jamie said:
dazla-d said:
*snip*
Why thank you. (ill take that as a compliment)

What about above do you not understand?

Do you wish for me to list more possible barriers to full profitable windows adoption?

I can..

*<60's batman>..must...not...mention...windows... .com ....
well if you take that as a compliment then you are more deluded than I thought

w i n do w s dot c o m is an enabler to full profitable windwos adoption.... how? it's in your mind, buddy; whatever you think is true does not equate to the 90+ million other people who are customers of that environment...

you're banging on about something that even a lurker like me sees as non-interesting. if it were interesting or relevant then brighter minds than you would have picked up on it.

You keep throwing out points, trying to argue them, then changing the subject when things get a bit too close for comfort. Slagging off inevitable UI changes is one thing, but claiming to know the panacea to Windows marketing and market growth strategies is a bit much to expect and you're not really delivering, are you?

Even your statements are contradictory. Full profitable windows adoption. What does that mean? windows is profitable. windows is adopted. what does full mean?????

so how about you defining a concrete case, with supporting real stats,showing how your great idea can:
- ensure windows is on 100% of all PC's (full?)
- ensure that Microsoft makes money from this (profitable??)
- combination of both the above is a given (windows adoption???)

do that, and then you prove your gripes. if not, you are the sound bite muppet I envisage.