dazla-d said:
jamie said:
*snip*
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.
well if you take that as a compliment then you are more deluded than I thought

thank you again.

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...

it would simplify alot of things and remove confusion around windows branding.

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.

brighter minds like joe wilcox, mary jo, network world, .....?

You keep throwing out points, trying to argue them, then changing the subject when things get a bit too close for comfort.

i only asked where classic was. you changed the subject

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?

where are your solutions?  what links do you point to? none?  oh.

Even your statements are contradictory. Full profitable windows adoption. What does that mean?

above 20% business adoption / wanted consumer adoption

windows is profitable. windows is adopted. what does full mean?????

it means a buying tsunami like xp / 95

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?)
already said above ideas might account for a 10% of fence sitter adoption - not 100
- ensure that Microsoft makes money from this (profitable??)
already said re-think OEM/retail pricing
- combination of both the above is a given (windows adoption???)
- no - just that ignoring a huge faction of users - that liked your last, last product - might not be a good idea

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

heyyyyy herbie babbyyyy  Wink


ps - ya i hate when people break posts down into points to argue too.