XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general   
      
   On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:40:35 -0500, Paul  wrote:   
      
   >Unlisted wrote:   
   >   
   >> Microsoft has ...   
   >> I hope they file for bankruptcy as a result.   
   >   
   >The way high tech companies work is... diversification.   
   >   
   >You must have more than one cash cow generating revenue   
   >at a time. The projects need to overlap. Microsoft has   
   >Azure as a source of income.   
   >   
   >if you fail at *all* your enterprises, that's when   
   >you file for bankruptcy.   
   >   
   >And with the mountain of cash that Microsoft has,   
   >they could fire a large portion of the staff, and   
   >come up with a new plan. And have years worth of money   
   >to do it.   
   >   
   >They have tried to mop up that mountain of cash, by pissing   
   >it away on LinkedIn. They tried to waste their money on Yahoo,   
   >but somebody else got it. These are the kinds of moves I   
   >associate with failed companies - the flailing around   
   >in the mergers and acquisitions department. Smart companies   
   >do strategic acquisitions, with purchases around the   
   >$1 billion or less mark. As they get better value for   
   >money that way. Apple and Cisco do that. Qualcomm has   
   >done it to some extent in the past. The Broadcom deal   
   >will be their undoing (big purchase always equals big writedown).   
   >   
   >People forget, just how close Apple came to going out   
   >of business. They might have been down to around nine quarters   
   >worth of cash at one time. Which means, if they didn't produce   
   >a "winner" of some sort in a couple of years, they would   
   >have been dead. Even though Apple too has a vast mountain of   
   >cash today, you only need to think back to their "close call"   
   >to realize how fragile these businesses are.   
   >   
   >High tech companies don't last very long. IBM is an exception.   
   >And IBM only does "high margin" projects. They don't make   
   >tea kettles with a profit margin of $0.05 each. They will   
   >wring the cash out of you, if you do business with them.   
   >That's how they can afford all those PhDs.   
   >   
   >    Paul   
      
   You said "You must have more than one cash cow generating revenue   
   at a time."   
      
   So if that is true, why does MS only offer one operating system?   
      
   I know that I am not the only person who dont like Windows 10 or even   
   Windows 8. Actually, I am elderly and almost all elderly people I know,   
   who use computers, dont want Windows 10. In fact almost all of these   
   people are still using XP, or Windows 7.   
      
   Windows 10 appeals to the young crowd, the same kids who can never have   
   enough buttons on their smartphones, or even a radio of food processor.   
   We grew up with simple things. A radio had 2 knobs, volume and tuning.   
   Appliances had an on and off switch and maybe a few speeds. Heck, my   
   Radial Arm Saw made in the 60's has always worked fine. A neighbor   
   bought a new one and now it has an onboard computer. He could not figure   
   out how to use it. I looked at it and told him to return it to the store   
   and buy an old used saw..... I still dont see any reason for that   
   onboard computer. It's a frikkin saw, the blade turns, and the operator   
   can adjust the angles with a few knobs. It never needed any improvements   
   since they were made in the 60's except maybe a few more safety   
   features.   
      
   Unless MS is deaf and refused to listen to their users, I know they have   
   heard people, especially older people complaining about all the bloat in   
   Windows 8 and 10. I dont want it, my generation dont (for the most part)   
   want it. I'm sticking with XP, and may try Windows 7 at some point, but   
   if the day comes when I cant use those, I will probably quit using   
   computers.   
      
   If MS really cared and wanted more revenue, they would offer two or more   
   OSs.  Why is that so hard for them to comprehend?   
      
   Heck, I dont use linux, but I did give it a fair try. Linux is just the   
   opposite, there are TOO MANY choices....   
      
   MS needs to get off their high horse and realize that their latest OS is   
   not suitable for everyone. It's NOT their greatest thing. In fact if I   
   was to give MS 1 to 10 gold stars for each of their operating systems   
   since the beginning of Windows, I'd only give then a HIGH rating for XP   
   and also Windows98se. Anything before Win98 was pretty lousy, anything   
   after XP seems to go down in my opinion..... I think MS reached their   
   peak in perfection from 1998 to 2001.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)