On 5/12/2013 07:29, ...winston wrote:
xfile wrote:
On 5/11/2013 18:12, ...winston wrote:
"xfile" wrote in message ...

...winston wrote....
As previously noted...a Start Button does not necessarily indicate a
Win7 type Start Menu.


Whether it's Win7 type is irrelevant and it's not the point, and the
main point is that the primary mission of an operating system in *the
business sector* is to serve as a stable "platform" for applications run
on it, and within the primary mission, the UI design is to minimize, if
not totally eliminate, user confusion and learning curve so they could
quickly access to data and applications to complete their tasks.

If the primary mission is failed, everything else is just BS.

Win7 style or not, it's their job to accomplish the above mission to get
paid (by licensing).

In the consumer sector, there is no hard rules because everything can be
subjective and base on personal preferences.

Microsoft, as an OEM software development company, miscalculated and
forgot their role, again, and tried to mix the two distinctive segments
together with one half-baked product.

They are the last one qualified to tell business how and if they need to
deploy resources for any stupid changes not to mention that it's for
their own interests.

In the business sector, Microsoft is just an OEM company and they are OK
if they just follow orders to do their work.


You're preaching to the choir.
I'm just providing the information by linking to the source (i.e MSFT
and those in control of what will happen)...everything else
is just hypothesis or an expectation based on a form of entitlement.

Here's another article from the source g May 10th, 2013.

The Official Microsoft Blog
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2013/05/10/staying-centered.aspx




Regarding getting 'paid' - after 100 million copies (all possible
channels - retail, licensing, upgrades, OEM pcs, System Builder
versions) sold
- even if just using the upgrade limited offer pricing of $40 ea. they
got paid about 4 billion dollars!

Afaics....nntp forums are fine for discussing issues...but expressing an
opinion here serves no purpose whatsoever to MSFT and hasn't for at
least 4 years.

Additionally, similar distress was expressed about the 'Ribbon'
deployment in Office and other products (Windows Essentials and earlier
versions)
***It's still here***
....and the person responsible for the Ribbon in Office is now the
person responsible for Windows! (link/video of her comments on Windows
8 past and future provided earlier)




Regarding getting 'paid' - after 100 million copies (all possible
channels - retail, licensing, upgrades, OEM pcs, System Builder
versions) sold
- even if just using the upgrade limited offer pricing of $40 ea. they
got paid about 4 billion dollars!


You do know that approximately 80% of MS client OS sales goes to PC OEMs
(e.g. Dell, HP. Acer, etc.), right?

How about do some cross-check on PC sales in recent years and months?

WOW, it has been declining even faster. So where are most of "100
million copies"? Sitting at PC makers' inventory list and eating their
profits.

Wake up.

And yes, most of those products are still there with shrinking market
share and MS is less relevant for any new developments.




As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir.
100 million installed or sitting on OEM inventory lists is already
revenue on MSFT's books.

Lol...I don't need cross check anything.

The PC market has been saturated for quite some time with sales not
declining because of Windows but due to the increased usage of alternate
devices. For years a significant population used pcs for simple tasks
not available on smart devices none of which now require a pc with an
installed software base.

MSFT will continue to sell Windows (7, 8 and later) just like it has in
the past with deprecation of older operating systems. Imo, not at the
same rate to the same people. Businesses really don't get much of a
choice...deploy updated hardware and software for whatever desktop user
base exists and choose something else for portable mobility/on-the-go
needs.

The only wake-up call afaics is to recognize that its necessary to adapt
or be left behind since the entire ecosystem is evolving into an entire
different culture for the essential/discretionary income of the next
generation (i.e. not yours, mine, or the prior business models) with
increasing mobility/smart device needs/usage.




100 million installed or sitting on OEM inventory lists is already
revenue on MSFT's books.

Some non-Microsoft information for you,

You are right about PC market has been saturated for quite some time
(actually, about 7-8 years) but it is in developed countries whilst in
emerging countries (e.g. China, India, etc.) PC has just entered into
the growth stage.

But according to IDC (a reputable and creditable research firm),
shipments of PCs fell 14% *worldwide* last quarter (1st Quarter, 2013)
and it was the *worst* yearly decline since IDC began tracking the data
in 1994.

According to Gartner (another reputable research firm), vice president
Michael Silver says Microsoft “didn’t listen to customers who were
pointing out in testing. They could have had a middle ground, but chose
not to…" and this is the main reason caused this sharp decline -----
*WORLDWIDE*.

You must know that Microsoft relies on major PC makers for sales and
revenues but Dell goes private, and HP wants to sell its PC division (no
taker) so keeps it for their server division, but how long can they keep
it? Acer's primary revenue now is from OEM business not PCs.

So who is going to generate revenues for Microsoft if its major partners
go under? System builders selling 2-3 units a day?

I wouldn't be so happy if I were you, but I am not you. Who cares if
the entire PC industry is done and if other makers are making money, as
long as MS is making money, right? Good thinking

There is always a choice, and the question has always been that when the
choice would be made. Continuing to buy MS products is a rational
decision to maintain the current operational infrastructure, and there
is no reason to replace otherwise perfectly working infrastructure which
is the opposite of MS mentality (let's break things down).

The problem is that Microsoft is now been perceived as a selfish,
out-of-touch, and unreliable business partner, so for new
infrastructures, people are looking for anything but from Microsoft.

You think Microsoft doesn't know that or else why would they quickly
determine to come up 8.1?

Seriously, wake up