If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space after installation is complete, depending on what is installed. But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB. What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it. Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it isn't broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you don't know why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has failed in his marketing message or b) you really don't. I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear them. Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista. I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it. TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this: 1. ------------ 2. ------------ 3. ------------ And so forth. I haven't seen it. You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big. -- HP, aka Jerry |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
[snip] Me too, I'm also pro Microsoft, a long time user and stockholder. I used to be a MS stockholder. I had this vision circa 1998 or so that I could follow Bill Gates to ever more money by riding his coattails. Trouble is, Bill is worth half what he was then, largely because his net worth is tied up in stock he can't sell anyway, and so right along with him, mine tanked to 50%. It will be an IRS write-off this year, it ain't ever coming back in my view. TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this: I can't give you five "good" reasons. That begs the question why I and others did upgrade. Ok, a fair question. For me, and I'm sure it is true for a lot of people I upgraded for a single reason, I sometimes still dabble in writing code, I'm still fairly active in creating web content and since I also author a lot of DVD content I NEED to see how each new OS performs. As simple as that. That is a very valid reason, but perhaps not mainstream to the marketing audience. While Vista is being touted as a new "major" release, I don't see it that way. To me and to many, it is mostly a face lift and a needed one. Windows in XP was getting tired looking and a bit behind the times. Vista, especially if your system can support Aero is slicker, visually. I guess that's a benefit, but hardly one that justifies the cost of upgrading. Several little things have been fixed. About time! One thing I do like is now with Windows Explorer when you drag and drop files you get a tiny little pop up that TELLS you what folder you're over which avoids a long time annoyance of mine, hoving over a folder and if you do it hundreds of times a day it was too easy to be in a hurry and "drop" the file in the folder above or below your intented target. Now that's less likely. There are several basic classes of software bugs that we programmers are familiar with, such as blunders, inadequate testing, misunderstood user requirements, etc. But, increasingly, security holes and side-effect bugs have taken over. Each new "release" or patch of everything is 3 steps forward and 1 or two back, as old bugs re-appear and new ones nobody anticipated suddenly appear in the field requiring patch N, then N+1 to fix that, then N+2 to fix that, etc. Then, let's fix the whole thing AND make more money with an all-new - and buggy - thing-a-ma-bob! Vista's help system is much improved over XP. So is how details about where your files are for example when clicking on Start then All Programs. No more annoying ever expanding to the right list that takes over your monitor. Now each category opens in the same window and scrolls in place. Takes a little getting used to, but better once you get use to the change. Believe it or not (except for UAC) Vista is less of a nag and actually tries to be more helpful. Little windows pop up and give more specific information like when installing new hardware, information in Event logs is better, Control Panel has undergone a major face lift. I didn't beta test it, but, no I don't believe it. MS will accelerate its nagging, along with "validation of authenticity" constant nagging, where if you cannot PROVE you're authentic, you ain't and you can't get patches or any support. In criminal law, that's the equivalent of guilty until proven innocent. Personally, I cannot understand ANYONE who has automatic updates turned on! I simply cannot fathom people who go to bed with a working PC and get up in the morning to a nuke and reinstall. I'm sure there are many improvements under the hood I haven't had time to explore yet. These and any one of many little things may be enough for somebody to consider upgrading a good idea. Asking to make a list is simply too difficult not knowing everybody's likes or dislikes in XP and saying if or not they've been fixed, or made worse. One thing that does seem to be a glaring mistake was forcing UAC on users without asking if they wanted it forcing you to discover how to turn UAC off as opposed to learning on to turn it on if you want it. I bet that will get changed. Quick. Its ****ing off a lot of users. Bottom line, Adam. Does Vista improve YOUR ability to do useful work or not? If you're a hobbyist, fine, but if you use it professionally or you have another life you like to live with your family,the thing is supposed to help you. People don't buy new TVs or cars twice yearly and even clothes horses don't buy everything that is "in style". -- HP, aka Jerry |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:39:45 -0000, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote: Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ... D. Spencer Hines wrote: Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space? Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you keep your applications on the same partition as the OS. Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase. I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30 months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig. I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors. Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the potential for human error by a huge factor. This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad. There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is also true for browsers. I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a day or two and then go back to IE7. You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running code and bloatware. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Moore's Law.
Dale "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... Today, Ken Blake, MVP made these interesting comments ... Keith Schaefer wrote: It's a rather large OS, but nothing really to worry about in this day and age of 500gb drives.... Right! The way I always think it should be looked at is not in terms of megabytes or gigabytes, but in terms of the dollar cost (substitute your own local currency, if necessary) of providing hard disk space for the operating system. My first hard drive, about 20 years ago, was 20MB, and cost $200. DOS used about 1MB, or $20 worth, of that drive. Today, one can readily buy a 250GB drive for less than half of that, $90 or so. That makes the cost of 18GB around $6.50. And that's without even considering that 20-year old dollars were worth much more than today's dollars. The cost of providing space for the operating system has gone down substantially and continues to go down substantially all the time. Modern versions of Windows do much more and do it much more easily than 20-year-old versions of DOS. I think it's wonderful that we can get so much more capability while still spending much less for the disk space needed for it. It's hard for me to understand someone's getting upset about an operating system's using $6.50 worth of disk space. Ken, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would know, but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that computers would double in performance every couple of years but be half as expensive. What I think most users have seen, though, is that increasingly bigger O/S's and apps, to support today's needs and desire for GUI vs. command line stuff, and the changeover from hardware being the big expense to the big money going for programmers and marketing staff, whatever the hardware folks are able to build gets chewed up within one cycle on O/S and apps, so that today's 500 gig was yesteryear's 50 gigs and before that, it was 150KB floppies. My first Apple II in 1978 cost me $400 for just 48KB of memory, and the first floppy drives were $500 and disks about 5 bucks apiece. But, an enormous amount of work could be done with them, IF the user also wanted to be a programmer and system support person. I also remember the first IBM PX XTs we got at work with just 10 MEG HDs, and people thought those were the cat's meow! But, you are right in that internal and even portable external HD space is so cheap/gig that it is wiping out the optical market for everythng except what people want to play in their cars or on TV. Much easier to just buy another 200 gig external, plug it into your USB port, dump your excess and backups, store it, and move on. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
... Personally, I cannot understand ANYONE who has automatic updates turned on! I simply cannot fathom people who go to bed with a working PC and get up in the morning to a nuke and reinstall. BINGO! Yet the ruddy AV program nags me because I don't have the ruddy thing turned on! I tell it to bugger off. DSH |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
You Make Good Sense.
Particularly This Part: I keep wondering why so many miss the point that Windows is bloated. It has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors. Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or in Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the potential for human error by a huge factor. DSH "Adam Albright" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:39:45 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" wrote: Today, Robert Moir made these interesting comments ... D. Spencer Hines wrote: Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space? Others have explained about the install requirements. As for "in use", I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a 60Gb partition... and would be far happier with 80 to 100Gb if you keep your applications on the same partition as the OS. Now that people want miracle applications and OSes that do everything and now that hard disks are so cheap, the amount of disk space consumed by new stuff is only going to increase. I have about 55 gig for XP Pro SP2, but limit my primary partition to only Windows and my apps. All data is stored on extended partitions. Still, I am quite full on C:\ even with a modest installed base of apps. If I were building a new PC today, only 30 months since my last one, it would be far hotter with far more memory and HDD space into the terabyte range, but subdivided between high-speed internal vs. removable-for-safety external. In any case, if I really wanted Vista, I would want hardware that can run it efficiently and take advantage of its new features, but would not even stop to think about "only" 18 gig. I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors. Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the potential for human error by a huge factor. This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad. There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is also true for browsers. I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a day or two and then go back to IE7. You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running code and bloatware. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
I agree with everything you said and also stay at N -1.
I've been on the bleeding edge of technology and it's a pain in the lower parts -- for no gain at all. Yes, you're constantly Beta-testing and wasting time on trivial matters -- NOT getting useful work done. DSH "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ... Balderdash! It's a conspiracy between Bloatware Software Manufacturers and Hardware Manufactures -- each scratching the other's back. Tell us about the TEN Good Reasons why we need VISTA and all the things it will do that XP can't -- THEN you MAY be able to justify the bloatware. My view of the software industry in general, certainly not just MS, is that they have become 100% marketing oriented, not problem solvers. So, with the total possible market virtually saturated with PCs already, the only way to generate new sales and revenues is to convince customers with ever shorter product cycles that they simply must have the newest and greatest, no matter what the cost, no matter the problems, and certainly, no matter if it does or does not improve the real reason why we have computers in the first place - to do useful work. I have long been a Luddite when it comes to both app and O/S upgrades and hardware. I have found that I get much more work done at much less expense and with far fewer headaches by staying at N - 1 from whatever is state-of-the-art and let the other fellow beta test with their Visa card. But, if you want to get a new PC, or must, then you're probably going to be a Vista customer. Capabilities & Limitations... BOTH the Upside & the Downside. "Transparent Windows" won't cut it. But you don't seem to be able to do that. I have 300 GB of disk space -- that's not the issue. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
... Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ... Yes, I understand that Vista "only" consumes about 9 GB of disk space after installation is complete, depending on what is installed. But I'm currently running XP Pro and even with all my programs installed and many other files in storage, I'm only consuming 16.44 GB. What I need to know is what this very bloated piece of software called Vista will do for me that XP Pro won't and I still haven't heard it. Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it isn't broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you don't know why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has failed in his marketing message or b) you really don't. Yes, I've heard of all those and follow them. I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and his successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller. I need TEN Good Reasons why I should upgrade to Vista and I've yet to hear them. Microsoft needs to do a better marketing job on Vista. I'm very Pro-Microsoft, a stockholder and long-time user -- but Microsoft needs to SHOW ME the advantages of Vista -- and "Transparent Windows" and other rinky-dink cosmetic enhancement simply don't cut it. TEN Good Reasons to buy Vista -- in bullet form, like this: 1. ------------ 2. ------------ 3. ------------ And so forth. I haven't seen it. You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big. D'accord. DSH -- Spence -- HP, aka Jerry |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, Dale made these interesting comments ...
Moore's Law. Thanks, Dale! Ken, I forget the fellow's name, but I imagine you would know, but the one who predicted 20-30 years ago that computers would double in performance every couple of years but be half as expensive. [snip] -- HP, aka Jerry |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
I agree with everything you said and also stay at N -1. I've been on the bleeding edge of technology and it's a pain in the lower parts -- for no gain at all. I enjoyed FORTRAN programming while in engineering school circa late 1960s and did it at work for about 5 years or so in mid- career. Then, I bought an early Apple ][ as a toy in 1978 and PCs beginning about 1988. I was the consumate hobbyist back then, dreamily happy that I could beat the beasts into submission, write my own code in multiple languages to do what I could not buy, and didn't worry about the high cost and problems associated with upgrade-at-any-cost thinking. I even did some Visual Basic 3.0 programming in Windows 3.1. Then, rather suddenly one day in the summer of 1995, in the midst of some sort of frustrating problem I was trying to fix after just upgrading some HW or maybe installing a new app, when it suddenly dawned on me that I was spending MORE time making the blinking thing work than I was getting useful output from it! At that point, I was pushing 50 and had moved on to bigger and better things than software programming, so I no longer viewed my home PC - and certainly not my work one, that was professionally supported by people I managed back then - as a toy or hobby, I began to view it as a very sophisticed adding machine, the old analogy, that I had bought to do MY bidding. That day, I quit being a hobbyist cold-turkey and went to N-1 or even N-2. Yes, I have missed out on some "breakthroughs", but generally, I am OK. I also remember MS warning me that Win 98 wouldn't be supported any longer, but it was for security, just not updates. Right now, my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do so. My view on "obsolete" is that while MS would certainly like me to buy her a new PC, with Vista, or at least bite the bullet and install SP2 (which I won't do because her system would become unstable), I can seen a year, maybe several more years, of useful life on a tool for her that is only used to get E-mail, look at picture attachments from friends, and web surf. She doesn't need the latest whiz tools and is happy enough that it doesn't crash. Since Christmas I have toyed, gently, of having my nephew build me a hot dual- or quad-core PC with lots more gigs or RAM to enhance the speed of my digital camera and scanning graphics work, but I'd have to majorly upgrade all of my apps, beginning the slide back into oblivion since I would need Vista to get where I want to go someday. And, right now, the increase in real speed that I would see vs. advertised increases just from clock speed that are eaten up by Vista partially is only about 40-50% and I'd like to see at least 2X before I run the gauntlet again. Please note everyone: I am NOT whacking on MS or any app developer, but they all drink water from the same river along with the rest of the animals. Yes, you're constantly Beta-testing and wasting time on trivial matters -- NOT getting useful work done. [snip] -- HP, aka Jerry |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
[snip] I keep wondering why so may miss the point that Windows is bloated. It has nothing to do with how much free disk space you have or how much hard drives cost or how fast a system you run it on. Because Windows is bloated at some say 500 million lines of code (doubt it that's big) it is without a doubt infested top to bottom with coding errors. Murphy's Law applies. The larger the size of any "program" or it Windows case zillions of little applets all tied together with most not having a clue what the other applets do, you multiply the potential for human error by a huge factor. Adam, I am hardly "missing" the fact that Vista, like all modern software, is bloated and inefficiently written and/or compiled as the driving force is increased sales with minimum human cost, not the ultra-high HW cost that once drove the industry. But, I am trying this time around not to develop the rep again of calling Vista "Windoze" and Microsoft "M$", so I'm just ignoring the obvious in public. This "problem" multiplies with each new release of Windows because each newer version is bigger and Microsoft never seems to find time to get around to fixing all the bugs in the previous release so in effect they get carried over and the latest version adds new, mostly yet undiscovered bugs. What a way to run a railroad. Again, it isn't just MS. Product cycles for major, and even some minor apps and utilities used to be 2-3 years, then it was 2 years, then it was 18 months, now it is 12 months and dropping. That is clearly NOT what MS is doing, not even if you call an SP a product cycle release. But, it IS what everybody else is doing in their frenzy to artificially increase sales to their installed base by either frightening them into upgrading so they don't fall behind, or moving the GUI around so that it looks new. I cannot - and will not - buy new versions or all-new apps/utilities every year! And, ALL of my software either runs poorly on Vista, as it is on the old side and thus no longer supported or I would have to upgrade to fully take advantage of today's HW and Vista in general. There is nothing wrong with adding new features. Still it would be hard to say Vista isn't bloated with all kinds of clutter. This is also true for browsers. Most people, maybe all of us, have trouble differentiating between needs and wants. And, the job of marketing for ANY industry whether hard or soft, whether product or service, and no matter what market segment, is to plant the seeds of discontent in a current or potential new customer that they will die a painful death if they don't buy X, Y, or Z. I am in the American car biz, as you would guess, and not only have the Big Three discovered that this upgrade-at-any-cost syndrome, i.e., buy a new car, no longer works, even the Asians (other than the Chinese) and Europeans are "discoverying" it. In my biz, people simply cannot afford to "upgrade" especially as they are being "downsized" for salary, so they repair and drive for 5, 8, 12 years and upwards of 150-200,000 miles. Moore's Law has kept costs dropping while performance increases so the shrinking car market thingy hasn't seemed to hurt computers, but eventually it will. The market is virtually saturated and people do have other things to do with their time and money. I don't know if it works with Vista, probably not, but if you're still running XP, download a copy of the Opera browser. Use it for just a day or two and then go back to IE7. You'll see the difference immediately between lean mean fast running code and bloatware. Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do so while a breath is left in my XP body. Fast code CAN be written, but MS has NEVER - in my view and many others - been a true innovator no matter what Bill Gates says, and has never been a purveyor of fast, efficient software, at least not since the halcyon days of MS DOS. I remember fondly how slow MS software development tools were to run and how lightning fast Turbo Pascal was to compile and also execute that it was mind boggling. But, so long as new mass-market PC hardware drives new customers to Vista - and thus to upgraded apps - and millions of other people go on some sort of feeding frenzy to buy new SW, it will succeed. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might agree that the HW and SW bunch are in cahoots on this, but I'm not. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
Have you ever heard the phrase "don't try to fix it if it isn't broken" and "never give Murphy an even break"? If you don't know why you want or need Vista, then a) Bill Gates has failed in his marketing message or b) you really don't. Yes, I've heard of all those and follow them. I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and his successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller. The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO, is a consumate businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do. So, he well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options he is getting. But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates is, so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the throne to an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is exactly what MS needs to do in a market driven by costs and with limited markets to conquer, if they cannot convince people to upgrade on a whim. [snip] You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big. D'accord. Have a good Sunday, Spence! -- HP, aka Jerry |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
... Right now, my wife's slower PC with a lot less memory and only 20 gigs HDD is whining at me that her XP Pro SP1 is no longer supported, the little nag pop-ups and icons in the systray coming from MS, of course. Well, it is still getting security fixes as well, and I think it will continue to do so. I didn't know that. I'm running XP Pro SP2... Can it be far behind? Two years at most? Do you think there will be an SP3 -- and if so, when? DSH |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
You are certainly right about that.
But they are pushing it VERY Aggressively. DSH "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... Well, I refuse to let MS install IE7 and will continue to do so while a breath is left in my XP body. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
... Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ... I fear Bill Gates is an absentee landlord these days and his successors don't have a steady hand on the tiller. The new head of MS, the guy Gates hired as CEO,... Yes, what's his name -- Steve something or other? Former MS President -- now CEO? is a consumate businessman and has steadily raised their sales, revenues and profits, which is what a traditional CEO is supposed to do. So, he well deserves the salary, bonuses, and stock options he is getting. Good Points & True. But, he is not, not, NOT the techno visionary that Bill Gates is, so my view is that Gates will never fully relinquish the throne to an old-fashioned bean counter, even though that is exactly what MS needs to do in a market driven by costs and with limited markets to conquer, if they cannot convince people to upgrade on a whim. Yep, Bill and Melinda need to stop giving away their money and Warren Buffet's for a while [although I understand exactly why they are doing it -- all the reasons] and watch the store more. It's also a Market driven by Left-Wing Judges who are convinced that Big Corporations Are Inherently BAD and must be brought to heel -- by said Judges -- or broken up if they fail to heel. It's often an eat the Golden Goose solution. [snip] You're not likely to see it, ever. Please keep in mind that much of life revolves around perception, and not absolute truth, but reality trumps any card in the game. So, if you PERCEIVE you need the next whiz bang, then I guess you do, but be prepared for some headaches if you're an early adopter on something this big. D'accord. Have a good Sunday, Spence! Oh, I am indeed -- on O'ahu -- Kailua. And you too -- where, in general, if you don't mind. DSH -- HP, aka Jerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|