In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Duncan Meyer
<meyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:36:48 -0500
<47a0aa0d$0$26035$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1617919.zsdBk1UuXr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Monday 28 January 2008 18:36 : \____
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb
>>> <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote
>>> on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:14:45 -0500
>>> <6w5kx0vfm91c$.1xx52p6zpst97$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:49:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From a reliable source I hear that it's the same old business.
>>>>> "If you can get hold of this article, it is probably time to dig
>>>>> it out again and use in the context of the current financial
>>>>> troubles. Microsoft execs bluff like anything, but basically it
>>>>> seems much of the Vista sales aren't sales." I've said that for
>>>>> over a year.
>>>>
>>>> More Schestowitz FUD.
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with you that MS and IBM and etc are fudging the numbers,
>>>> I
>>>> say so as an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> You act like it is fact...
>>>>
>>>> So where is your proof Roy Schestowitz?
>>>>
>>>> "A reliable source" doesn't cut it, although in COLA it probably does,
>>>> sadly enough.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't the minions in COLA had enough of this clown Roy Schestowitz?
>>>>
>>>> Why not ask him for proof?
>>>
>>> Microsoft is not fudging the numbers. If one wishes to
>>> accuse Microsoft of fudging the numbers, one has to go
>>> through the legal process. Sowing rumors won't cut it.
>>>
>>> In any event Microsoft presumably realizes revenues
>>> whenever Vista is installed on a machine; the machine need
>>> not reach the consumer or actually be sold. Another,
>>> more troubling scenario is that the unit is sold anyway
>>> with Vista and *another* license for XP is burned as the
>>> customer replaces the one with the other. A third license
>>> may be burned in the future when Vista SP2 comes out.
>>>
>>> Microsoft presumably makes a lot of money that way, and the
>>> customer of course gets what he wants: a working machine.
>>>
>>> (That he has to pay three times may not be that much of
>>> a concern to him. Of course one might as well ask the
>>> obvious question of why it's not to Microsoft's advantage
>>> to get it all right the first time, but Microsoft, like
>>> Linux, is also shooting at a moving target; hardware does
>>> not stand still. To be sure, many of Vista's problems do
>>> not appear to be hardware related....)
>
> Blah, blah, blah. So a paid spammer like you who's never
> even had a job knows all about finances but every person
> who works on Wall Street and stock exchanges around the
> world is clueless. They don't understand what's "really
> happening" but you do. Idiot.
I assume you're directing the above at Roy (the text above,
however, was written by me), but in any event money is a
funny animal, isn't it?
What is a stock really? We trust Microsoft. Sometimes,
they deliver. :-)
That's what market cap is; trust, with a piece of the company
as collateral.
>
> Where did you get your financial understanding from... "financial balance
> sheet expert" Mark Kent who doesn't even know what a TANGIBLE asset is?
Assets include goodwill. Microsoft in particular has
10.3B just in goodwill, and 1.7B in "intangible assets"
(probably things such as patents), as of Dec 2007.
They also have about 52B in long term investments,
property plant and equipment, and current assets.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT
>
>
>
>> Windows doesn't make much money. Office does. See:
>>
>> http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/25/financial-deception-microsoft/
>>
>
>
>> You'll find some more concrete evidence there.
>
> What you call "concrete evidence" most people would call bullshit.
>
These are largely unsubstantiated absent more data. However,
as claims, they are rather interesting, bringing to mind
the Atari fiasco, referenced in this EA-centric piece:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070216/fleming_02.shtml
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
