Re: Anyone using Vista?

HeyBub wrote:
docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <vJKdnSEadbaUSSvUnZ2dnUVZ_umWnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
HeyBub <heybub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[snip]

Apples market share has grown from 4% and is now over 10%


http://www.tuaw.com/2009/02/02/apple-market-share-continues-to-climb-windows-drops/


I stand corrected. Your reference from an Apple sock-puppet is off a
tad, though. CNET reports a market share of about 9.6%.
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/01/apples-net-share-slipped-in-february/

But that's to be expected with the Democrats in control. All the
"beautiful people" use Macs.

Argumentum ad hominem, I believe... either that or less than two
months of being 'in control' has Democrats behaving like some folks
from (US state of your choice) I know like to think of themselves as
behaving.


Uh, so what? If one buys a product because it is promoted by a
celebrity, and that reason is exposed, I suggest your belief that the
exposure is "argumentum ad hominem" is evidence sufficient of some
psychological pathology.


Linux has more servers than Windows does.

Sure. The geeks love Linux and it's the geeks that set up servers.

Argementum ad hominem, I believe... either that or corporations have
no sense of how to test a system for superior ROI, which may be the
case, in places where folks behave like some (folks from US state of
your choice) I have known.

Likewise, you have no practical concept of how business decisions are
made. ROI is but one part of the decision-making process, and in most
cases, a minor part. The primary buying motivation, for most people
who make these decision, is not cost (ROI), but minimization of
grief. In general, it's not their money they are spending, but they
will have to weather the upset and abuse when something goes wrong.

I learned long ago - in the Dale Carnegie Sales Course - that you
tailor your presentation.

When talking to the purchasing agent, you emphasize dependability:
"These typewriters don't break - the secretaries will not berate you
for buying junk. Sure, they cost a little more, but peace of mind is
worth it."
When talking to an owner, you emphasize price: "This machine is a
bargain, when considering ROI - it will outlast its peers by a long
shot."
There are many, many more people in the role of "purchasing agent"
than "owner."


That is very true. I agree with your points regarding "pitch". With software
(as with many products) perception is a big part of it. If you understand
and empathise with the perception of the person you are talking to, you are
much more likely to close a sale.

In the instant case, there are two conflicting thrusts: On the one
hand, the geek can pretty easily, through the ample use of acronyms,
gibberish, and body odor convince the sales department that Linux
will do what they need for a web site. On the other, the updated
slogan "Nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft" has sway in many
slightly-more-sophisticated venues.
In neither case does the cost - or ROI - enter into the equation.


It probably does when they seek approval to spend the money. If an IT
manager is buying stuff out of his own budget and has an approved per item
spend limit, then it doesn't. As soon as he needs to exceed that limit, the
bean counters get involved. I lost a very lucrative deal with a major
Aerospace company through exactly that. The IT people had seen the demos and
were very excited. The IT manager needed to get spend approval and the bean
counters, who had no idea how this particular tool would save the company
money and allow them to easily integrate diverse platforms they were
running, just said no. Despite pressure from the manager and requests to
present our case, they wouldn't budge. Can you believe this as an argument?:
"You guys in IT are currently doing the job so why would we spend more
money?"

I was disappointed (not just financially).



In a recent briefing by Ballmer his graph of 'threats' to Windows
had Linux as bigger than Apple.

Yeah, but nobody believes Ballmer. Just ask any Apple user.

Argementum ad hominem, I believe... either that or this is what
passes for Reasonsed Discourse amongst some (folks from US state of
your choice) I have known.

I didn't bring up Ballmer.



It's God's honest truth. You can take it to the bank. You can let
your sister marry it. If you had it for dinner, it would be the best
meal of your life. You can build a religion around it.

Religions are not rational... as are some (folks from US state of
your choice) I have known.

Religion and rational thought are not contradictory; religion is
rational.

A whole different can of worms... :-) Obviously, I cannot agree with that.
Anything based on an argument from Authority is only as good as the
Authority. When there is no solid independent evidence for the existence of
the Authority, other than folk tales and warm fuzzy feelings, then it HAS to
be suspect. I have no problem with people following their religious beliefs,
and would defend to the death their right to do so in a free society (as
long as they aren't burning people who disagree with them). But claiming
rationality for what is really ancient superstition? No, let's drop the
pretence. If you believe in God or Gods or an imaginary friend or what
Richard colourfully refers to as Space Pixies, that is entirely a matter for
you. Millions of children believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. But
please don't let's pretend there is a rational basis for it.

Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, and some Muslim cleric (I
forget who), settled this hash in the 12th Century. You really should
keep up.

So, here in the twenty-first century we are to accept unquestioningly some
arguments posited by some keen thinkers 900 years ago, without review?

Do you not think that more evidence may have come to light in that time?

That hash may well have been "settled" to the satisfaction of a largely
uneducated and unthinking group of people at the time, who were predisposed
to accept the decisions of their leaders and "betters", but today we are
better informed.




Our decisions on what to buy are not dictated or imposed. There are
almost always choices.


We'd certainly like to think so...

'Choice' is not always rational... but then again, the concept of
'rational' has been completely alien to some (folks from US state of
your choice) I've known.

Argumentum ad changesubject. Nobody said choices are rational. I have
an ex-wife to prove that contention, though some would argue that
anecdotal example is not evidence. On the other hand, 100 million
anecdotes...


Being a monopolist is not a crime. Private monopolies are almost
always good for the consumer. The arch monopoly of yore, Standard
Oil, reduced the price of kerosene from $3.00/gallon to FIVE CENTS.
In less than three years.

So, let's see... a free market's obvious conclusion is a monopoly,
which, by definition, has 'exclusive ownership through legal
privelege, command of supply or concerted action'... and since
ownership is exclusive the market is no longer free.

A "free market" is not a multiplicity of consumer choices. A "free
market" depends, in no way, on the presence or absence of a monopoly.
A market is free if buyers and sellers are under no compulsion to
engage in a transaction or if competitors have a low or no barrier to
entry.

'The most free market leads to a market which is the least free'...
this passes for logic, among some (folks from US state of your
choice) I have known. George Orwell - an admitted Socialist -
advocated that 'Slavery's Freedom!'

George Orwell is not only dead, but was wrong. The only thing in my
experience that comes close to these two conditions is the logic of
your post.

I believe the quote is a slogan from "1984" which was intended to be a
parody. The full quote is "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; ignorance is
Strength" It was one of the mindless slogans produced by the Big Brother
Establishment to calm the workers. I am quite sure that Orwell never
seriously "advocated" it.

(BTW, you discard Orwell because he's dead, but you accept Thomas Aquinas,
Maimonides, and an unknown Muslim Cleric, who are also dead. Doesn't that
strike you as a little inconsistent? :-))

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anyone using Vista?
    ... CNET reports a market share of about 9.6%. ... places where folks behave like some I ... Linux as bigger than Apple. ... Private monopolies are almost always good ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Anyone using Vista?
    ... CNET reports a market share of about 9.6%. ... months of being 'in control' has Democrats behaving like some folks ... no sense of how to test a system for superior ROI, ... Private monopolies are almost ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: My Migrations
    ... particular model with "Windows, Linux, or BeOS" they lose a million ... If a competitor looks like gaining market share they simply buy them, ... MS wanted a share of the entertainment business, ... monopolies. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Fines ?
    ... It's always hard to make it in a market already dominated by big ... The USA would long ago have done what the EU is doing if Microsoft ... If the World Government should become totalitarian, what can be done about it when there is nobody outside to help? ... Capitalism has failed insofar as it hasn't produced a system for stabilising the free market and making monopolies inherently impossible. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: flush the bog with Perrier?
    ... TBH I've yet to see a plausible reason why water has to be supplied by ... Because really, it's a fake market. ... However the faked markets for natural monopolies ... form of private industry no matter how uncompetitive is always better than ...
    (uk.misc)