Vista sales continue to surge!

External Since: Apr 10, 2007 Posts: 873

Sgt. Slaughter <rmiller.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> espoused:
>
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1qc9n4-uih.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill.TakeThisOut@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> espoused:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
>>><1313.TakeThisOut@Mockingbird.ln>
>>> wrote
>>> on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:19:01 -0400
>>><t5mdnYkz67Z6hDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d.TakeThisOut@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-organised?

Err, I said above that they did. You appear to be agreeing with me.

--
| 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 |

External Since: Apr 10, 2007 Posts: 873

Gordon <gbplinux.DeleteThis@gmail.com.invalid> espoused:
> "Nedd Ludd" <1313.DeleteThis@mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
> news:iqGdnbEejId3Dz_bnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill.DeleteThis@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> espoused:
>>>> 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
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> As for Microsoft accounting changes -- again, I have
>>>> no data.
>>>
>>> This is well documented. By re-organising on a fairly regular basis,
>>
>> Please share with us a link showing MSFT is doing something wrong.
>>
>
>
> There's nothing WRONG with changing Accounting practices as long as what you
> do is in accordance with the law. However, if that change means that last
> years figures aren't comparable, and there is no way to make last year's
> figures comparable, then it would make me a tad suspicious about WHY there
> was a need to change in the first place - moving goal posts and all
> that..... and I'm a retired Management Accountant....
>

That's the point, of course. Obviously this is your particular area of
expertise.

The troll is trying to imply that reorganising in order to hide the poor
performance of some divisions is or is not illegal, which was never the
point. The point is that it is done deliberately to hide poor
performing divisions from investors.

Legality is an orthogonal issue here. Not that trolls ever much care
about that.

--
| 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 |