On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 14:19, Rod Furey wrote: > >Does that mean that folks in this group are just an illusion? > > Of course it does - didn't you know that all the answers here are > generated automatically by a pipe written by Rob, fed over a network > link from Alan via an interface written by Neil? > > >Whew, talk about sleeping through the alarm clock. I wonder > >what it's going to take to wake Redmond up? > > That's not the point.
We'll have to disagree on this one (which is ok by me). Bill and the boys are the only ones that will correct the err of their ways. As soon as they wake up and realize that their market share is diminishing they will take care of the problem(s) with their product (which happens to be, IMHO, the belief that the product will effectively run in the data center along side of mature and stable operating systems). > It's the sheer blindness of people where > Windows is concerned that's the problem - quite frankly, I don't think > that they know any better. It drove me to tears in my last job. And > the problem is exacerbated by managers who think that the thing > that they have at home that they play games on can be used to run > a company. Now, if OS/2 had been promoted as a home system... no, wait > that's another story... >From my experience it's been a *hope* that their home PC would do what they needed at work. If they could be made to do this then all of that MSFT stock that they own would be worth enough to feed a small country for a decade. > > To be honest, most of the Windows people that I've had to deal with don't > know anything about alternatives and quite frankly, they wouldn't last two > minutes on a more complex system. Sigh... I despair, really, I do... > The margin is narrowing. I work with a lot of sharp Windows folks that are starting to show a big interest in the more complex midrange and mainframe installations, some of these folks will succeed. Welcome change too, get some fresh blood in too fill the openings left from the impending retirements.
