Vista sales continue to surge!

That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.

FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing apples
(last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most people
because they think MSFT is worth investing in).

*plonk*

Astrosurfer Dr. Fafoofnik wrote:

[snip troll droppings]

Get a life you *IDIOT*!

Here you go again in your natural habitat...
*plonk*

--
|_|0|_| Registered Linux user #394093
|_|_|0| http://counter.li.org
|0|0|0| http://ml2mst.topcities.com

ml2mst wrote:
> Astrosurfer Dr. Fafoofnik wrote:
>
> [snip troll droppings]
>
> Get a life you *IDIOT*!
>
> Here you go again in your natural habitat...
> *plonk*
>

Linux advocates are in capable of a well reasoned rebuttal.
All they're capable of are name calling and insults.

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.

Why?

>
> FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing apples
> (last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
> investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most people
> because they think MSFT is worth investing in).

Changes to how financials are reported would require a line in the
footnotes describing the change. I didn't see it. Could you point me
to the line in MSFT's 10Q where they describe the change?

Also, statistic in the financial reports that compare this year's
numbers to a previous year's would require that previous year's numbers
be recalculated to reflect any changes in how earning are calculated.

Please notify the SEC if you feel that MSFT improperly made changes the
changes to their accounting practices. If you are not willing to stand
by your accusations with a formal report to the SEC then we'll assume
you're a liar.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
<1313 DeleteThis @Mockingbird.ln>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:19:01 -0400
<t5mdnYkz67Z6hDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.
>
> Why?
>
>>
>> FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing apples
>> (last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
>> investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most people
>> because they think MSFT is worth investing in).
>
> Changes to how financials are reported would require a line in the
> footnotes describing the change. I didn't see it. Could you point me
> to the line in MSFT's 10Q where they describe the change?
>
> Also, statistic in the financial reports that compare this year's
> numbers to a previous year's would require that previous year's numbers
> be recalculated to reflect any changes in how earning are calculated.
>
> Please notify the SEC if you feel that MSFT improperly made changes the
> changes to their accounting practices. If you are not willing to stand
> by your accusations with a formal report to the SEC then we'll assume
> you're a liar.

It makes no difference; Vista is doing very well in the
marketplace, generating unprecedented sales for Microsoft.
But there is a fundamental disconnect here -- several,
in fact.

[1] Microsoft continues to sell its OS primarily through
OEMs. These OEMs are contractually obligated to
sell Vista machines, presumably; therefore, any new
machine, absent special consideration by these OEMs
(e.g., Dell's Ubuntu promotion), must have Vista
preinstalled thereon.

[2] Microsoft sells Vista, but that doesn't mean customers
will *use* Vista; many may very well wipe the disk
and install XP, or wipe and install Ubuntu or any of
a number of distros. Microsoft still gets its money,
despite that particular license never being used
at all.

[3] It is possible (I'm not sure how likely) that at
least part of that revenue is being realized by a
customer upgrading his system to Ultimate from Home
Basic or some other lower edition. The Ultimate or
business editions are the only editions which have
certain desirable functionality.

How much % any of these will factor in is not clear to
me at this time absent additional data.

And then there's the issue as to whether this has relevance
to Linux. I say that it does, if only in the commercial
realm -- any dollar spent on Vista is one dollar less
that could be spent on Red Hat, machine improvements,
good sandwiches, a new car, etc. To that end, the report
appears to be of peripheral importance, but not totally
irrelevant.

As for Microsoft accounting changes -- again, I have
no data.

--
#191, ewill3 DeleteThis @earthlink.net
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

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

<nessuno DeleteThis @wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:1184942500.464188.205500@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Just this moment CNN is reporting that Microsoft stock is down 2%.
> Guess that Vista cash infusion isn't helping too much.
>

Wow-wee. The stock was down 1% on a day when the entire market was down
1.3%.

How did Google do? Oh, that's right. It was down more than $32 per share.




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

____/ nessuno.TakeThisOut@wigner.berkeley.edu on Friday 20 July 2007 15:41 : \____

> Just this moment CNN is reporting that Microsoft stock is down 2%.
> Guess that Vista cash infusion isn't helping too much.

The buybacks might. I think there's only one company in America (world?) whose
buyback scale exceeds Microsoft's... and that company isn't in high tech.

Just as a reminder, Microsoft earns a mere $40 or so from Vista sales through
major OEMs. In some countries, Vista just gets pirated (and so does Office).
All other divisions appear to be losing money, so where can a lot of income
come from? It's still flowing, but there's a squeeze. Gates has even
begun "dumping" software just to keep the young generation addicted so that he
can 'collect' later. The trolls keep reminding us that everyone uses Windows
and Office, but how many people (worldwide!) actually /pay/ for it? If
Microsoft tightened the grip in Romania, for instance, there would be a
massive migration to OpenOffice.org, which kills the lockin's
(OOXML/.DOX/whatever) momentum.

Microsoft has begun experimenting with pay-as-you-go Winffice. They called it a
success in Africa. They also realise that they must move online or perish (ask
the chief, which said this last week). Can revenue survive with the shift? Is
offshoring inevitable?

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Download Othello: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 117 total, 1 running, 116 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

nessuno.RemoveThis@wigner.berkeley.edu <nessuno.RemoveThis@wigner.berkeley.edu> espoused:
> Just this moment CNN is reporting that Microsoft stock is down 2%.
> Guess that Vista cash infusion isn't helping too much.
>

Brokers are not so easily fooled as Forbes journalists, it seems.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

"Vista sales continue to surge!"

So did my toilet when the septic system backed up !

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill RemoveThis @sirius.tg00suus7038.net> espoused:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
><1313 RemoveThis @Mockingbird.ln>
> wrote
> on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:19:01 -0400
><t5mdnYkz67Z6hDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing apples
>>> (last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
>>> investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most people
>>> because they think MSFT is worth investing in).
>>
>> Changes to how financials are reported would require a line in the
>> footnotes describing the change. I didn't see it. Could you point me
>> to the line in MSFT's 10Q where they describe the change?
>>
>> Also, statistic in the financial reports that compare this year's
>> numbers to a previous year's would require that previous year's numbers
>> be recalculated to reflect any changes in how earning are calculated.
>>
>> Please notify the SEC if you feel that MSFT improperly made changes the
>> changes to their accounting practices. If you are not willing to stand
>> by your accusations with a formal report to the SEC then we'll assume
>> you're a liar.
>

Ah, don't you just love the introduction of the word "improperly"...

> It makes no difference; Vista is doing very well in the
> marketplace, generating unprecedented sales for Microsoft.
> But there is a fundamental disconnect here -- several,
> in fact.
>
> [1] Microsoft continues to sell its OS primarily through
> OEMs. These OEMs are contractually obligated to
> sell Vista machines, presumably; therefore, any new
> machine, absent special consideration by these OEMs
> (e.g., Dell's Ubuntu promotion), must have Vista
> preinstalled thereon.
>
> [2] Microsoft sells Vista, but that doesn't mean customers
> will *use* Vista; many may very well wipe the disk
> and install XP, or wipe and install Ubuntu or any of
> a number of distros. Microsoft still gets its money,
> despite that particular license never being used
> at all.
>
> [3] It is possible (I'm not sure how likely) that at
> least part of that revenue is being realised by a
> customer upgrading his system to Ultimate from Home
> Basic or some other lower edition. The Ultimate or
> business editions are the only editions which have
> certain desirable functionality.
>
> How much % any of these will factor in is not clear to
> me at this time absent additional data.
>
> And then there's the issue as to whether this has relevance
> to Linux. I say that it does, if only in the commercial
> realm -- any dollar spent on Vista is one dollar less
> that could be spent on Red Hat, machine improvements,
> good sandwiches, a new car, etc. To that end, the report
> appears to be of peripheral importance, but not totally
> irrelevant.
>
> As for Microsoft accounting changes -- again, I have
> no data.

This is well documented. By re-organising on a fairly regular basis,
large companies make it more difficult for external analysts to
determine just how well or badly individual units are doing. Of course,
so long as the /overall/ figures are returned, then there's nothing
legally *improper*, as your troll above is trying to imply, however, the
point he so clearly fails to grasp is that this kind of reorganisation
is deliberate in order to minimise the visibility of problems, whilst,
ideally, emphasising successes. As Microsoft are a bit short on
successes at the moment, I'm sure they'll setting for minimising problem
units, like the Zune, the Xbox360, Vista, Office...

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

"Mark Kent" <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1qc9n4-uih.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill.RemoveThis@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> espoused:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
>><1313.RemoveThis@Mockingbird.ln>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:19:01 -0400
>><t5mdnYkz67Z6hDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> That's it. I'm filtering all posts from Outlook Express.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, Microsoft changed the way it reports earning, so it's comparing
>>>> apples
>>>> (last year) with oranges (this year). Nice play, but it only fools the
>>>> investors, who are not stupid (they are just not as clever as most
>>>> people
>>>> because they think MSFT is worth investing in).
>>>
>>> Changes to how financials are reported would require a line in the
>>> footnotes describing the change. I didn't see it. Could you point me
>>> to the line in MSFT's 10Q where they describe the change?
>>>
>>> Also, statistic in the financial reports that compare this year's
>>> numbers to a previous year's would require that previous year's numbers
>>> be recalculated to reflect any changes in how earning are calculated.
>>>
>>> Please notify the SEC if you feel that MSFT improperly made changes the
>>> changes to their accounting practices. If you are not willing to stand
>>> by your accusations with a formal report to the SEC then we'll assume
>>> you're a liar.
>>
>
> Ah, don't you just love the introduction of the word "improperly"...
>
>> It makes no difference; Vista is doing very well in the
>> marketplace, generating unprecedented sales for Microsoft.
>> But there is a fundamental disconnect here -- several,
>> in fact.
>>
>> [1] Microsoft continues to sell its OS primarily through
>> OEMs. These OEMs are contractually obligated to
>> sell Vista machines, presumably; therefore, any new
>> machine, absent special consideration by these OEMs
>> (e.g., Dell's Ubuntu promotion), must have Vista
>> preinstalled thereon.
>>
>> [2] Microsoft sells Vista, but that doesn't mean customers
>> will *use* Vista; many may very well wipe the disk
>> and install XP, or wipe and install Ubuntu or any of
>> a number of distros. Microsoft still gets its money,
>> despite that particular license never being used
>> at all.
>>
>> [3] It is possible (I'm not sure how likely) that at
>> least part of that revenue is being realised by a
>> customer upgrading his system to Ultimate from Home
>> Basic or some other lower edition. The Ultimate or
>> business editions are the only editions which have
>> certain desirable functionality.
>>
>> How much % any of these will factor in is not clear to
>> me at this time absent additional data.
>>
>> And then there's the issue as to whether this has relevance
>> to Linux. I say that it does, if only in the commercial
>> realm -- any dollar spent on Vista is one dollar less
>> that could be spent on Red Hat, machine improvements,
>> good sandwiches, a new car, etc. To that end, the report
>> appears to be of peripheral importance, but not totally
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> As for Microsoft accounting changes -- again, I have
>> no data.
>
> This is well documented. By re-organising on a fairly regular basis,
> large companies make it more difficult for external analysts to
> determine just how well or badly individual units are doing. Of course,
> so long as the /overall/ figures are returned, then there's nothing
> legally *improper*, as your troll above is trying to imply, however, the
> point he so clearly fails to grasp is that this kind of reorganisation
> is deliberate in order to minimise the visibility of problems, whilst,
> ideally, emphasising successes.

Can you name a single large company that hasn't re-organized? Fact is that
as companies introduce or buy new business units and disolve or sell older
units they have no choice but to reorganize. It's simply not an option.

> As Microsoft are a bit short on
> successes at the moment, I'm sure they'll setting for minimising problem
> units, like the Zune, the Xbox360, Vista, Office...

Given the fact that they just made a few BILLION dollars proft that past few
months it's rather absurd to think that every single one of their units has
a problem. These billions of dollars in sales and profit don't grow on
trees. The fact is that even the worse of their business units is larger
than most entire companies.




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

John Locke wrote:
> "Vista sales continue to surge!"
>
> So did my toilet when the septic system backed up !

So did your business when Linux wasn't good enough to handle it.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:12:42 -0500, "DFS" <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:

>John Locke wrote:
>> "Vista sales continue to surge!"
>>
>> So did my toilet when the septic system backed up !
>
>So did your business when Linux wasn't good enough to handle it.
>
Our business is very healthy. Thankyou. Having made the decision
two years ago to cease purchasing Microsoft software has
saved us a boat load of money.

XP and Windows 2003 server are doing the job for us. No need
whatsoever to upgrade, especially to Vista. Open Office
is just great. Have it on all the clients.

We haven't started conversion to Linux but will do so in
the near future with a well planned and technically sound endeavor.