«

It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely_to_keep_hurting_Microsoft_s ales_analyst_says_>.

The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
Client in revenues.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely_to_keep_hurting_Microsoft_s ales_analyst_says_>.
>
> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
> Client in revenues.

Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
overwhelmingly in negative territory.

On Oct 30, 8:26*am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
> > year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
> > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely....>.
>
> > The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
> > Client in revenues.
>
> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
> available even as far back as Office95? *Add the cost of upgrading for
> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
> overwhelmingly in negative territory.

So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
and academic applications.

So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
billions in unnecessary expenditure.

Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.

peterwn wrote:
> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
>>> Client in revenues.
>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
>
> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
> and academic applications.
>
> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
>
> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.

One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".

The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
(and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
to schools.

EMB <> wrote:

> peterwn wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
>>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
>>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
>>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
>>>> Client in revenues.
>>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
>>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
>>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
>>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
>>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
>>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
>>
>> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
>> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
>> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
>> and academic applications.
>>
>> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
>> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
>> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
>> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
>> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
>>
>> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
>> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
>
> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
> XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
>
> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
> to schools.

Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:

"There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
"Not as we know it
"Not as we know it ..."

--
- Nicolaas

.... Oh! And a bottle of jubjub repellent, please.

On Oct 30, 5:52*pm, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> peterwn wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
> >>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
> >>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
> >>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
> >>> Client in revenues.
> >> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
> >> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
> >> available even as far back as Office95? *Add the cost of upgrading for
> >> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
> >> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
> >> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
>
> > So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
> > Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
> > hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
> > and academic applications.
>
> > So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
> > operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
> > makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
> > long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
> > billions in unnecessary expenditure.
>
> > Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
> > trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
>
> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
> XP/Office 2003. *It is going to require hardware upgrades to
> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
>
> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
> to schools.

And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
to them that should not open.

It is like when Steve (chair thrower) Ballmer visited NZ a few years
ago and was able to see top Government people - what the hell standing
did he have to see them when many NZ business leaders can only dream
of such access to top Government people. in this regard he was no
better than a 'team leader' salesperson.
..

On 2009-10-30, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
> EMB <> wrote:
>
>> peterwn wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
>>>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
>>>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
>>>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
>>>>> Client in revenues.
>>>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
>>>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
>>>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
>>>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
>>>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
>>>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
>>>
>>> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
>>> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
>>> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
>>> and academic applications.
>>>
>>> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
>>> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
>>> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
>>> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
>>> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
>>>
>>> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
>>> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
>>
>> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
>> XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
>> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
>> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
>> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
>> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
>>
>> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
>> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
>> to schools.
>
> Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:
>
> "There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
> "Not as we know it
> "Not as we know it ..."
>
Indeed Alice

Gordon <> wrote:

> On 2009-10-30, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
>> EMB <> wrote:
>>
>>> peterwn wrote:
>>>> On Oct 30, 8:26 am, EMB <emb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> It isn't just Windows Client sales that have seen a sharp drop over the past
>>>>>> year, Microsoft Office isn't doing too well either
>>>>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139835/Netbooks_Office_likely...>.
>>>>>> The one bright spot is the server division. That's already surpassed Windows
>>>>>> Client in revenues.
>>>>> Declining Office revenue is hardly surprising - how many average Office
>>>>> users actually use any of the features in Office 2007 that weren't
>>>>> available even as far back as Office95? Add the cost of upgrading for
>>>>> effectively no additional functionality to the learning curve required
>>>>> by the new interface in Office 2007 and the benefits of upgrading are
>>>>> overwhelmingly in negative territory.
>>>>
>>>> So what is now happening is that Microsoft are leaning on the likes of
>>>> Victoria University to upgrade to Office 2007 when their existing
>>>> hardware and software are perfectly adequate for the bulk of student
>>>> and academic applications.
>>>>
>>>> So basicaly the roadmap and strategy for much of the world's IT
>>>> operation are being driven by Microsoft, Intel and other hardware
>>>> makers. Each increment makes economic sense, but if institutions did a
>>>> long term global assessment they would find it is costing them
>>>> billions in unnecessary expenditure.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the amount of hardware that is being unnecessarily
>>>> trashed, adding to environmental and resource problems.
>>>
>>> One of my clients is shortly moving to Windows 7 and Office 2007 from
>>> XP/Office 2003. It is going to require hardware upgrades to
>>> approximately 60% of the ~500 desktop machines in the organisation.
>>> None of us who are involved in the upgrade can see any real gain for the
>>> business, but the decision has been made in the boardroom with no
>>> reference to the IS department beyond "tell us how much it will cost".
>>>
>>> The only positive outcome that seems likely is that the older hardware
>>> (and the accompanying OS and Office licences) are likely to be donated
>>> to schools.
>>
>> Speaking of bored^H^H^Hard rooms:
>>
>> "There's life, Jim, but not as we know it
>> "Not as we know it
>> "Not as we know it ..."
>>
> Indeed Alice

Welcome to my Nightmare!

--
- Nicolaas

On Oct 30, 6:55*pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
> salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
> top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
> with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
> IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
> very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
> to them that should not open.

For various reasons a large number of organisations view their IT dept
as an impediment or a roadblock to any progress. In some cases they
are right, in others they aren't but that is the perception.

So the sales people will sell something as being a decision of
strategic business importance that shouldn't be left in the hands of
the IT dept.

While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

--
Cheers
Anton

"AD." <> wrote in message
news:ba7b7b4c-a459-4738-a052-...
On Oct 30, 6:55 pm, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> And that is the other problem. Microsoft have an army of high-powered
>> salespeople with big entertainment accounts who have better access to
>> top executives than their own staffs. Why these executives do not deal
>> with them in the same way as other salespeople - referring them to the
>> IT manager or 'purchasing', goodness knows. These salespeople seem
>> very adept at nourishing the egos of vain executives, hence doors open
>> to them that should not open.

> For various reasons a large number of organisations view their IT dept
> as an impediment or a roadblock to any progress. In some cases they
> are right, in others they aren't but that is the perception.
>
> So the sales people will sell something as being a decision of
> strategic business importance that shouldn't be left in the hands of
> the IT dept.
>
> While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
> specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
> for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.

When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever of
how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder that
IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
decisons made by others.