«

Forrester says enterprise desktop adoption of Dimdows declined in 2007
<http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_a_monopoly_shakes.html>.
XP held steady, while older versions fell off, with Vista not taking up the
slack.

The study covered the Asia-Pacific (that's us), Europe and North America.

In article <>, Crash did write:

> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:54:00 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>
>>Forrester says enterprise desktop adoption of Dimdows declined in 2007
>><http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_a_monopoly_shakes.html>.
>
> So what, exactly, is your point in posting this?

It's a trend never seen before. Do you get that? _Never_ _seen_ _before_. Do
you understand the significance of that?

In article <47f1ec62$>, Puddle did write:

> Yeah they just can't compete with XP it seems.

XP is a problem. Microsoft can ill-afford to continue devoting programmer
resources to supporting it, when they're needed for Vista, and of course to
work on developing the new Dimdows 7. After the multi-year delays for
Vista, and the botchup over SP1, every further stuffup is just going to
accelerate their decline.

In article <47f1f08c$>, Puddle did write:

> I really think they won't put much more into Vista, it will be like
> Windows ME, very quickly forgotten.

But there are already tens of millions of consumers running it, so it won't
be that easy to abandon. It's only the business market that has stayed
away.

In article <>, Collector€NZ did write:

> What stuff up with Vista SP1, works fine for me, private use and corporate

You haven't heard the news
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/20/vista_sp1_complaints/>
<http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/microsoft_vista_sp1_free_support/>,
then.

In article <>, Crash did write:

> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:44:21 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In article <>, Crash did write:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:54:00 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <_zealand> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Forrester says enterprise desktop adoption of Dimdows declined in 2007
>>>><http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/windows_a_monopoly_shakes.html>.
>
>>> So what, exactly, is your point in posting this?
>>
>>It's a trend never seen before. Do you get that? _Never_ _seen_ _before_.
>>Do you understand the significance of that?
>
> What trend? MS dips 3.7%?

That's the one.

> These numbers, IIRC, represent market penetration change over a year
> (2007). For such a long period of time these numbers are so
> microscopically small that they cannot reasonably be considered
> significant.

On the contrary. Microsoft's market share has _never_ moved in that
direction before. _Never_. Do you get it?

In article <47f20287$>, Collector€NZ did write:

> And even more to the point make the case for MS having a huge share of
> the market

In times past, people have used that dominance as a rationalization for
saying that you might as well choose Microsoft. But the dip in market share
shows that there are a few million people who have come to the conclusion
that that excuse is total, unadulterated horseshit.

Collector€NZ wrote:
> reg and others print ****, same as the NZ newspapers print mostly
> sensational stuff they need the readers to justify the advert income.

Agreed... El Reg is about as reliable as Wikipedia.

In article <47f20fdd$>, Collector€NZ did write:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Collector€NZ did write:
>>
>>> What stuff up with Vista SP1, works fine for me, private use and
>>> corporate
>>
>> You haven't heard the news
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/20/vista_sp1_complaints/>
>>
<http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/microsoft_vista_sp1_free_support/>,
>> then.

> reg and others print **** ...

Then why is Microsoft offering a level of no-charge support for SP1 that it
never has before?

Further confirmation
<http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=72593>
<http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006683.html> for anti-Register
snobs.

> Sorry, no issue ...

It's like those folks who point out the large number of people making it
through each day in Baghdad without being car-bombed, so what's this about
a war?

In article <47f22115$>, EMB <> wrote:
>Collector€NZ wrote:
>> reg and others print ****, same as the NZ newspapers print mostly
>> sensational stuff they need the readers to justify the advert income.
>
>Agreed... El Reg is about as reliable as Wikipedia.

Hmmm ... and wikipedia is about as reliable as printed encyclopedias ... so
... how do we get a reliable source of information ?