On Jun 23, 3:27 pm, "High Priest O'Murphy" <mur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1182447072.687838.140340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The letters mentioned in my post would
> have been covered in several of
> > these magazines back in September-November
> > of 2001, just prior to the
> > elections (which is why it didn't get much
> > headline coverage in the popular press).
>
> The way I remember it Microsoft was very
> generous to it's customers when XP
> came out and slashed support costs by 50%.
> Conveniently the articles and
> web-sites proving this are no
> longer in existance.
Actually, you are correct as well. Microsoft first attempted to
triple the price of the support program, and when businesses refused
to renew or sign-up like whipped dogs, many even threatening to switch
to Linux if Microsoft tried to pull the plug on their existing Windows
installations, Microsoft reduced this higher number by 1/2.
This would have happend in about March or April of 2002. About 4-5
months after XP was first released.
Both the increase and the backpedal were covered by ComputerWorld in
some detail. You might also want to try E-Week, and InfoWorld. I got
those free, and they made great reading on my train commute into New
York City.
> The CFO and Legal department are pretty much telling the CIO
> that if he allows Vista, his career will be ending very suddenly.
> [/quote]
>
> This is current enough. Where's your proof for this statement?
Not for public disclosure - maybe Sam Palmisano would tell you the
story.
|
|
