Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
DraggonFodder just something else I can't figure out
On Nov 4, 5:59 pm, DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, > maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just > launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they > laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. > It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor > souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most > just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
> DraggonFodder > just something else I can't figure out
On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, shortT <dev.gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:59 pm, DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, > > maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just > > launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they > > laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. > > It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor > > souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most > > just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
> > DraggonFodder > > just something else I can't figure out
I can see individuals going to Windows 7 but businesses will probably hold off for a while. The reason being that Windows 7 does not fit well with their existing infrastructure. Microsoft will probably be forced to shorted the life of XP to force people into 7. Microsoft goes through great lengths to change the OS in such a way so that the way things worked before no longer apply. This way people need to be retrained. I remember the good old days when Ctrl-Alt-Del was used to reboot your system under MSDOS. Then they made Ctrl-Alt-Del be the login-in sequence. No confusion there.
On Nov 4, 5:59 pm, DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, > maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just > launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they > laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. > It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor > souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most > just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
> DraggonFodder > just something else I can't figure out
I hope the guy that came up with the idea of Vista is at the front of the unemployment line.
On Nov 4, 6:46 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:59 pm, DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, > > maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just > > launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they > > laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. > > It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor > > souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most > > just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
> > DraggonFodder > > just something else I can't figure out
> I hope the guy that came up with the idea of Vista is at the front of > the unemployment line.
DraggonFodder wrote: > Cutting workers usually does cause stocks to rise. In this case, > maybe everyone should step back and think this out. Windows 7 just > launched. That usually means billions in revenue... why are they > laying off so many workers. Maybe, windows 7 isn't doing very well. > It is my understanding that the only converts to win7 are the poor > souls that bought Vista. It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most > just won't do it. MSFT should be falling like a rock.
> DraggonFodder > just something else I can't figure out
The problem MSFT tends to have is getting businesses to upgrade. Vista and 7, from what I can tell, innovate in the "Apple" direction -- making Windows a more multimedia-friendly environment to attract new generation power users. Businesses can't see why they should take on the time, expense, and risk of upgrading (and that means hardware, too) just to add features that they don't use.
My company has frozen on XP, and the next version of our corporate platform will be on Linux, which I'm running now, and which is easier to use than XP is (sans a couple of minor annoyances......)
DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> writes: > why are they laying off so many workers.
I didn't see a reason stated, but revenues were down (14%?).
> It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most just won't do it.
In addition, the minimum DRAM and disk space requirements are much larger than for XP, and more than what was typically included in low end computers several years ago. For a friend, I estimated the cost of upgrading to Windows 7 to be about $200, plus whatever it costs to upgrade application software from XP to Windows-7-compatible versions (such as anti-virus software, where I wouldn't automatically trust an XP version to work well under Windows 7), plus the value of his (or my) time spent doing it.
By contrast, for $15 or less, he could switch to a modern version of Linux that should run fine on the old system without any hardware upgrades.
So, yes, older, inexpensive systems aren't likely to get upgraded to Windows 7 since the cost of doing so is comparable to buying a new low-end machine with stuff preinstalled. -WBE
Winston wrote: > The news reports I've seen say 800, not 700.
> DraggonFodder <commogu...@gmail.com> writes: >> why are they laying off so many workers.
> I didn't see a reason stated, but revenues were down (14%?).
>> It is so hard to upgrade from XP that most just won't do it.
> In addition, the minimum DRAM and disk space requirements are much larger > than for XP, and more than what was typically included in low end computers > several years ago. For a friend, I estimated the cost of upgrading to > Windows 7 to be about $200, plus whatever it costs to upgrade application > software from XP to Windows-7-compatible versions (such as anti-virus > software, where I wouldn't automatically trust an XP version to work well > under Windows 7), plus the value of his (or my) time spent doing it.
> By contrast, for $15 or less, he could switch to a modern version of Linux > that should run fine on the old system without any hardware upgrades.
> So, yes, older, inexpensive systems aren't likely to get upgraded to > Windows 7 since the cost of doing so is comparable to buying a new low-end > machine with stuff preinstalled. > -WBE
I have seen some freaky cheap netbooks.. I think is is cheaper to just buy new in many cases.. Less headache less time consumed. Apple just works. But a a premium cost.
|
