DFS wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Benchmarking Microsoft Word 95 through Word 2007
>>
>> Watch the graphs. The Munchkins love making fun of OOo performance,
>
> That's because OO is a slow piece of outdated, unpolished,
> less-functional, less-interoperable junk when compared to Office 2003 or
> Office 2007.
>
> OOBase uses OOWriter (a word processor) as its form and report designer?
> Huh?
>
>
>
>> so they ought to look at how a pig called Office quickly became an
>> elephant.
>> The Fall of Microsoft Office
>> Is Microsoft Office in trouble?
>> Is Office the new Netscape?
>
> LMAO! Spamowitz, no offense because I don't know you, but based on your
> posts you're just a simpering idiot with a perl script that generates
> stupid headlines you're too lazy to vet before you post to a ready
> audience of like-minded cola morons.
>
>
>
>> Microsoft stock drops amid slumping sales
>> Microsoft earnings post-mortem: The cash cows quiver
>
> Q: Why does Spamowitz keep posting the same old links, after newer
> financial results have arrived?
> A: See above...
>
>
>
>> Feeling the heat at Microsoft
>
> Yeah, they're quaking in their boots at Fedora 9 and SLED and Linux Mint
> and
> OpenOffice and MySQL and Dia and Kivio and Planner and Evolution. I'm
> sure those 3rd rate products keep MS managers awake all night every night
> worrying about their jobs.
>
> </dripping white-hot sarcasm>
>
Faulty XHTML, no opening tag. Stewie, you're getting lax, or should that be
</lax>.
>
>
>> Is Microsoft Aura Fading?
>
> A lot of "pundits" say so, but Windows Server 2003+, Windows Vista, Office
> 2007, Visual Studio, SQL Server 2005+, Sharepoint, etc are huge sellers
> and well-received pieces of technology.
>
> And a recent large-scale tech survey rated MS the most influential tech
> firm http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080513/0396537.html
|
|
