THE BBC strikes again. Whilst heavy lobbying against EU regulators is carried out by Microsoft (attempts to charm Neelie Kroes again), the BBC supplies Microsoft with precisely the same lies and spin that Microsoft requires for popular support and ammunition.
“It's promotional. It even speaks about "Discount" and it showers Vista 7 with congratulatory remarks.”What a terrible article from the BBC, which plays right into Microsoft's hands, as usual. Watch the content. It's promotional. It even speaks about "Discount" and it showers Vista 7 with congratulatory remarks. "Where, how, who, got any real data," asks our reader. Here is a quote:
"Analysts IDC predict that some 177 million copies of the operating system will be in place by the end of 2010, 50 million of which will be in Europe. The firm estimates that products and services surrounding Windows 7 will generate $320bn (€£195bn)."
Just two days ago we wrote about how IDC, one of Microsoft's favourite puppets, will probably come out and do some propaganda for Vista 7, just as it did for predecessors. We were right about IDC just a day in advance. It is actually confirmed by surveys that Vista 7 will be poorly adopted, but Microsoft spinners like Ed Bott bend backwards to reverse this scientific message which is based on polls (and other Microsoft bloggers reference Bott). Now the BBC plays along. This is just amazing! On the very same day the BBC is glorifying their business partner Microsoft, calling them (in the headline) "king of UK brands" and showering this convicted monopolist with unrestrained flattery. No disclosures there about the relationship between the two companies (including business ties), but that's just typical.
“No disclosures there about the relationship between the two companies (including business ties), but that's just typical.”And look at this. Another new advert for Vista 7. Has Microsoft borrowed the BBC for a day? It is worth mentioning that some former Microsoft employees are partly running the BBC now [1, 2] and it shows.
Our reader ThistleWeb, who is based in the UK, writes: "I notice the link on the 'Windows flies off the shelves' page......to the Windows 7 pre-order page. I wonder if the BBC are getting kickbacks affiliate style for orders coming from their site. [...] of course it won't be noted on the books as affiliate sales, it'll no doubt be discussed when the BBC need a new round of Microsoft licences, with the more sales they pumped through to Microsoft, the bigger the discount [...] along with the more positive stories.
"I reckon the only evidence you'd likely see if you could obtain it was a minutes of meetings with Microsoft [...] any affiliate stuff would be a strict no no for the BBC officially [...] of course that'd all be hidden behind "commercial sensitivity" excuses." ⬆
"We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users."
--Ashley Highfield, BBC (now Microsoft)
Comments
aeshna23
2009-07-16 13:44:33
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 13:59:32
twitter
2009-07-16 14:40:04
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 14:49:28
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 14:50:44
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 16:00:36
"It is actually confirmed by surveys that (Windows) 7 will be poorly adopted, but Microsoft spinners like Ed Bott bend backwards to reverse this scientific message which is based on polls"
So the ScriptLogic poll says that 40% of organizations will deploy Windows 7 within the first year of the OS being available. This is a lot higher than Windows XP's deployment rate in it's first year (12-14%), and I think the general consensus around XP was that it was a pretty successful operating system.
So if 40% adoption is considered poorly adopted, then I'm curious what is the percentage adoption that you think is considered acceptable then? That is, what is the percentage adoption that Windows 7 should hit so that in your opinion it is a success?
Simple question. Simple answer.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 16:09:30
eet
2009-07-16 16:26:53
I don't see any 'fixing-the-deck' here, that's just an insolence on your part.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 16:28:36
You are the one who brought up the poll in your article.
Remember? The one with the headline "Six out of ten firms will skip Windows 7". This was the poll you were referring to in your article above (via this link: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/14/vista-7-fails-surveys-show/).
Simple math. 40% adopting = 60% not adopting.
I'm talking about the same exact poll you used as proof that "(Windows) 7 will be poorly adopted". Which happens to be the exact same poll that Ed Bott blogged about. The whole world is looking at the same poll, just with different interpretations.
You still haven't answered. If 40% is a failure in your eyes, what is the percentage adoption that Windows 7 should have so that in it is a success in your opinion?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 16:31:14
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 16:34:44
If you are so sure that 40% adoption is considered proof that Windows 7 will be poorly adopted, then what percentage should Microsoft strive for?
eet
2009-07-16 16:35:29
This is nothing unusual for Roy,he does that every day. He doesn't answer if he doesn't like the answer he would have to give.
So, see this as Jonathan Wong:1, Roy S.:0
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 16:44:52
It does not say what you are saying. You spin. I guess that's why you are a paid Microsoft TE.
"Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the mythology of the computer industry. We want to place selection pressure on those companies and individuals that show a genetic weakness for competitors' technologies, to make the industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over time."
--Microsoft TE training material
[PDF]eet
2009-07-16 16:50:34
eet
2009-07-16 16:52:03
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 16:58:49
I asked one simple question, did not offer one iota of opinion, and repeatedly referenced the same poll that you used as PROOF that Windows 7 will be poorly adopted.
I guess you don't really know how to back out of this one, eh? :)
Hey, but I guess it's your blog, so we follow your rules. Whether you answer or not is none of my concern anymore.
aeshna23
2009-07-17 02:34:53
Well, to start with anyone who has ever dealt with any subject like programming, computers, math, or reality has noticed that simple questions don't always have simple answers. People asking for simple answers are either morons or up to some game. I'm assuming you're not a moron.
Obviously, we here at boycottnovell would prefer the lowest adoption possible: 0%. Sadly, we know that won't happen. In fact, I would assume that there is pent-up demand from so many firms skipping Vista that Windows 7 will outdo Vista. Though there is the recession, which may reduce Windows 7 adoption.
More significant to me is increasing pressure on the price of the Window OS from Apple and Linux. So I don't really think it's a question of percentage adoption. It's a question of how profitable is Windows 7. If Microsoft's profitability from its Windows OS department fails to increase after the release of Windows 7, I'll be quite happy to call Windows 7 a failure.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 02:38:49
Windows 7 so great Microsoft is giving it away http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/15/windows-7-so-great-microsoft-is-giving-it-away-for-free/
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 04:18:48
Nope. That's not what I asked.
I didn't ask what you guys here at Boycott Novell *preferred* Windows 7 adoption to be. Of course anyone who spends more than 5 minutes here knows that answer to be 0%. ;)
I merely asked for Roy's opinion on what percentage adoption for Windows 7 in the first year should happen in order for Windows 7 to be considered successful for Microsoft. It doesn't matter whether it will/won't happen or whether you hope it will/won't happen.
It obviously has to be higher than 40%, since that is the poll that Roy uses as proof that Windows 7 adoption will be poor. So far, he has refused to answer, because I guess he realized afterward that the poll he used as a "source" is actually working in Windows 7 favor than not.
Sometimes, the answer one seeks really is that simple.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 04:21:29
That is the Release Candidate, which is NOT the final Windows 7 code which will be shipped. Just like the Windows 7 Beta before it - the RC can be considered Beta 2.
Are you know against companies releasing beta software for free then? Are you advocating companies charge for beta software?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 04:26:20
Adoption of Windows 7 is 0% because it does not exist yet (unless time travel is possible). Until then, your projections resemble the hype I saw accompanying Vista in 2006.
Many signs suggest that Windows 7 will fail just like Vista.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 04:31:50
Quite sneaky of you to only quote part of my question. Now, man up and answer my full question in the correct context.
Or don't. I think I made my point very clear already. It doesn't really matter anymore. :)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 04:34:09
Andrew Macabe
2009-07-16 16:32:38
eet
2009-07-16 16:38:19
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 16:38:24
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181
Direct quote from the poll that everyone is referring to:
"The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that, despite its impact on short-term plans, 41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%."
How sales are booked in Microsoft's back-end accounting (which I don't understand) is irrelevant.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 16:50:31
eet
2009-07-16 16:55:03
HOW MANY out of 10 companies would have to switch to Windows 7 in order to call it a success in your opinion?
Choose any number between 1 and 10. Shouldn't be too hard; even for you.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 17:04:52
It's OK. I don't think Roy knows what to answer anymore. He's stuck.
He used a report quoting the ScriptLogic poll as proof that Windows 7 adoption is doomed to fail. In the report 60% of respondents won't adopt Windows 7 within the first year (keep in mind they may still deploy W7 after the first year).
Unfortunately, Roy got trapped in the Silicon Valley echo chamber and failed to realize that simple math says that 40% will adopt W7 within year one, which is 3 times higher than Windows XP, a pretty successful OS by general consensus.
When you are trapped by facts like that, of course he wouldn't know what to answer...
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 17:19:33
I, unlike you, don't get paid to AstroTurf in blogs, so this endless ping-pong of comments (debunking your Microsoft spin) is just hindering my writings.
Have a good day and enjoy talking to the pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 17:33:27
But whatever you believe it man, it's all good.
I suppose we can just conclude the thread here then, with the central question still unanswered:
"If you are so sure that 40% adoption is considered proof that Windows 7 will be poorly adopted, then what percentage should Microsoft strive for?"
It's OK. Don't have to have your writings hindered by answering me here. Go pump out a few more posts today. We will resume the discussions elsewhere. :)
Jose_X
2009-07-16 22:46:24
Doug
2009-07-16 16:53:51
"Which below represents the most accurate statement about your plans to deploy Windows 7?"
received responses 1100, so 41% comes to a whopping 541 ...
http://scriptlogic.http.internapcdn.net/scriptlogic/downloads/whitepapers/Windows_7_Survey_Final.pdf
eet
2009-07-16 16:56:36
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 20:14:23
We're supposed to take the TuxMachines poll at face value and consider it authoritative, because it's convenient to his agenda. But this one is not, so we'll nitpick it until it dies.
And if the TuxMachines poll had indicated something else, it would have been simply ignored, or Roy would have claimed it was gamed by the "mono boosters" and so on. He has a handy supernatural explanation for everything that doesn't quite jive with his expectations. Small children and religious nuts also exhibit this kind of behavior.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-16 19:43:24
@Roy - Hey, I don't get paid to AstroTurf in blogs either.
But whatever you believe it man, it's all good.
I suppose we can just conclude the thread here then, with the central question still unanswered:
"If you are so sure that 40% adoption is considered proof that Windows 7 will be poorly adopted, then what percentage should Microsoft strive for?"
It's OK. Don't have to have your writings hindered by answering me here. Go pump out a few more posts today. We will resume the discussions elsewhere. :) Oops, should have said great post! Waiting on the next one!
Admin: This post is from a forger. Jonathan Wong did not write this.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 23:04:48
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 23:42:45
Ha, ha.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 04:26:56
This was not my reply. Someone is spoofing my name.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 04:32:03
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 04:35:11
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 20:05:57
Jose_X
2009-07-16 23:21:59
[1] The question,
"Which below represents the most accurate statement about your plans to deploy Windows 7,"
and option,
"We have already deployed Windows 7,"
suggests that Windows 7 is already being deployed. This means that within the first year you are unlikely to have 40% deployment since the first year would be no further than July of next year and the 40% refers to Dec of next year.
That's not a major point, but unless by "first year" you mean "by second year" or by "first year and a half" then you can't compare to the Windows XP 12-14%.
[2] The way the question is worded "most accurate" suggests that anyone that thought they might deploy Windows 7 within the first 3 years or 4 years might have choosen "by 2010" since the remaining option is that they have no plans.
Between choosing "never" or choosing "2010", 2012 is much closer to 2010.
This problem with the poll question allows for much spin. Does the 40% represent likely uptake after year and a half?
..OR does it represent total likely uptake within first 3-5 years?
I think the latter might be more accurate if a wide spectrum of individuals had to answer this. If I had to answer and if I had plans for deployments in 3 years, I might pick "by the end of 2010" as more accurate than "no current plans."
[3] What criteria was used to decide whom to poll? If the poll was complex [was it complex or were there high hurdles to overcome?], does that not suggest that only the most dedicated Windows users or Microsoft partners or those with some type of incentive would fill it out? I think it does.
The 40%, then, more likely represents the percentage of committed Windows users who plan on upgrading. This would mean we know little else about the rest of the population (some will upgrade without thinking about it; others will stay put and ride out the economy; others use Linux/Mac or will move to Linux/Mac; etc).
[4] A more grievous problem with the poll's interpretation (from what I gather from http://scriptlogic.http.internapcdn.net/scriptlogic/downloads/whitepapers/Windows_7_Survey_Final.pdf ) is that 40% deploying *some amount* of Windows 7 can still lead to those deployments constituting less than even 1% total uptake among these people (though likely not this low). That 40% is an upper bound since many people have mixed environments where they use multiple operating systems at one time. They may deploy on only 5% or 20% (etc) of their machines by 2010.
You quoted a person talking about "wholesale deployments" [ http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/16/msbbc-daemonises-the-eu/comment-page-1/#comment-70091 ]. I saw no indication in the survey (see quoted question at the top of this comment) that we were talking about wholesale deployments.
To "deploy Windows 7" is answered in the affirmative if you plan any deployment or at least if you plan a sizable chunk (eg, 20%).
[5] This article http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1433324/six-firms-skip-windows says 20,000+ were asked and only 1100 replied. In all likelihood, as already mentioned in point [3] above, those with the highest deployment ratios already answered, and this constituted at most about 5% of those queried.
If we forced the other 95% to answer this question, we would likely get overall much worse results.
I suspect Microsoft conducts their scientific polls, gets horrible results (less than 5% or even less than 1%), then, as they try to figure out a plan, they construct a poll that is worded so as to get the small committed fraction of the population to answer loaded questions. Then you get writers to misinterpret those results further (eg, "wholesale deployments").
Jonathan, I could be wrong about anything above. I can only go by the parts I read. Please correct me if you disagree with any of the above points.
[6] So let's recap.
(to be continued)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 23:29:56
twitter
2009-07-17 05:09:59
Jermelok
2009-07-17 01:57:28
Besides its a plan not that is really going to be done.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 05:06:32
So let's look at the facts.
ScriptLogic conducted a poll asking IT professionals whether their organizations would (or already have) deployed Windows 7 by the end of 2010. 41% said yes, and 59% said no. That is undisputed.
Although ScriptLogic makes Windows management software, as far as anyone here (me inclusive) knows, this was an independent poll which was not sponsored by Microsoft in any way, shape, or form. This is also undisputed.
The following summary of the results was provided by ScriptLogic verbatim on its website. Not Microsoft. Not me. Not Ed Bott.
Again, this is undisputed.
Now, we have to be clear about one thing here.
You and others here may have problems with ScriptLogic's methodology or the validity of its results. I respect that. And in fact, at no point was I ever debating the validity of the poll methodology or results.
But you see, once Roy has committed to endorse this ScriptLogic poll as being valid (say, for example, by quoting it in an article as confirmation that Windows 7 will fail in the market), he can't back out later and say this poll is all spin just because he realized after wards that 40% is actually a very high number (historically speaking), and a good indicator of Windows 7's success.
You can't have it both ways.
So naturally, I was curious that if Roy was so adamant that a 40% first year adoption rate means failure for Windows 7, then at what percentage does he think Microsoft will need in order to consider Windows 7 a success.
It doesn't matter whether it will/won't happen or whether he thinks it will/won't happen or not.
But so far, he has declined the opportunity to answer the question.
twitter
2009-07-17 05:37:05
M$ has very little credibility left, why do you squander by calling people names? We've seen from internal documents that TEs are supposed to be insulting, but it has not been winning friends and influencing people. Is everyone at M$ as rude as you? Does a culture of exclusivity, restrictions and NDAs just make people mean? Perhaps you should admit that M$'s world domination goals are wrong headed.
See above for my thoughts about how Vista 7 is going nowhere. Roy's observations are solid. Given the poor methodology, it should come as no surprise that early Vista polls failed to predict Vista's low adoption rates. Given the poor quality of Vista and the number of times the same deceptive techniques have been used, it's no surprise that Vista polls and other advertisements failed to create the wave of excitement needed to make Vista the center of the computing universe. Windows 7 will do little better at the same tricks.
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 05:57:39
Certainly one will feel that they stepped into a wormhole of immaturity when they start reading posted IRC logs and seeing quotes like the below in commentary:
And BTW, funny parody article you found, about Windows XP being well available until 2101.
Anyway, I know you were quoting it for fun, and not because you thought it was a source.
twitter
2009-07-17 06:24:02
Roy has published all sorts of material to back the opinion that M$ depends on dishonesty, spin and other crimes. I've helped him type out M$ emails from Comes Vrs M$ and it is revolting stuff. There are thousands of pages of petty plotting and carefully planned campaigns of lies.
You don't need court documents to recognize the lies M$ publishes, all you need is a memory and a basis of comparison. There's the disgraceful "Get the facts" campaign, "Vista is the most secure OS ever," and so on and so forth. Non free software itself is a lie that Bill Gates expressed most eloquently in his infamous 1976 letter to hobbiests. The core of that lie is that quality software can not be written without owners. All maner of insulting lies flow from that - that coders are lazy and must be controlled and bribed, that users are whiners that must be extorted for money. On top of these lies, M$ has also depended on press, retail, OEM control by threats and bribery as well as technical sabotage of competitors, requiring yet more lies. We've all seen and understood M$'s emails. We all use free software and know how much better it is than the restricted stuff you would like to force on people.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 05:46:17
I don't think Roy is trying to have it both ways.
A report includes many pieces of information. I think Roy and many others used some of that information, for example, the results of the questions, without necessarily agreeing with other information, for example, with the interpretation that you just quoted from the report.
It's like a scientific paper where a third party might agree with the experimental data but not with the conclusion. For example, they may feel the methodology was not a proper one or that there are alternative models that also lead to the same data and are likely more accurate models.
This is how I feel, so maybe Roy and the other authors thought similarly. I tried showing above how the poll material does not suggest that 40% of all(?) businesses(?) plan a wholesale migration by 2010.
I'll try to finish the above by putting everything together to get some numbers. Maybe before I do so, someone will correct some of those 5 points or add more information.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 06:00:53
Jose_X
2009-07-17 11:41:39
Jose_X
2009-07-17 11:42:56
Jonathan Wong
2009-07-17 05:21:19
"If we forced the other 95% to answer this question, we would likely get overall much worse results."
And how would we possibly know that?
And remember, this is an independent poll conducted by ScriptLogic, not Microsoft.
Everything you wrote about speculating how the poll was conducted or the audience that was polled is pure conjecture.
To recap:
Windows XP (a consensus successful OS): 12-14% adoption rate in first year
Windows 7: Projected 41% first year adoption rate according to ScriptLogic poll
Will Windows 7 be a hit with businesses? I'll let everyone here decide.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 08:07:08
Let me first say, that this time, unlike the other time, I commend you for started off in your first comment with the MS Disclaimer. That is the right thing to do.
Jonathan, yours was an interesting question, what percent on Windows 7.
There are so many ways to measure that percentage, as I think you would agree.
There is also, more than one way to say that Windows 7 maybe a failure or a success, and all ways could in some fashion be correct.
Windows Millineum was regarded by many as the worse Windows OS of all time, but it still made MS money. It might have even made MS more money as many users were forced to double dip, so to speak and buy either 98SE, 2000, or XP in order to escape. Vista also made money, but it could also be judged a failure as well. It was a failure as it was not the best work of MS, and many users do not like it.
What I would say about Windows 7 is that the percentage will be closely tied to the amount of new PC's that OEM's sell with Windows on them, despite the quality of Windows 7. Sadly, we are in a world wide depression, and this is not a good time to release a major new OS.
The other part of the equation will be Netbooks. Will ARM netbooks sell and when will they hit the markets? Its going be interesting times for sure, and no I cannot give you that percentage. I just do not know, but my guess is this depression is worse than the government is letting one, and will last longer too.
Yfrwlf
2009-07-17 06:54:56
Support Linux and other community OSes. Make sure your tax money, and all your money, isn't being wasted on proprietary dead-end overpriced crap.
Nuff said.
G. Michaels
2009-07-17 07:11:31
Will (his real name) is also a known troll and sockpuppet operator on Slashdot. Give this a read if you have time to get an idea of who you're dealing with.
That said, I think it's commendable that you're trying to engage these people after that supremely stupid flame, but you should also know that Roy is on a little power trip here. He's claimed for years that Microsoft is out to get him in order to lather himself up with some credibility (because the rest of his activities don't quite cut it), and you are a godsend to him. What you said or how you said it is irrelevant, you're a Microsoft employee and therefore evil and contemptible. Whatever point you make, whatever argument you use, it will always come down to "I hate you and you should die, so there". Don't even bother. This is the snake pit of FOSS advocacy, and I'm sorry you ended up falling into it.
And please don't think less of the FOSS community because of BoycottBoy and his cadre. Most users/advocates/ developers are normal people, not petulant children with anger issues.
twitter
2009-07-18 01:00:58
Classy. Did you make that one up by yourself? BN seems to be your favorite site so you should list it on your little Google page.