> ecosystem which revolves around MS\Windows, which would mean
>>> virtually all apps and games and lots of PC hardware.
>>
>> Except, of course, that much of the "ecosystem" runs on mainframes and
>> minis, where there isn't a sniff-sniff of Windows.
>
> C'mon guy, open your mind. There's an enormous worldwide set of people and
> businesses whose livelihoods and products are tied to MS\Windows.

Sure there is, in a limited environment.

You're confused because that environment is merely the most visible
environment.

>> It probably will not happen, but I wouldn't categorically rule it out.
>> Might have to wait for Gates to really retire, and Ballmy too.
>
> Get back to me when you hit the big 1-0-0! I imagine by then you'll have
> retired as a Windows developer on a fixed pension.

I don't consider myself a Windows developer. I write cross-platform
code almost exclusively.

And how did you know the Administration is pushing for a retirement age
of 100?

--
Tux rox!

Linonut wrote:

> I don't consider myself a Windows developer. I write cross-platform
> code almost exclusively.

Sorry guy: since 100% of your code is deployed on Windows, you're a Windows
developer.

So is Peter Kohlmann, and pretty much all the cola advocates who code for a
living.


> And how did you know the Administration is pushing for a retirement
> age of 100?

If a traffic-rage induced heart attack doesn't get me before then, I'll see
you in line at the SSA.