Microsoft dampens Vista sales forecast

[joseph2k]

all while most users that install Vista "suffer"..... microsoft should
be barred from doing business, they are seriously harming productivity
across the world.

Wegie, give yourself a wedgie. It is the "New thing" and a bunch of people
that cannot learn from the past (XP, NT4, ME, and 95 releases) and lot of
fools have and will run out and buy it. Give it about 6 to 9 months, until
the larger corporate users find out the problems the DRM creates. Then the
howls will start.

 

[Fedwayguy]

Nice shuffle and evasion of the topic.


Tell that to the original OP about xposting.

Yet OE 6 is borked on urls being posted... IE 6 and 7 both do not adhere
to the W3C standards. Ever use Netscape to go to a website that says only
can be used with IE??

What part of M$ monopoly do you not understand??

I understand M$ monopoly perfectly well.

My questions concern the so called 'standards' regarding top and bottom
posting. Not the hijacking up websites. I was in fact one of the very
first users of Netscape that actually bought the program for $7.00 on a 3.5"
disk. Anyway, I do understand what you are saying about certain WebPages
not displaying some data because they were created using FrontPage -
Microsoft's first HTML editor bought from Vermeil(sp?) who was selling it
commercial for over $700.00. M$ took it and reworked it and sold it for I
believe $149 or even lower. Prior to FrontPage there were few if any
WYSIWYG html editors on the market at the time. I was hard coding using a
text editor. Then along came Dreamweaver which I still use. Even
Dreamweaver has a switch for certain browser compatibility. Now with all
that said, let's get back to the original topic - 'standards'. I may have
missed the mark, but I do believe the topic was top vs. bottom posting? I
know Outlook Express defaulted to top posting while others either gave you
an option for top or bottom or defaulted to bottom. There's no standard
there. And the ONLY standard I've ever read are those written by self
serving Net Gods trying to create a sense of order for Usenet while Usenet
even before it was called Usenet was wild country. There are no standards
for top or bottom posting. There's what they call 'Netiquette' or whatever,
which actually disgust me. Our lives are governed too much already by those
that feel they need to control what we say or do. We don't or at least I
don't need someone needing recognition telling me how to post to Usenet. In
books I've read on the subject, it has never been said you MUST bottom or
top post. In fact, they don't even mention where you should post a reply.

The last thing I need in my life at 65, is for some Ivy Leaguer telling me
how I should act on my own computer online. Even free speech is at risk
online, but has never been tried in court. When it comes down to
controlling what you can say online, I'll be six feet under, thank God.

This topic doesn't belong here or anywhere else from what I can see as far
as Microsoft is concerned. This will be my last contribution to polluting a
useful newsgroup dealing with Vista.

 

[Justin]

Now you obviously don't know the difference between a statement and
implying something. I implied nothing, I clearly stated something though.
I could have replied to you "Justin, you are absolutely right" and you
would have concluded that I was implying something completely different.
Go get fluffed!

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Are you bored or something?

LOL, says the guy who needs to try to pass remedial reading again.

You are what you are ---> ...you have the nerve to tell someone to work on
reading comprehension when at the same time you riddle your post full of
typos.

If the truth hurts....CHANGE!

I believe this is why, A FEW TIMES, you have been referred to as a c*nt in
these forums. I find it odd that completely different people come to the
same conclusion about you.

 

[Justin]

I find it odd that completely different people come to the same conclusion
about you.

On second thought, no I don't!

 

[Maverick]

I understand M$ monopoly perfectly well.

My questions concern the so called 'standards' regarding top and bottom
posting. Not the hijacking up websites. I was in fact one of the very
first users of Netscape that actually bought the program for $7.00 on a
3.5" disk. Anyway, I do understand what you are saying about certain
WebPages not displaying some data because they were created using
FrontPage - Microsoft's first HTML editor bought from Vermeil(sp?) who
was selling it commercial for over $700.00. M$ took it and reworked it
and sold it for I believe $149 or even lower. Prior to FrontPage there
were few if any WYSIWYG html editors on the market at the time. I was
hard coding using a text editor. Then along came Dreamweaver which I
still use. Even Dreamweaver has a switch for certain browser
compatibility. Now with all that said, let's get back to the original
topic - 'standards'. I may have missed the mark, but I do believe the
topic was top vs. bottom posting? I know Outlook Express defaulted to
top posting while others either gave you an option for top or bottom or
defaulted to bottom. There's no standard there. And the ONLY standard
I've ever read are those written by self serving Net Gods trying to
create a sense of order for Usenet while Usenet even before it was
called Usenet was wild country. There are no standards for top or
bottom posting. There's what they call 'Netiquette' or whatever, which
actually disgust me. Our lives are governed too much already by those
that feel they need to control what we say or do. We don't or at least
I don't need someone needing recognition telling me how to post to
Usenet. In books I've read on the subject, it has never been said you
MUST bottom or top post. In fact, they don't even mention where you
should post a reply.

But you will find just about every usenet forum that is 'other os
specific' always bottom posts. I got hammered the first time I used OE
on usenet as well. There is a netiquette guide to follow.

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html

" If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the
entire original!"

Which means that you follow up at the bottom of the topic.
It isn't your fault,... it is M$ design that is at fault.
All other newsreaders that I've used puts your cursor at the bottom of
the post.

The last thing I need in my life at 65, is for some Ivy Leaguer telling
me how I should act on my own computer online. Even free speech is at
risk online, but has never been tried in court. When it comes down to
controlling what you can say online, I'll be six feet under, thank God.

I'm glad I'm not Ivy League either.

This topic doesn't belong here or anywhere else from what I can see as
far as Microsoft is concerned. This will be my last contribution to
polluting a useful newsgroup dealing with Vista.

My condolences with Vista, and good luck.

 

[Mitch]

The last thing I need in my life at 65, is for some Ivy Leaguer telling me
how I should act on my own computer online. Even free speech is at risk
online, but has never been tried in court. When it comes down to
controlling what you can say online, I'll be six feet under, thank God.

You're missing the point, and objecting to the entirely wrong thing.
The point of having rules for posting is NOT to control the content of
your message -- no one is doing that, obviously. (That's what "free
speech" is about -- content, not grammar!)

The point of the grammar (rules like bottom posting) is to make sure
your message is UNDERSTOOD; to show you the way that makes it easier to
understand, more effective, more comprehensible. Those are presumably
things you WANT your message to be; otherwise, there would be no point
writing for others to see at all.

I don't know why people would object to being shown how to get others
to read your messages better, but that's what is going on -- and yet
people are still whining about it. They are not trying to CONTROL what
you write!

 

[Jeff]

You're missing the point, and objecting to the entirely wrong thing.
The point of having rules for posting is NOT to control the content of
your message -- no one is doing that, obviously. (That's what "free
speech" is about -- content, not grammar!)

Yup Mitch,
Ya are correct,

The point of the grammar (rules like bottom posting) is to make sure
your message is UNDERSTOOD; to show you the way that makes it easier to
understand, more effective, more comprehensible. Those are presumably
things you WANT your message to be; otherwise, there would be no point
writing for others to see at all.

People just can't understand my message easily unless

I don't know why people would object to being shown how to get others
to read your messages better, but that's what is going on -- and yet
people are still whining about it. They are not trying to CONTROL what
you write!

I bottom post-like all the anal --------- keep whining about.


Jeff

 

[Justin]

NO

You're missing the point, and objecting to the entirely wrong thing.
The point of having rules for posting is NOT to control the content of
your message -- no one is doing that, obviously. (That's what "free
speech" is about -- content, not grammar!)

The point of the grammar (rules like bottom posting) is to make sure
your message is UNDERSTOOD; to show you the way that makes it easier to
understand, more effective, more comprehensible. Those are presumably
things you WANT your message to be; otherwise, there would be no point
writing for others to see at all.

I don't know why people would object to being shown how to get others
to read your messages better, but that's what is going on -- and yet
people are still whining about it. They are not trying to CONTROL what
you write!

 

[Rich]

He got a job with M$ PR dept.

Good one ...

72 virtual virgins are awaiting your arrival in non Microsoft heaven

Rich

 

[Mitch]

Yup Mitch,
Ya are correct,
People just can't understand my message easily unless
I bottom post-like all the anal --------- keep whining about.

That is what we are trying to tell, yes.
You can pretend that everyone out there is bright and can read between
the lines and will eventually figure each thread out, but that's not
the point, and neither is finding an excuse not to apply the rule.

The point is making your message heard, and you do that by making it in
the way that it is expected to be presented (with grammar and the
proper presentation).

 

[Mitch]

There's a lot of people for whom making money is their sole motivation
in life. The American Dream, whatever it's called these days, certainly
includes this demograph.

Welll, obviously you can find plenty of people that would fit the old
description. But it is wrong to think that the American Dream was a
guide to follow, or in any way predictive of what people needed to try
to do. It was a descriptor of what a large group wanted from life.
It's simply wrong to tell people that they need to follow that very old
attitude just because it was given such a broad nickname in the 50s.

The Bill Gates operation addresses only the last, plus making money of
course. All the others appear to have no place in Microsoft's thinking.
Yet Microsoft is held up as a shining example of successful American
capitalism, supported it would seem by the highest in the land..

Which should suggest that the people holding up that as an example have
no idea what the American Dream really is. For the biggest part, it
had NOTHING to do with corporate success. It was specifically about
personal growth and improving your own life and the life of your
family.
Holding Microsoft up as an example of the American Dream is so totally
wrong it's hard to believe. Microsoft is a much better example of the
Napoleonic Dream or of European conquerors than it is of anything
American.

 

[Jeweljones]

As a consumer I feel strongly that microsoft has let us buyers down by
putting out a product that 90 percent of us cannot use.

I hate Vista!

When I first got my dell with Vista installed I did not like it, could not
use it...I called and wrote vista techies told me try this try that finally I
said no more and told dell I wanted to go back to XP..You guessed it they
said oh but your 30 days is up so sorry...Well no more dell or microsoft for
me. I am going for a mac (I should have lisyened to my daughter in the first
place) This whole thing has pissed me off so bad that I have vowed never to
buy a microsoft or Dell product again.

 

[Frank]

As a consumer I feel strongly that microsoft has let us buyers down by
putting out a product that 90 percent of us cannot use.

I hate Vista!

When I first got my dell with Vista installed I did not like it, could not
use it...I called and wrote vista techies told me try this try that finally I
said no more and told dell I wanted to go back to XP..You guessed it they
said oh but your 30 days is up so sorry...Well no more dell or microsoft for
me. I am going for a mac (I should have lisyened to my daughter in the first
place) This whole thing has pissed me off so bad that I have vowed never to
buy a microsoft or Dell product again.

:

Yeah...right...best you sell all of your MSFT stock!
Frank

 

[Bill]

90 percent??? you must be joking

yes maybe the Mac would be good for you.

 

[Gordon]

As a consumer I feel strongly that microsoft has let us buyers down by
putting out a product that 90 percent of us cannot use.

I hate Vista!

When I first got my dell with Vista installed I did not like it, could not
use it

Could you be a bit more vague? What do you mean EXACTLY by "couldn't use
it"? I use Vista every day on my Toshiba and it just err, works....

 

[Gordon]

90 percent??? you must be joking

yes maybe the Mac would be good for you.

nah. Gentoo Linux. That'll teach him REAL computing, not just pointy-clicky
stuff.....

 

[Frank]

"Pointy-clicky stuff" IS "REAL computing" these days. The days of front
panel toggle switches, blinkenlights, 80 column punch cards and command
line *nix editing config files with vi are all - thankfully - history.

Yeah...just like the days of peaking the grid and dipping the plate and
tunning your cars carburetor...wait what carburetor?...LOL!
Frank

 

[Jeweljones]

OK Bob First I'm not a man I'm a woman Second like a lot of computer users I
only use my Computer for pointy clicky stuff.

IMO That is where Microsoft went wrong...Vista I'm sure runs fine for some
computer geek...It does not however run fine for a housewife from the
midwest...It is a peice of crap unless you know a lot about computers.

Microsoft alienated most of thier consumers with vista...Number one rule in
marketing...Know your buyers!

I have counted in my head..I have 14 friends with Vista...9 went back to
XP...4 were too late an got stuck with vista...All we do is bitch about this
trash...One works for google and is a techie..He likes Vista except that all
the rest of us are always calling him because we can't get anything to work
or can't find anything ect.

 

[Gordon]

OK Bob First I'm not a man I'm a woman Second like a lot of computer users
I
only use my Computer for pointy clicky stuff.

IMO That is where Microsoft went wrong...Vista I'm sure runs fine for some
computer geek

Well I wouldn't call myself a "geek" - (I do know a fair bit about computers
though) but Vista for me, on a new Toshiba Satellite - err - just - works!

 

[Not Me]

It works fine on some machines, and not on others.
So I guess that makes the people with problem machines dumb...NOT