Jack Schofield gives yet more free publicity to the Micros~1 organization.

Jack Schofield gives yet more free publicity to the Micros~1 organization.

Post by Daero » Sun, 06 Apr 2003 00:27:54



What is it, this love affair between Schofield and M$ ?
How much would an advert of equal size cost to buy ?

"There's a difference between the technology that people use at home
and in the office: the stuff they use at home is better.."

A questionable statements. Yes it is more bloated, yes it is more
expensive, but better ?, NO WAY.

XP provides a browser, a spreadsheet and an email client. That is all.

How many times can M$ sell the same shit over and over again.

XP reguires that '2GHz' just to run as fast (slow) as Win98 on the
'old' machine.

"Today, many home users have fast PCs with 2GHz or better Pentium 4
chips running Windows XP, and possibly Microsoft Office XP"

"They are still using Office 97, which is an antique"

That's not the attitude out of M$ at the time. I have seen the trolls
here trash 'older' M$ products when a 'new' version comes out. eg
'"Win95" was never any good and so on ...'

I personally have seen no great improvment in msWORD  since Word95 (
word 6.0 ?) except the addition of yet even more menu options. It's
come to the stage of being impossible to remember the menu positions
or keyboard short cuts. It's become an overblown nightmare.

"more than a few IT departments spent the best part of a decade in
denial, clinging to minis or mainframes with dumb terminals .."

Actually it was the people who binned their minis and mainframes to
'upgrade' to NT who lived to regret it. Taking THREE times the amount
of hardware and FIVE times the amount of support staff to do the same
job as before.

Places who fired their mainframe staff found themselves hiring back
even more people to main their NT network. Gartner * did a report
stating that it cost companies from $8,000 to $14,000 per year to
maintain their PCs.

".. even if they'd standardised on an unreliable operating system
(Windows 98) instead of a reliable one (Windows 2000) .."

er ..jack, win2000 wasn't even millium bug proof !

Sorry, but I don't buy the story. How many times have we bought the
latest MS offering only to discover that it runs too slow on our
current hardware.

Then have to buy even more expencive boxes. All to do what we did on
the 'old' system. Mainly browse, edit documents and send email.
.......

extracts from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,928092,00.html

The Guardian
Home truths
Jack Schofield
April 03 2003
.......

* http://www.aaxnet.com/design/msanti.html
ps Jack, take a look at this site. It contains a lot of real
information on your poster child. You obviously need to do some
research. As you come across as completly stupid going on reports like
the above.