Re: Micoshaft to lose market share Sooner Or Later

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by 7, Nov 14, 2006.

  1. 7

    7 Guest

    Philip wrote:

    > h


    Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    corporation are all Linux based. At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there
    will be no demand for micoshaft products.
    Thus even micoshaft recognizing this has switched
    to being SuSE Linux distributor.

    You would be better off learning Linux now.
    It will be asked in job requirments sooner than later.
    Hundreds free here to download and learn from...
    http://www.livecdlist.com
     
    7, Nov 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 7

    Ian Semmel Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 +0000, 7 wrote:

    > Philip wrote:
    >
    >> h

    >
    > Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    > corporation are all Linux based.


    And the link to this bit of information is ?

    > At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there
    > will be no demand for micoshaft products.
    > Thus even micoshaft recognizing this has switched
    > to being SuSE Linux distributor.
    >
    > You would be better off learning Linux now.
    > It will be asked in job requirments sooner than later.
    > Hundreds free here to download and learn from...
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
     
    Ian Semmel, Nov 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 7

    billwg Guest

    billwg, Nov 15, 2006
    #3
  4. 7

    flatfish+++ Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 +0000, 7 wrote:

    > Philip wrote:
    >
    >> h

    >
    > Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    > corporation are all Linux based. At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there
    > will be no demand for micoshaft products.
    > Thus even micoshaft recognizing this has switched
    > to being SuSE Linux distributor.



    We can see that happening already!

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux
     
    flatfish+++, Nov 15, 2006
    #4
  5. 7

    John Bailo Guest

    7 wrote:

    > You would be better off learning Linux now.


    Again, I agree.

    I envy the people in COLA who can rattle off GPL/Linux/OSS application
    information so fluidly.

    I am barely a neophyte compared...
     
    John Bailo, Nov 15, 2006
    #5
  6. 7

    billwg Guest

    flatfish+++ wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 +0000, 7 wrote:
    >
    > > Philip wrote:
    > >
    > >> h

    > >
    > > Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    > > corporation are all Linux based. At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there
    > > will be no demand for micoshaft products.
    > > Thus even micoshaft recognizing this has switched
    > > to being SuSE Linux distributor.

    >
    >
    > We can see that happening already!
    >
    > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux


    Holy Sh! At that rate, in another 100 years, MS will be below 90%
    share for the first time in a long time. Ballmer will be hearing
    footsteps then, but only if he turns up his hearing aid.
     
    billwg, Nov 15, 2006
    #6
  7. On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 GMT, 7 <>
    wrote:


    >At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there will be no demand for micoshaft

    <snip>

    "Microshaft" was funny in 1995. It isn't now.
    Grow the **** up. You're doing an injustice to an otherwise fine OS.

    That is, of course, unless you're actually a Microsoft shill trying to make
    the average Linux user look like a clown.
     
    Working Class Dog, Nov 15, 2006
    #7
  8. 7

    Linonut Guest

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Working Class Dog belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 GMT, 7 <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there will be no demand for micoshaft

    > <snip>
    >
    > "Microshaft" was funny in 1995. It isn't now.
    > Grow the **** up. You're doing an injustice to an otherwise fine OS.


    He's making fun of the company, not the OS.

    I've always been partial to "Crimosoft", myself. With the DOJ and the
    endless litigation, it seems a good fit.

    > That is, of course, unless you're actually a Microsoft shill trying to make
    > the average Linux user look like a clown.


    You mean he's an Anti-MS-Evangelist?

    Talk about making someone look like a clown, what about these bozos that
    tag themselves as "Microsoft Evangelists".

    Hurry to the other side of the street before that Evangelist starts
    browbeating you about Microsoff soffware!

    "Have you given yourself to .NET yet? There's still time to be saved!"

    --
    "When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people (ask) for.
    And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's
    never a reason." -- Bill Gates, FOCUS interview
    http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
     
    Linonut, Nov 16, 2006
    #8
  9. On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:47:36 -0600, Linonut <> wrote:

    >After takin' a swig o' grog, Working Class Dog belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 GMT, 7 <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there will be no demand for micoshaft

    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> "Microshaft" was funny in 1995. It isn't now.
    >> Grow the **** up. You're doing an injustice to an otherwise fine OS.

    >
    >He's making fun of the company, not the OS.


    I was referring to Linux.

    >I've always been partial to "Crimosoft", myself. With the DOJ and the
    >endless litigation, it seems a good fit.
    >
    >> That is, of course, unless you're actually a Microsoft shill trying to make
    >> the average Linux user look like a clown.

    >
    >You mean he's an Anti-MS-Evangelist?
    >
    >Talk about making someone look like a clown, what about these bozos that
    >tag themselves as "Microsoft Evangelists".


    They're no better than any other evangelists. IOW, annoying pains in the ass.

    >Hurry to the other side of the street before that Evangelist starts
    >browbeating you about Microsoff soffware!
    >
    >"Have you given yourself to .NET yet? There's still time to be saved!"


    Or as I like to call it, .NOT
     
    Working Class Dog, Nov 16, 2006
    #9
  10. 7

    Rex Ballard Guest

    billwg wrote:
    > flatfish+++ wrote:
    > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 +0000, 7 wrote:
    > >
    > > > Philip wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> h
    > > >
    > > > Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    > > > corporation are all Linux based. At this rate, in 5 to 10 years there
    > > > will be no demand for micoshaft products.
    > > > Thus even micoshaft recognizing this has switched
    > > > to being SuSE Linux distributor.

    > >
    > >
    > > We can see that happening already!
    > >
    > > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux


    > Holy Sh! At that rate, in another 100 years, MS will be below 90%
    > share for the first time in a long time. Ballmer will be hearing
    > footsteps then, but only if he turns up his hearing aid.



    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
    >

    Keep in mind that in this survey, you also have to include "other",
    which shows Linux growing from 7% to 9% in less than 1 year. Keep in
    mind that most Linux browsers don't sign themselves as "Linux" because
    there is no legal requirement to do so. On the other hand, Windows and
    Mac machines are required to do so as a condition of using their OS
    interface libraries.

    Many Konquerer users masquerade as Windows 9x machines (1.4% left, even
    though it's been "obsolete" and "unsupported" for almost a year now).

    In November 2002 The combined (Linux/Other) was 4%, in July, it went
    to 8%. Keep in mind this is percent of total installed base, roughly 1
    billion machines.

    so in 4 years, Linux has doubled it's market share.


    Heres some data
    You should be able to plug this into excel or calc and generate a nice
    little chart.
    The WinXP and W2000 can be excluded to give you a better sense of the
    growth and fluctuations.


    "Month","Win98","WinNT","W2003","Linux","Mac","Other","Linux2","WinXP","W2000"
    03/15/2003,14.8%,6.6%,0.8%,2.2%,1.8%,0.028,0.05,29.1%,41.9%
    04/15/2003,14.7%,6%,0.7%,2.1%,1.8%,0.03,0.051,30.8%,40.9%
    05/15/2003,13.9%,5.8%,0.7%,2.2%,1.8%,0.032,0.054,31.4%,41%
    06/15/2003,13.4%,5.4%,0.6%,2.3%,1.8%,0.033,0.056,32.8%,40.4%
    07/15/2003,12.6%,5.3%,0.6%,2.3%,1.9%,0.028,0.051,33.9%,40.6%
    08/15/2003,12.6%,4.6%,0.5%,2.4%,2%,0.017,0.041,36.3%,39.9%
    09/15/2003,12.1%,4.1%,0.5%,2.4%,2%,0.03,0.054,38%,37.9%
    10/15/2003,11.5%,4%,0.5%,2.5%,2.1%,0.022,0.047,39.4%,37.8%
    11/15/2003,10.9%,3.5%,0.4%,2.6%,2.2%,0.0149999999999999,0.0409999999999999,42.6%,36.3%
    12/15/2003,10.5%,3.4%,0.4%,2.7%,2.3%,0.0189999999999999,0.0459999999999999,43.6%,35.2%
    01/15/2004,10.4%,3%,0.4%,2.7%,2.4%,0.034,0.061,44.1%,33.6%
    02/15/2004,9.5%,2.9%,0.4%,2.6%,2.5%,0.0329999999999999,0.0589999999999999,46%,32.8%
    03/15/2004,9.4%,2.4%,0.4%,2.6%,2.4%,0.037,0.063,48%,31.1%
    04/15/2004,8.7%,2.2%,0.3%,2.7%,2.5%,0.0369999999999999,0.0639999999999999,49.7%,30.2%
    05/15/2004,8.2%,2%,0.3%,2.9%,2.5%,0.0349999999999999,0.0639999999999999,51%,29.6%
    06/15/2004,8%,2%,0.3%,2.9%,2.5%,0.0349999999999999,0.0639999999999999,51.2%,29.6%
    07/15/2004,7.5%,1.9%,0.2%,3.1%,2.4%,0.04,0.071,52.5%,28.4%
    08/15/2004,7%,1.8%,0.2%,3%,2.5%,0.0419999999999999,0.0719999999999999,53.2%,28.1%
    09/15/2004,6.4%,1.5%,0.2%,3.1%,2.6%,0.0409999999999999,0.0719999999999999,55.9%,26.2%
    10/15/2004,6%,1.3%,0.2%,3.1%,2.6%,0.04,0.071,57.8%,25%
    11/15/2004,5.6%,1.2%,0.1%,3.1%,2.7%,0.0449999999999999,0.0759999999999999,59.1%,23.7%
    12/15/2004,5.4%,1.1%,0.1%,3.1%,2.7%,0.043,0.074,59.8%,23.5%
    01/15/2005,5.3%,1%,1.2%,3.2%,2.8%,0.036,0.068,61.3%,21.6%
    02/15/2005,5.1%,0.9%,1.3%,3.2%,2.9%,0.035,0.067,62%,21.1%
    03/15/2005,4.7%,0.9%,1.4%,3.2%,3%,0.035,0.067,63.1%,20.2%
    04/15/2005,4.1%,0.8%,1.4%,3.3%,2.9%,0.038,0.071,64%,19.7%
    05/15/2005,3.9%,0.8%,1.4%,3.3%,2.9%,0.038,0.071,64.5%,19.4%
    06/15/2005,3.6%,0.7%,1.5%,3.5%,3%,0.0369999999999999,0.0719999999999999,64.9%,19.1%
    07/15/2005,3.9%,0.6%,1.6%,3.5%,3%,0.0439999999999999,0.0789999999999999,65.3%,17.7%
    08/15/2005,3.2%,0.6%,1.7%,3.3%,2.9%,0.0449999999999999,0.0779999999999999,66.3%,17.5%
    09/15/2005,3.2%,0.5%,1.7%,3.3%,3.1%,0.0319999999999999,0.0649999999999999,69.2%,15.8%
    10/15/2005,2.8%,0.4%,1.6%,3.3%,3.2%,0.0349999999999999,0.0679999999999999,70.2%,15%
    11/15/2005,2.7%,0.4%,1.7%,3.3%,3.3%,0.03,0.063,71%,14.6%
    12/15/2005,2.6%,0.3%,1.7%,3.2%,3.3%,0.037,0.069,71.6%,13.6%
    01/15/2006,2.4%,0.3%,1.7%,3.3%,3.5%,0.034,0.067,72.3%,13.1%
    02/14/2006,2.1%,0.3%,1.8%,3.4%,3.6%,0.032,0.066,73.3%,12.3%
    03/16/2006,2%,0.3%,1.8%,3.4%,3.5%,0.0419999999999999,0.0759999999999999,72.9%,11.9%
    04/15/2006,1.8%,0.3%,1.9%,3.3%,3.6%,0.039,0.072,74%,11.2%
    05/15/2006,1.6%,0.2%,2%,3.4%,3.6%,0.043,0.077,74.2%,10.7%
    06/14/2006,1.6%,0.3%,2%,3.4%,3.6%,0.044,0.078,74.1%,10.6%
    07/15/2006,1.5%,0.3%,2%,3.4%,3.6%,0.048,0.082,74.3%,10.1%
    08/15/2006,1.4%,0.3%,2.1%,3.5%,3.6%,0.038,0.073,75.2%,10.1%
    09/15/2006,1.4%,0.3%,2%,3.5%,3.8%,0.042,0.077,75.6%,9.2%
     
    Rex Ballard, Nov 16, 2006
    #10
  11. 7

    billwg Guest

    Rex Ballard wrote:

    > >

    > Keep in mind ,,,


    Keep iin mind what they say about themselves, rex:

    "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web
    technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative
    browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet
    Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek
    out other browsers.

    These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100%
    realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet
    Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users."

    This is a site for gearheads and even so, only 3.5% of the gearheads
    use linux. Gearheads are about 1% or less of the population, so that
    means that linux user percentage is actually about .08%, even if you
    figure in the "others" as you do without any real knowledge of what
    they are.
     
    billwg, Nov 16, 2006
    #11
  12. 7

    Rex Ballard Guest

    billwg wrote:
    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > > >

    > > Keep in mind ,,,

    >
    > Keep iin mind what they say about themselves, rex:
    >
    > "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web
    > technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative
    > browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet
    > Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek
    > out other browsers.


    Precisely. But when somebody pulls out the NetMarket survey, which
    uses "proprietary javascript technology" to "monitor cookies" and
    collect statistics from "Specific Web Pages, such as those used to
    monitor the effectiveness of a web campaign", there are 3 red flags
    that should go up immediately.

    #1 - almost anybody who knows beans about Javascript can plant their
    own freakin' cookies.
    #2 - anybody who understands apache and modules can collect those
    cookies.
    #3 - anybody who collects those cookies will try to pick ONE page to
    monitor OS distributions (like the home page).
    #4 - the people who know this technology will use secure cookies (only
    to origin site).
    #5 - anyone who understands cookies and security won't accept
    third-party cookies.

    As a result.

    A - The only people who need or use this service are people who are so
    windows and GUI centric that they can't even program Javascript
    properly.
    B- The people who would most likely use this service are likely to
    monitor dozens of pages which REQUIRE ActiveX controls and Front Page
    extensions.
    C - The people who would ACCESS these services and accept all of this
    nonsense would ONLY be Windows users who like to work "without a net".
    They probably have Norton antivirus, that hasn't been updated for 2
    years, and think that their system is "secure".

    So when somebody trots out a survey that is notorious for it's skewing
    in favor of Windows and against Linux and security concious users, it's
    equally valid to pull out a survey that is "wide open" keeps pretty
    balanced statistics who whoever visits, and doesn't put lots of
    requirements for "IE-Only" features on their web site.

    If you want to really impress me, get me the web page/Cookie statistics
    from ONLY the
    Home pages of major sites like Microsoft.com, Google, Yahoo, and
    Amazon.com. Maybe you could add WeatherChannel.com, and CNN.com.

    Get cookie-based statistics from those sites, for ONLY the home page
    the "My<xyz>" page, and we can have a qualified discussion of what the
    industry is REALLY doing.

    If you really want some skewed statistics, look at how COLA posters
    post their articles. Based on that crowd, you'd swear that at least
    75% of the market is Linux.

    > These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100%
    > realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet
    > Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users."


    But NetMarket shows it as something like 95%.

    > This is a site for gearheads and even so, only 3.5% of the gearheads
    > use linux.


    Actually, even this is a bit off. Keep in mind that Linux comes with a
    boatload of documentation, tools, source code, and examples, including
    example source code, and "real world" source code. All of this makes
    it much easier for Linux users to make very few trips to W3 Schools.
    Most of these tutorials appear to be more focused toward the people who
    don't have tutorials such as those included in the LDP.

    Look at the tutorials:
    <quote>
    HTML Tutorials
    Learn HTML
    Learn XHTML
    Learn CSS
    Learn TCP/IP

    XML Tutorials
    Learn XML
    Learn XSL
    Learn XSLT
    Learn XSL-FO
    Learn XPath
    Learn XQuery
    Learn XLink
    Learn XPointer
    Learn DTD
    Learn Schema
    Learn XML DOM
    Learn XForms
    Learn SOAP
    Learn WSDL
    Learn RDF
    Learn RSS
    Learn WAP
    Learn Web Services

    Browser Scripting
    Learn JavaScript
    Learn HTML DOM
    Learn DHTML
    Learn VBScript
    Learn AJAX
    Learn E4X
    Learn WMLScript

    Server Scripting
    Learn SQL
    Learn ASP
    Learn ADO
    Learn PHP

    ..NET (dotnet)
    ..NET Microsoft
    ..NET ASP
    ..NET Mobile

    Multimedia
    Learn Media
    Learn SMIL
    Learn SVG
    Learn Flash
    </quote>

    So we have a dozen tutorials that are included with almost any good
    Linux distribution.
    Then we have tutorials that are only focused on Microsoftees.

    To put it mildly, this isn't exactly a "Linux centric" site either.

    Which is why it makes a nice "alternate source".

    I used to use the Google Zeitgeist year-end figures, but they stopped
    publishing them in 2004, when Linux+Other was at 7%. Linux workstation
    revenue growth has been increasing industry wide at between 40% and 80%
    per year. Windows is pretty much stagnant. License revenues are
    stable, most of the revenue is based on corporate and OEM licenses,
    customers who have minimum commitement quotas to meet in order to get
    discount prices, even if they don't sell 1/2 of what they buy. OEM
    license unit volumes have been a pretty consistent 100 million copies
    per year for the last 10 years. Microsoft gets more per license,
    especially since Windows XP, but unit volumes pretty much stay
    constant. And most of these licenses are basic "rotations". Users and
    corporate users replace their machines every 2-4 years, which means
    that for at least 8 years, Microsoft hasn't had any substantial
    increase in their installed base.

    Meanwhile, Linux started small, and over the same 10 year period has
    had growth rates of 40-100% per year. In 1997, the estimate was about
    2 million new full-time unit equvalents deployed per year. There were
    probably about 8 million "part time" deployments such as dual-boot,
    second system, and "desktop server" Linux machines.

    Let's take that conservative estimate, based on IDC figures for that
    year.
    Let's just figure an average growth rate of 50%/year. That would put
    annual unit volumes at over 100 million deployments per year.
    (2*(1.5^10)).

    If we assume that every machine purchased with Windows replaced one
    machine that was converted to Linux, this would mean that Linux had a
    "Net Share" of 100% of the market.

    If Windows is having a Zero net gain, and Linux is generating 100
    million new deployments per year (even including part time, and they
    continue to grow at the current rate, some form of Linux will be used
    by nearly every PC in the market place within less than 7 years.

    Remember TCP/IP? Well, you call it "The Internet". Vint Cerf and John
    Postel spent almost 20 years trying to get internet protocol to become
    an "overnight success". When MCI created a frame-relay card for CISCO,
    allowing a company to connect a corporate network to a public internet,
    and Marc Andreeson created a browser for trumpet Winsock that ran on
    Windows 3.1, the earth moved in 24 months. By the time Windows 95 was
    released, Microsoft had played every card they had to hold back the
    tide and prevent corporate and OEM defections to UNIX, Linux, and OS/2
    (all of which supported TCP/IP and Web Browsers).

    Today, there are similar forces converging. With Linux supporting 64
    bit dual-core desktops, with virtualization that allows the machines to
    run Linux and Windows at the same time, the avalanche to Linux on the
    desktop (not to the exclusion of Windows) is almost inevitable.

    Microsoft's role on the desktop is largely a function of whether they
    are willing to "play nice" with Linux, or if they are going to "take
    their toys and go home".

    Bill Gates barely recovered from 1994-5. By August 1995, investors had
    lost confidence, the stock was flat, the orders were harder to get, NT
    3.1 and NT 3.5 were flops, and real competition was a real possibility.

    If Gates had released Windows without a TCP/IP stack, without a cheap
    web browser, and without a complex network of legal agreements designed
    to exclude competitors, the company might have gone into free-fall.

    At least this time, Ballmer has had the good sense to avoid alienating
    something like 100 million or so Linux users who might be willing to
    "include" Windows into their desktop solution, rather than just forcing
    users, corporate IT departments, and OEMs into an exclusive "either/or"
    scenario in which the rising costs, lack of significant upgrades, and
    general lack of true value over Linux, could very easily trigger a
    runaway erosion of Microsoft's market in 2007-2008.

    When Linux was only being installed on the "replaced" machines,
    Microsoft wasn't really affected. Users bought new machines to run
    Windows and put Linux on the old ones. Since the licenses were not
    transferrable, Microsoft got the revenue of the new OEM machines even
    when Linux ran on the old machines.

    But in 2005, things took a radical shift. HP released a 64 bit
    desktop, and a 64 bit laptop. The machines were sold with Windows, but
    they were designed to run Linux. In fact, when the machines were first
    announced, HP even announced that it would be shipped with SUSE Linux
    64 bit media and drivers for HP hardware used on the machine.

    In 2004, Microsoft had tried to "rein in" the market, by promoting the
    development of "Windows Only" hardware. The machines would ONLY run
    Windows, and the IHVs were expected to sue anyone who tried to create
    Linux drivers. The only problem, sales of "Windows Only" machines fell
    far below expectations. Stale inventories, lack of demand, and price
    wars, followed by clearance prices, eroded profits so badly that
    Gateway looked like it was destined for bankruptcy court.

    The SCO lawsuit against IBM probably bought Microsoft a bit of time.
    Since even IBMs customers weren't sure if the suit had merit, if IBM
    might settle just to get off cheap, or would in some other way validate
    SCO's claims, it did slow the demand for Linux at a time when customers
    were getting fed up with the tactics used to maximize revenues
    collected from Windows XP. Microsoft was looking like a pig at the
    trough, gorging itself on 85% margins while customers had to make "cost
    adjustments" to cover the unexpected price increases and new legal
    requirements.

    But ultimately, the market is the ultimate court. Linux has been
    performing brilliantly in the server market, and the stigma is gone.
    In fact, most companies now consider Linux a strategic element of their
    IT department, even if they hadn't use UNIX before then.

    Linux developers, and Microsoft competitors have created products
    designed to erode demand in many of Microsoft's secondary markets.
    Eclipse is eroding demand for Visual Studio and Visio. OpenOffice and
    StarOffice is eroding demand for Microsoft Office, Firefox is eroding
    demand for IE, and Thunderbird and OSS e-mail tools are eroding the
    demand for Outlook. Linux even has good project management software
    that could quickly threaten Microsoft Project.

    I remember a few paradigm shifts. Remember when Quarts and Digital
    watches made all but the most expensive watches obsolete. The swiss
    watchmakers couldn't figure out why people weren't buying their fine
    jeweled movement. They didn't understand that when people wanted a
    watch, they usually wanted it to provide accurate time. About the only
    mechanical watches that still have much market value are Rolex watches,
    which are used to impress hookers, who know they can get the watch and
    get some cash for it.

    Remember when VHS blew away the Betamax?

    Remember when Cassette blew away the 8-Track?

    Remember when CDs blew away vinyl?

    Remember when the PC blew away CP/M?

    Remember when UNIX blew away VMS and RT/11?

    Remember when the Unix blew away the Mainframe?

    Remember when Windows NT server blew away NetWare?

    It didn't happen overight. It was a very slow and methodical erosion.
    And very often the established player did everything they could to
    retain their market. But eventually these tactics backfired, and
    often, in a matter of months, even weeks, sales plummeted, revenues
    disappeared, stock prices crashed, and the bottom fell out. Banks
    wouldn't loan money, orders weren't getting filled, customers stopped
    placing orders, and often the carcass was absorbed into some other
    company.

    In other cases, the management transformed itself. IBM hired outsider
    Lou Gerstner, who told his people to "shut up and listen". Soon he was
    giving the customer what the customer wanted, including Windows, UNIX,
    and Linux. Sam Palmisano became Lou's "ears", running the consulting
    organization, and bringing a "solve the customer's problem" based
    approach instead of "sell hardware, software, and licenses" based
    approach.

    In other cases, companies like Sony and Sun quickly cut their losses
    and followed the market. Sony continues to sell BetaMax to video
    editors an studios, but their consumer line bread and butter is VHS.
    Sun eventually replaced NeWS with X11, and offered "display postscript"
    for those who wanted the scalable graphics.

    Some just ended up as road-kill. DRI never recovered from turning
    their back on IBM. They came out with better products, but even the
    Atari ST with DR-DOS and GEM couldn't compete with the *nix API set.
    Those who wanted high quality graphics went with UNIX (Apollo, SGI,
    Sun, HP), and those who wanted cheap and ugly graphics went with
    MS-DOS.

    WordPerfect, Lotus, and several other former Windows and MS-DOS
    software vendors ended up being swallowed by hostile takeovers. Even
    Netscape was swallowed up by AOL and then killed in a deal with
    Microsoft. Had AOL not signed that deal, they could have gotten
    $billions from the federal government if they had lost the antitrust
    suit, or settled too easily. It was probbably the dumbest thing Bezos
    ever did. It was probably the smartest thing Gates ever did.

    The irony is that Microsoft may end up being the one getting swallowed
    up by Novell. It's the minnow that ate the shark scenario, but if
    Microsoft's market is doing what the other markets above did, and
    Microsoft overplays it's hand, as it appears to be doing, it could be
    Microsoft who will be looking at $2/share stock prices, and Novell with
    the $400 billion net worth.
     
    Rex Ballard, Nov 17, 2006
    #12
  13. 7

    billwg Guest

    Rex Ballard wrote:

    >
    > > This is a site for gearheads and even so, only 3.5% of the gearheads
    > > use linux.

    >
    > Actually, even this is a bit off. Keep in mind that Linux comes with a
    > boatload of documentation, tools, source code, and examples, including
    > example source code, and "real world" source code. All of this makes
    > it much easier for Linux users to make very few trips to W3 Schools.
    > Most of these tutorials appear to be more focused toward the people who
    > don't have tutorials such as those included in the LDP.


    Tut, rex. It's a techie site and the techies that visit are
    predominately using Windows, as everyone knew all along.

    >
    > If Windows is having a Zero net gain, and Linux is generating 100
    > million new deployments per year ...


    "If ifs and ands were pots and pans, tinkers would be king!" Royboy
    probably said that, it sounds kind of Brit. The American equivalen is
    "If frogs had wings, their butts wouldn't get so muddy." Either way,
    you are fantasizing.

    >
    > Bill Gates barely recovered from 1994-5. By August 1995, investors had
    > lost confidence, the stock was flat, the orders were harder to get, NT
    > 3.1 and NT 3.5 were flops, and real competition was a real possibility.
    >

    I think you are full of malarkey, rex. If you look at MSFT in that
    period, you see a constant gain on a logarithimic scale, yet.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#cha...arttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=

    Compare that to, say, NOVL over the long haul

    http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#cha...arttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=

    Regardless of your blather, Mr. Softee is clearly the big dog here and
    isn't showing any signs of collapse.

    >
    > I remember a few paradigm shifts. Remember when Quarts and Digital
    > watches made all but the most expensive watches obsolete. The swiss
    > watchmakers couldn't figure out why people weren't buying their fine
    > jeweled movement. They didn't understand that when people wanted a
    > watch, they usually wanted it to provide accurate time. About the only
    > mechanical watches that still have much market value are Rolex watches,
    > which are used to impress hookers, who know they can get the watch and
    > get some cash for it.
    >

    LOL!!! Is that what you do? I never thought about that.

    > Remember when...


    You have the bull by the wrong horn, rex. Go study Product Life Cycles
    in the marketing literature.

    >
    > The irony is that Microsoft may end up being the one getting swallowed
    > up by Novell. It's the minnow that ate the shark scenario, but if
    > Microsoft's market is doing what the other markets above did, and
    > Microsoft overplays it's hand, as it appears to be doing, it could be
    > Microsoft who will be looking at $2/share stock prices, and Novell with
    > the $400 billion net worth.


    And all that by selling support? You are insane, rex.
     
    billwg, Nov 17, 2006
    #13
  14. 7

    Rex Ballard Guest

    billwg wrote:
    > Rex Ballard wrote:


    > Tut, rex. It's a techie site and the techies that visit are
    > predominately using Windows, as everyone knew all along.


    I agree that it is a techie site. But it's a techie site that's more
    likely to be visited by Windows based developers. If you are counting
    all accesses and all history, you would skew way up, and if you only
    count one OS per IP address, you'll skew in favor of Windows as well.

    I would much rather get numbers from Google, Yahoo, MSN, CNN.com,
    WeatherChannel, or some "user neutral" site with LOTS of users. I'd
    like to see tracking of cookies against the "home" page, or the "myxxx"
    home page. The information is available, but are very well guarded.
    The Netscape site used to be very popular site too, but even that was
    closely guarded.

    Microsoft executives testified in both the DOJ and EU court cases,
    under oath, that the Linux market had grown to double digits. I
    believe the numbers given were 14% in the DOJ case, and 17% in the EU
    case. I found it interesting that nobody cross-examined these
    statements. One possible reason is because these numbers were
    relatively close to those known by the prosecution in each case.

    This could have been 14% of annual license deployments by unit volumes
    (most likely) or 14% of the total established user base. Similar
    numbers were given by IDG. Their numbers appeared to be based on Unit
    volumes shipped.

    The following year, they stopped reporting based on units and reported
    ONLY revenues.

    > > If Windows is having a Zero net gain, and Linux is generating 100
    > > million new deployments per year ...

    >
    > "If ifs and ands were pots and pans, tinkers would be king!" Royboy
    > probably said that, it sounds kind of Brit. The American equivalen is
    > "If frogs had wings, their butts wouldn't get so muddy." Either way,
    > you are fantasizing.


    The Colorado version was "if cows could fly we'd carry BIG umbrellas".

    The whole point is that you can crunch numbers a dozen different ways.
    You can take the skeleton statistics and play all kinds of numbers
    games.

    I don't think Linux is replacing EVERY Windows machine (or the
    equivalent), but the flip side is that I don't believe for one second
    the claim that 99.9% of all machines sold everywhere in the world are,
    and remain "Windows Only" deployments.

    We know that about 100 million machines are sold with Windows
    preinstalled (though this number has been rapidly decressing do to the
    increase in market share of "White Box" machines.

    > > Bill Gates barely recovered from 1994-5. By August 1995, investors had
    > > lost confidence, the stock was flat, the orders were harder to get, NT
    > > 3.1 and NT 3.5 were flops, and real competition was a real possibility.
    > >

    > I think you are full of malarkey, rex. If you look at MSFT in that
    > period, you see a constant gain on a logarithimic scale, yet.


    Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups were selling very well, and
    Microsoft had lock-in contracts with OEMs for these products even if
    Windows NT was a bomb. Sales of NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 were dismal. The
    hardware requirements were higher than previous versions, (nearly
    double the RAM and Disk, and there were backward compatibility problems
    (most of the 3rd party applications that shared memory didn't work.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#cha...arttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=

    Good reference. Keep in mind that we are talking about the period from
    February of 1992, and March of 1994. Microsoft was able to recover
    from the lack of enthusiasm for NT 3.1 and 3.5 when they offered
    upgrades of Microsoft Office and Access. Microsoft also changed
    marketing strategies, with more focus on selling directly to
    corporations.

    In addition, "Chicago" had been promised for some time in mid 1994.

    > Compare that to, say, NOVL over the long haul.


    Novell has been aving a bad time in general.
    By January 1992, many corporations had already figured out that TCP/IP,
    not SPX/IPX were the wave of the future. As corporations were shifting
    from small workgroup servers of 4-6 users group in a small set of
    cubicals, to department-wide and corporate-wide networks, there was a
    stall in the market. Novell purchased UNIX, and sold 35,000 copies of
    UnixWare, but scuttled plans for a workstation just as they were ready
    to release, in August of 1993.

    Novell started into a nozedive and promises of "Chicago", or "Windows
    NT Lite", combined with Novell's suicidal actions. According to a
    Novell executive whose name I can't remember, it seems that Noorda was
    just about to close a deal with an OEM in Asia to put UnixWare on
    Workstations, when the board of directors signed a deal with Microsoft
    in the USA in which Novell agreed to shut down their workstation
    program entirely. Noorda didn't just quit, he scuttled UNIX
    completely, giving away source to BSD, giving hardware vendors
    unlimited UNIX distribution rights, and giving away patent rights and
    giving trademark control to X/Open. Noorda didn't just quit, he gave
    away the farm before he left in 1994.

    They managed to keep some life with NDS LDAP, WordPerfect, and Quattro
    Pro, even this was not enough to sustain the company, and they had to
    sell it over to Corel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

    You assume that the success or failure of a business is based on finite
    set of totally predictable patterns, that just because you sold so much
    last year, that you will sell the same, or more the next year. Yet the
    IT industry is more like a series of disruptive transformations and
    paradigm shifts.

    Microsoft is fortunate in that they are run by management that can ride
    through the "rough spots" and they can do things to catch up. They
    also have one of the best legal divisions in the world, which means
    they can "legally steal" almost anything from anyone. Just kidding.
    They can negotiate terms which give them amazing lattitude, even give
    them permission to engage in otherwise criminal activities.

    > http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#cha...arttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=
    >
    > Regardless of your blather, Mr. Softee is clearly the big dog here and
    > isn't showing any signs of collapse.


    But that big old dog is getting old. It's not as quick as it used to
    be. It doesn't see as well as it used to. It's slower to react. It
    spends way too much effort on moves that miss the marks.

    The problem with a big old dog is that a couple of smaller dogs,
    faster, more nimble, more accurate, and willing to cooperate, can do
    nasty things to the big dog.

    Have you ever heard of "bear baiting". Dogs would go after a large
    bear. The question was how long it would take for the dogs to kill the
    bear.

    > > I remember a few paradigm shifts. Remember when Quarts and Digital
    > > watches made all but the most expensive watches obsolete. The swiss
    > > watchmakers couldn't figure out why people weren't buying their fine
    > > jeweled movement. They didn't understand that when people wanted a
    > > watch, they usually wanted it to provide accurate time. About the only
    > > mechanical watches that still have much market value are Rolex watches,
    > > which are used to impress hookers, who know they can get the watch and
    > > get some cash for it.
    > >

    > LOL!!! Is that what you do? I never thought about that.


    And there you have it. A hand-wound watch is almost obsolete, except
    for the Rolex. Men pay as much as $1,000 each for the watches, because
    women seem to be much more interesting. The women who are attracted to
    men who wear $1,000 Rolexes are only attracted to the Rolexes. And
    they know exactly how to tell the real thing from the knock-offs. And
    they are more than happy to steal it while the guy is taking a shower,
    after he falls asleep, or if he tries to stiff her.

    > > Remember when...

    >
    > You have the bull by the wrong horn, rex. Go study Product Life Cycles
    > in the marketing literature.


    Yes, product live cycles are a bit like sine waves. You get slow
    growth, then you get rapid growth, and then you get a slowing of
    growth, then a gradual decline, followed by a sudden and rather
    dramatic decline, with residual market. If you don't have a new
    product to bring to market, you could quickly find that the market
    dries up. Microsoft has been very good at keeping two markets, roughyl
    180 degrees out of phase. As the Windows market starts to dry up, the
    MS-Office market starts to heat up, and in between we have the
    secondaries markets, including SQL Server, Visio, and Project.

    Of course, the big trend in the last 6 years has been use of support
    contracts, to supplement flagging royalties. Then there was the X/box
    and XBox/360 - to supplement sagging royalty based revenues. This is
    why I haven't sold Microsoft short. Microsoft has diversified it's
    portfolio, and has been able to offset losses in one market with gains
    in other markets.

    This really is a tribute to Microsoft's management executives. On the
    other hand, it also indicates that they are as aware of the declines in
    Microsoft's revenue, the trends in the market, and potential loss of
    substantial portions of their current revenue streams. Linux is taking
    a bite out of the Windows market, OpenOffice is taking a bite out of
    the MS-Office market, and Linux and Unix are taking a bite out of the
    Windows server and SQL Server market.

    > > The irony is that Microsoft may end up being the one getting swallowed
    > > up by Novell. It's the minnow that ate the shark scenario, but if
    > > Microsoft's market is doing what the other markets above did, and
    > > Microsoft overplays it's hand, as it appears to be doing, it could be
    > > Microsoft who will be looking at $2/share stock prices, and Novell with
    > > the $400 billion net worth.

    >
    > And all that by selling support? You are insane, rex


    Look at IBM and Sam Palmisano. Is he insane?
     
    Rex Ballard, Nov 18, 2006
    #14
  15. 7

    billwg Guest

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    > billwg wrote:
    > > Rex Ballard wrote:

    >
    > > Tut, rex. It's a techie site and the techies that visit are
    > > predominately using Windows, as everyone knew all along.

    >
    > I agree that it is a techie site. But it's a techie site that's more
    > likely to be visited by Windows based developers...


    You linux fans seem to always be in an apolgetic mode wherein you have
    to explain away the plain facts with some sort of interpretation that
    says that linux really isn't blowing chunks business-wise, but is
    rather a going concern. Keep up the good work, rex! LOL!!!

    >
    > Microsoft executives testified in both the DOJ and EU court cases,
    > under oath, that the Linux market had grown to double digits. I
    > believe the numbers given were 14% in the DOJ case, and 17% in the EU
    > case. I found it interesting that nobody cross-examined these
    > statements. One possible reason is because these numbers were
    > relatively close to those known by the prosecution in each case.
    >

    Well, rex, that is, IMO, certainly bullshit. I had a lot of time on my
    hands and followed the MSFT DOJ trial very closely and even had an
    account with the District Court for getting filing notices and
    documents directly on line. No such testimony ever occurred. But if
    you can find any, I will quit boring the group with my philosophy and
    perhaps you would do the same if you cannot point to any such
    deposition or direct testimony.

    I don't know of any such information from the EU, either, but I have
    not followed it that closely. I don't think that the EU issues had
    anything to do with linux, though. They were just being protective of
    Real Networks and Sun Microsystems interests.


    >
    > > > Bill Gates barely recovered from 1994-5. By August 1995, investors had
    > > > lost confidence, the stock was flat, the orders were harder to get, NT
    > > > 3.1 and NT 3.5 were flops, and real competition was a real possibility.
    > > >

    > > I think you are full of malarkey, rex. If you look at MSFT in that
    > > period, you see a constant gain on a logarithimic scale, yet.

    >
    > Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups were selling very well, and
    > Microsoft had lock-in contracts with OEMs for these products even if
    > Windows NT was a bomb. Sales of NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 were dismal. The
    > hardware requirements were higher than previous versions, (nearly
    > double the RAM and Disk, and there were backward compatibility problems
    > (most of the 3rd party applications that shared memory didn't work.
    >

    Well, rex, linux use was very low then, as well, but we weren't talking
    about NT3.5's popularity, I think. The statement was "Bill Gates barely
    recovered from 1994-5. By August 1995, investors had lost confidence,
    the stock was flat" and that is grossly untrue. I don't really see
    where the health of MSFT stock has anything to do with whether or not
    one should use Windows, but you linux advocates seem to just hate
    anything that shows MSFT, Gates, Windows, or any other MS-related item
    in a positive light. That is kind of silly and counter-productive. If
    you work at Microsoft or have scads of shares, maybe you would care,
    but otherwise everyone should just be looking for a better way. IMO,
    it would be a lot easier just to fix parts of Windows than try to
    replace the whole thing with some ersatz version, but that doesn't
    anihilate MS or Gates and so is not acceptable to the COLA folk.

    >
    > Good reference. Keep in mind that we are talking about the period from
    > February of 1992, and March of 1994.


    Then why did you say 1994-95? MSFT wasn't flat from 1992 - 1994
    either.


    > >
    > > Regardless of your blather, Mr. Softee is clearly the big dog here and
    > > isn't showing any signs of collapse.

    >
    > But that big old dog is getting old. It's not as quick as it used to
    > be. It doesn't see as well as it used to. It's slower to react. It
    > spends way too much effort on moves that miss the marks.
    >

    Tell that to Sony, rex, ask them if they would rather not have the XBox
    in the market! Note how their aggregate price decreases are greater
    than their total before tax profits for the period since the XBox was
    introduced.

    And don't extend an analogy into an unrelated area and expect to draw
    any useful inferences.


    > The problem with a big old dog is that a couple of smaller dogs,
    > faster, more nimble, more accurate, and willing to cooperate, can do
    > nasty things to the big dog.
    >
    > Have you ever heard of "bear baiting". Dogs would go after a large
    > bear. The question was how long it would take for the dogs to kill the
    > bear.
    >
    > > > I remember a few paradigm shifts. Remember when Quarts and Digital
    > > > watches made all but the most expensive watches obsolete. The swiss
    > > > watchmakers couldn't figure out why people weren't buying their fine
    > > > jeweled movement. They didn't understand that when people wanted a
    > > > watch, they usually wanted it to provide accurate time. About the only
    > > > mechanical watches that still have much market value are Rolex watches,
    > > > which are used to impress hookers, who know they can get the watch and
    > > > get some cash for it.
    > > >

    > > LOL!!! Is that what you do? I never thought about that.

    >
    > And there you have it. A hand-wound watch is almost obsolete, except
    > for the Rolex. Men pay as much as $1,000 each for the watches, because
    > women seem to be much more interesting. The women who are attracted to
    > men who wear $1,000 Rolexes are only attracted to the Rolexes. And
    > they know exactly how to tell the real thing from the knock-offs. And
    > they are more than happy to steal it while the guy is taking a shower,
    > after he falls asleep, or if he tries to stiff her.
    >

    LOL, rex!!! If the last time you had a chick steal your Rolex it was
    only worth $1000, that was a very long time ago! I can see why you are
    so tense!

    > > > Remember when...

    > >
    > > You have the bull by the wrong horn, rex. Go study Product Life Cycles
    > > in the marketing literature.

    >
    > Yes, product live cycles are a bit like sine waves. ...


    I guess you didn't read up on it after all, rex. For one thing you
    could not have helped but notice that a product only has one cycle and
    the pattern does not repeat over and again. At the end of the cycle
    the product market is gone, not to return. A new market for some new
    product may arise frequently, but the old markets do not go around
    again.

    > > > The irony is that Microsoft may end up being the one getting swallowed
    > > > up by Novell. It's the minnow that ate the shark scenario, but if
    > > > Microsoft's market is doing what the other markets above did, and
    > > > Microsoft overplays it's hand, as it appears to be doing, it could be
    > > > Microsoft who will be looking at $2/share stock prices, and Novell with
    > > > the $400 billion net worth.

    > >
    > > And all that by selling support? You are insane, rex

    >
    > Look at IBM and Sam Palmisano. Is he insane?


    Hard to say for sure, I have never met the man. But does he think he
    can have a $400B business from selling support? IIRC, IBM doesn't sell
    linux support at all. You have to buy the contracts from Red Hat or
    Novell.
     
    billwg, Nov 18, 2006
    #15
  16. 7

    flatfish+++ Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:53:20 +0000, Ian Semmel wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:10:07 +0000, 7 wrote:
    >
    >> Philip wrote:
    >>
    >>> h

    >>
    >> Despite everything, more than 75% of NEW projects in major
    >> corporation are all Linux based.

    >
    > And the link to this bit of information is ?


    Here's one for ya'

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux
     
    flatfish+++, Nov 20, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Fletcher

    I had to do it sooner or later

    Mike Fletcher, Aug 12, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    506
    Graham
    Sep 7, 2005
  2. Ian Burley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    370
    Ian Burley
    Aug 5, 2003
  3. Rev. J. Toad
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    677
    Brian Baird
    Oct 13, 2005
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    You lose some, and then you lose some ...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    610
    Earl Grey
    Sep 24, 2006
  5. Simon Finnigan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    573
    Simon Finnigan
    Mar 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page