Vista - Microsoft bows to pressure on XP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7017624.stm

"canna" <canna@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E374F85E-6086-4526-AF42-85C25B824E1F@xxxxxxMS is not stupid. It's about the all mighty $$$$$$$.

Tiberius wrote:
Of course what? MS has marketing savvy? Sure they do. It's called a
blocking move.Only in your childish dreams!Think again loser.
Frank

Copied from news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7017624.stm

"Mr Nash said that up to the summer of 2007 Microsoft had sold more than 60
million licences for Vista. This put it on track to be the fastest selling
operating system in Microsoft's history."

I wonder how many of the 60 million have gone back to XP!

Canna

"canna" wrote:

More facts and less hysteria on Vista:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=785



"canna" <canna@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:347500F6-BE69-4E86-B06D-ACE06BCCAF8A@xxxxxx
Copied from news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7017624.stm

"Mr Nash said that up to the summer of 2007 Microsoft had sold more than 60
million licences for Vista. This put it on track to be the fastest selling
operating system in Microsoft's history."

I wonder how many of the 60 million have gone back to XP!

Canna

"canna" wrote:

"canna" <canna@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:347500F6-BE69-4E86-B06D-ACE06BCCAF8A@xxxxxxWhy don't you come up with some facts and let someone know?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=785

Hysteria and Vista. Didn't think I'd hear those words in the same sentence! LOL

Canna

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote:

Because I don't care. I'm just sat at work bored and fancied a discussion.
After all I did come to a discussion group. I heard that a lot of bitchin
goes on here so I thought I drop in.

Canna

"Mr. Arnold" wrote:

Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:It might be that the issues presented in the article are arguably true,
and even though ostensibly ms is somewhat taken to task, the bottom line
still suggests that the major faults lie elsewhere with everyone else. A
couple issues, however, stand out for me. The comments about vendors not
following ms guidelines for years and now subsequently breaking
applications seems rather off the wall. It takes two to tango. If
vendors did not follow guidelines, why did ms allow it to happen for
such a long time frame? Why is it only now with vista that ms "drew the
line in the sand"? Why wasn't the line drawn at the me/xp juncture? I
guess the same question could be asked about security. Why is it now
with vista that security is front and center? What about all the
iterations of windows (including xp before service packs) that were
sieves, at best, when security could have and maybe should have been the
foremost objective? There may be good and even great info and facts
available to address the issue of "facts and hysteria on vista", but
this seems not to be one of them.
--
norm

NoStop wrote:
Only in your dreams doris.
Go back to the open sores ng where you'll be warmly greeted by the other
linux zealots and get your blessing from RS, your divine leader.
Frank