Yeah better mod up the parent because talking out one's ass is considered "insightful". What are you, the Starbucks accountant??
Maybe you should, I dunno, do some research?
Here, try these on:
I have to say Intuit seems like they have the same strategies. I have Quicken 2003 and I use it to track my portfolio. I phoned about upgradingto quicken XG and I was proudly informed that for a small annual fee of more than the price of the program, I could get an "online subscription" to Quicken that would let me keep my stock portfolio up to date automatically!
WTF?? So, if I buy the new version, I now have to fucking pay a subscription fee to do exactly what my current version does for free? They just gauranteed that I will never buy a newer version of Quicken, and at the first chance, I will switch over to a competitive product!
Maybe Intuit just hired a bunch of ex-Money middle management. Because they sure are smrt.
I can give you the stats for 7 websites that I run (all done with AWStats 6+) - last month, IE averaged 92% of browsers, Netscape at 1.9%, mozilla at 1.5%, firefox at 1.4%, safari at 1.2%, opera at 0.6%, and others filled in the rest. Interestingly, I've had 8 hits from "MSIE 7.01"... I don't know if that's a bot or a faked UA, or maybe the XPSP2 developers browsed one of my sites?
The sites average around 100,000 uniques a month all together, 4 of which are business sites and 3 of which are "fun" sites. I can tell you that IE has averaged between 90% and 96% per month for the last 12 months. Let me know if you want more detailed stats.
Share Statistics
Shares Outstanding: 14.42M
Float: 7.80M
Shares Short (as of 10-May-04): 4.62M
Short % of Float (as of 10-May-04): 59.27%
Shares Short (prior month): 3.95M
Bwa hah hah! What a ridiculously mismanaged company.
If "outdoor clothing" and "Portland, Maine" aren't trademarkable, how did Microsoft manage to trademark "Windows" and how did Apple manage to trademark...well, "Apple".
I imagine if I came up with a line of clothes called "Outdoor Clothes" that I could do something with it... at least in the United States!
Sweet ! One can clearly see that you are not a geologist, or in any way related to a field of Earth Sciences.
First of all, there are fossils on top of mountains all over the world. I have seen Ordivician fossils in the Rockies, and been to the Burgess Shale, both localites over 1500m above sea level. Gee, funny, at one time these places were UNDERNEATH the sea! Gasp! And in the miles of sandstone on the west coast of south america... hmm, whale fossils! Rock moves - get over it.
Meanwhile, the Sphinx shows water erosion because IT's ACTUALLY RAINED THERE BEFORE!! Wow!!! Unbelievable! You know, climate doesn't stay the same forever! The Nazca lines are only 300 - 400 years old, and even they have water damage. Average annual rainfall in Nazca: 0! I would suggest looking up some studies on the egyptian climate.
Additionally, wood can exist for many thousands of years. Peat bogs, isomorphism, replacement and even volcanic flows (especially a tuff or nuees ardente) can all preserve wood for long periods of time. In an anoxic environment wood will be preserved indefinitely.
Geology, biology, chemistry and anthropology has time and again proved the bible wrong. It will continue to do so, because religion was developed as a defensive mechanism for the things that people could not understand.
I would highly suggest reading a book called "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
Really? I thought it was quite a poor rebuttal actually. First of all, the author's personal bias is completely obvious in the fact that the article linked every occurence of the word "OpenOffice" to OO.o, and there isn't a single link to Microsoft.
Statement's like this are totally, well, retarded:
*Training: OpenOffice is, for the most part, the same as Microsoft Office XP for a user, but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office. Therefore there is a cost on both sides, and they are at least equal.
So, the whole paragraph is an assumption to start off with. But it is also contradictory and misleading: "but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal,", for example.
And the next paragraph:
Therefore, this is a valid point and would be part of a migration cost, yet one has to wonder at how complex such macros would be in a SMB.
Um... many companies base their entire inventory tracking and accounting systems on complex macro programs. (Not a good idea in my opinion, but hey, what can we do).
I'm not going to go on but the article is not exactly something I would use as a reference... even for a grade 5 project. The whole article is saying nothing but "well, yeah but I think", and is obviously heavily anti-microsoft. It's what is known as "junk science".
Yeah, but the great thing is that Telus is subsidizing a DSL revolution. I'm getting DSL for $17 a month for my first six months, and after that it goes to $34.95 a month.
However, one of my co-workers is also on Telus, and his six month period just ended, so guess what he did? Phoned them up and threatened to switch back to Shaw cable internet. They gave him another 6 months! They're trying to drive Shaw off the market...(which of course would have horrible consequences in the long term.)
That comment is another great one. Did you even read the parent?? Hah, what was I thinking... this is slashdot. We're talking about how Microsoft affects the economy. You seem to be imagining another conversation about how hypothetical alternatives affect the economy. Since the things that I "didn't consider" have no relevance to that, it's a wonder I didn't post it. But thanks for coming out and doing it for me!
Interestingly, if you actually read all your well-researched points, some of them back up my original post about how Microsoft does contribute to the economy. You just happen to state them in a more self-important and righteous manner. Others are just dumb, like your last one.
Frick, try to keep your rabid hatred of Microsoft in check and read the discussion before you spout off.
I like your sig - because it's pretty fitting. Besides biochemists, lets see - forensics labs, well equipped hospitals, pretty much any large university, veterinary clinics, scientists doing research on any animal or plant from dinosaurs to manatees, heck, one of my company's clients that clones trees for use in reforestation.... are all capable of analyzing DNA.
And, pretty much anywhere you go, you are dropping all sorts of DNA behind you. This isn't 1990 - DNA is used in many applications now. And with the current American government, not only would I hang on to my tinfoil hat, but I'd put on my tinfoil pants.
What about all the things you didn't consider, such as:
- thousands of companies building products to interact or run with microsoft products(including my company)
- millions of dollars from conventions and events sponsored by the company and related companies
- technologies that Microsoft has pioneered and advanced, including fueling the hardware industries
- millions of people who's jobs are easier due to being able to run software, instead of, oh, say, doing their accounting by hand
- all the charity donations from Microsoft/Bill Gates (largest philanthropist in the world)
- money into the legal system from a new branch of law, in no small part fueled by Microsoft (good and bad!)
The list goes on. Hey, there's this thing called thinking before you post a comment. I know most people on Slashdot don't do that, which explains why your comment is so stupid.
Well don't be surprised if web site operators start cutting parasites like you off, and don't come crying when your favorite websites "can't live without it" and shut down. Sites WILL start blocking people who are a drain on their resources. Nothing comes for free, and if you aren't going to generate revenue for them, they don't want you. There are techniques to detect if a user is using ad-blockers (although it's getting more difficult), and I would not be surprised to see more and more sites returning a "Sorry - no leeches allowed" page to people that have them.
I for one would rather have a couple of banners on a web page than have to pay money every time I want to check the weather or my email.
It's pretty obvious from your posts that you've never written a secure web app. Try reading the post. Nowhere did it say anything about reliance on a client side feature for security. The fact that the client side implementation of a feature is wrong is the whole point. The fact that it is insecure is the very reason it is blocked. And if you honestly think that any secure web app has anything to do with user agent strings, you won't have to remind me to fire you as a security programmer.
Really, have you even considered this? No? That's amazing! Look, thanks for being objective. I don't think that "none of us" understand it - I think that you don't understand it. Your comment is "silly" because you don't realize that your "argument" is what I answered.
If they are using features that only IE supports, it is an outright security issue to allow other browsers into the site. The classic example is the "Enabled" property. If they use this in even one location in their web app, the have to restrict it to IE only, because the button shows up as Enabled no matter what in any other browser. If other browsers don't disable the function properly, who knows what pages they could get to outside of the designated process flow?
Soooo... developing for only the browser with the most market share is the exact same reason they restrict their site to only IE. We've all read various versions of your obtuse comment numerous times. You should write a book about how your coding standard is the best in the world and everything would work right if only they wrote "reasonably generic code/markup"!
95% of all users use internet explorer. Probably 100% of all "users" (in the deragatory sense) use IE. The development costs are not worth the potential 5% gain on hits.... I've worked on many projects where it's just out of the question to add development time for "browsers that our customers have never heard of". And the W3C standards just don't cover all those "neat" features that.Net developers have access to...
Absolutely 100% agree with you there. I actually bought a PowerComputing mac clone back in the day - and I have to say it was frickin' fast, and cheap. Mac OS was very stable on it and I even installed PPC Linux and had some fun with that. I had previously owned macs (mac plus and then the IIvi) and I found out when I went to buy my next computer that PowerComputing had been bought up by Apple and if I wanted to get a new macintosh, it would be $3000.
That's when I switched to PC - I got a practically top of the line Pentium 233 MMX for $800, minus monitor. Been on PC ever since. If Apple had had a cheaper offering back then (read: third party manufacturer), I would probably still be with them.
Slashdot Mirror
Starbucks shares hit new high on strong sales
5 feel good stocks
WTF?? So, if I buy the new version, I now have to fucking pay a subscription fee to do exactly what my current version does for free? They just gauranteed that I will never buy a newer version of Quicken, and at the first chance, I will switch over to a competitive product!
Maybe Intuit just hired a bunch of ex-Money middle management. Because they sure are smrt.
The sites average around 100,000 uniques a month all together, 4 of which are business sites and 3 of which are "fun" sites. I can tell you that IE has averaged between 90% and 96% per month for the last 12 months. Let me know if you want more detailed stats.
Shares Outstanding: 14.42M
Float: 7.80M
Shares Short (as of 10-May-04): 4.62M
Short % of Float (as of 10-May-04): 59.27%
Shares Short (prior month): 3.95M
Bwa hah hah! What a ridiculously mismanaged company.
I imagine if I came up with a line of clothes called "Outdoor Clothes" that I could do something with it... at least in the United States!
They need to come up with some better suspense building taglines to go along with their cool looking game. Seriously.
Windows runs 93 percent of the world's personal computers". That's way more than I would have guessed. How is that measured exactly? And who by?
And yet just one sentence before, you stateMicrosoft's obviously declining userbase...
So it's pretty obvious that you're already formed your opinion and are only looking for the numbers to validate it. Objectivity, people.First of all, there are fossils on top of mountains all over the world. I have seen Ordivician fossils in the Rockies, and been to the Burgess Shale, both localites over 1500m above sea level. Gee, funny, at one time these places were UNDERNEATH the sea! Gasp! And in the miles of sandstone on the west coast of south america... hmm, whale fossils! Rock moves - get over it.
Meanwhile, the Sphinx shows water erosion because IT's ACTUALLY RAINED THERE BEFORE!! Wow!!! Unbelievable! You know, climate doesn't stay the same forever! The Nazca lines are only 300 - 400 years old, and even they have water damage. Average annual rainfall in Nazca: 0! I would suggest looking up some studies on the egyptian climate.
Additionally, wood can exist for many thousands of years. Peat bogs, isomorphism, replacement and even volcanic flows (especially a tuff or nuees ardente) can all preserve wood for long periods of time. In an anoxic environment wood will be preserved indefinitely.
Geology, biology, chemistry and anthropology has time and again proved the bible wrong. It will continue to do so, because religion was developed as a defensive mechanism for the things that people could not understand.
I would highly suggest reading a book called "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
Could you post a link to that research?
That's a common argument, but it's flawed. Radios and people in your cars don't require you to hold on to them while you drive.
Statement's like this are totally, well, retarded:
*Training: OpenOffice is, for the most part, the same as Microsoft Office XP for a user, but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office. Therefore there is a cost on both sides, and they are at least equal.
So, the whole paragraph is an assumption to start off with. But it is also contradictory and misleading: "but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal,", for example.
And the next paragraph:
Therefore, this is a valid point and would be part of a migration cost, yet one has to wonder at how complex such macros would be in a SMB.
Um... many companies base their entire inventory tracking and accounting systems on complex macro programs. (Not a good idea in my opinion, but hey, what can we do).
I'm not going to go on but the article is not exactly something I would use as a reference... even for a grade 5 project. The whole article is saying nothing but "well, yeah but I think", and is obviously heavily anti-microsoft. It's what is known as "junk science".
Maybe there's actually a problem on both sides?
However, one of my co-workers is also on Telus, and his six month period just ended, so guess what he did? Phoned them up and threatened to switch back to Shaw cable internet. They gave him another 6 months! They're trying to drive Shaw off the market...(which of course would have horrible consequences in the long term.)
Interestingly, if you actually read all your well-researched points, some of them back up my original post about how Microsoft does contribute to the economy. You just happen to state them in a more self-important and righteous manner. Others are just dumb, like your last one.
Frick, try to keep your rabid hatred of Microsoft in check and read the discussion before you spout off.
And, pretty much anywhere you go, you are dropping all sorts of DNA behind you. This isn't 1990 - DNA is used in many applications now. And with the current American government, not only would I hang on to my tinfoil hat, but I'd put on my tinfoil pants.
- thousands of companies building products to interact or run with microsoft products(including my company)
- millions of dollars from conventions and events sponsored by the company and related companies
- technologies that Microsoft has pioneered and advanced, including fueling the hardware industries
- millions of people who's jobs are easier due to being able to run software, instead of, oh, say, doing their accounting by hand
- all the charity donations from Microsoft/Bill Gates (largest philanthropist in the world)
- money into the legal system from a new branch of law, in no small part fueled by Microsoft (good and bad!)
The list goes on. Hey, there's this thing called thinking before you post a comment. I know most people on Slashdot don't do that, which explains why your comment is so stupid.
Well don't be surprised if web site operators start cutting parasites like you off, and don't come crying when your favorite websites "can't live without it" and shut down. Sites WILL start blocking people who are a drain on their resources. Nothing comes for free, and if you aren't going to generate revenue for them, they don't want you. There are techniques to detect if a user is using ad-blockers (although it's getting more difficult), and I would not be surprised to see more and more sites returning a "Sorry - no leeches allowed" page to people that have them. I for one would rather have a couple of banners on a web page than have to pay money every time I want to check the weather or my email.
You mean..... you read the articles???
Yeah, *real* intelligent post.
If they are using features that only IE supports, it is an outright security issue to allow other browsers into the site. The classic example is the "Enabled" property. If they use this in even one location in their web app, the have to restrict it to IE only, because the button shows up as Enabled no matter what in any other browser. If other browsers don't disable the function properly, who knows what pages they could get to outside of the designated process flow?
Soooo... developing for only the browser with the most market share is the exact same reason they restrict their site to only IE. We've all read various versions of your obtuse comment numerous times. You should write a book about how your coding standard is the best in the world and everything would work right if only they wrote "reasonably generic code/markup"!
95% of all users use internet explorer. Probably 100% of all "users" (in the deragatory sense) use IE. The development costs are not worth the potential 5% gain on hits.... I've worked on many projects where it's just out of the question to add development time for "browsers that our customers have never heard of". And the W3C standards just don't cover all those "neat" features that .Net developers have access to...
Thanks.
I already patented making your own lightning. Once someone builds it, I stand to make a lot of money.
You've obviously never received email from an AOL user!
That's when I switched to PC - I got a practically top of the line Pentium 233 MMX for $800, minus monitor. Been on PC ever since. If Apple had had a cheaper offering back then (read: third party manufacturer), I would probably still be with them.