Microsoft touts cost savings of Vista over XP
,----[ Quote ]
| On Wednesday, Microsoft released details of a study it commissioned that
| found that total cost of ownership for Windows Vista on mobile PCs is US$605
| (AU$736) less annually than Windows XP.
`----
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=666057707&rid=-50
Watch the ads in the page. Blatantly anti-Linux. Quick! 'Studies'. Facts from
Microsoft.
More on the new 'studies':
Office 2007: If, When and Why
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/business_applications/office_2007_if_when_and_why.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
It's Another Vista TCO Study
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/its_another_vista_tco_study.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
Buying a lie. How much does that cost? Much less than buying an election /a la/
OOXML.
Related:
Someone whom I know is manually converting the whole thing into an
ODF-formatted document:
===
“There’s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper’s magazine
about panels, audits, and experts. It is called CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from
evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class action suit in Iowa. Here’s a
paragraph from a document admitted into evidence, called “Generalized
Evangelism Timeline,” about guerrilla or evangelical marketing:
Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology
is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’ reports should be
issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring
them). “Independent consultants should write articles, give conference
presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as
experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour. “Independent”
academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).
They advise cultivating “experts” early and recommending that they not publish
anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as “independent” later on,
when they’re needed. This type of evangelical or guerilla marketing is
apparently quite common in the high-tech fields, and seems to be used
liberally by open source developers.
The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a panel is
being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find “pliable”
moderators–those who will sell out.
It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
countless “hearings,” in which hundreds of citizens would testify before a
panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry “experts.” When a
panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. As with
elections, they don’t leave anything to chance.”
(a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 “Evangelism is War” from
Comes v. Microsoft).
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
|
|
