🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:01:55 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:


>>WOW you really are sore about not being right all the time.
>>Did you REALLY want all your past posts recanted and argued
>>all over again?  Sure seems that way.  This is borderline
>>troll activity.
>>
>>Note that I wrote most one time, dominant the other.  For
>>example, the pond is mostly small fish but the larger fish
>>are dominant.
>
>Who is sore exactly?  Yeah I'm very sore you've contradicted yourself
>on a similar nonsensical tirade/thread about M$ EOL.

You're acting a bit like a spoiled child that keeps whining
because it didn't get his/her way.


>
>Notice in your fip-flop that:
>
>a. I didn't make a direct quote so it's silly to hair-split / word
>parse.  But if you _are_ going to word parse than you should instead
>be saying something clear like "Most _very_small_ businesses still use
>Win98 while most _larger_ ones use Win2k" if that's what you're trying
>to say.

If that was what I was trying to say, I'd have written it.
You lack a basic ability to comprehend what you read, then
try to imply I meant something else, is an effort to
senselessly argue.


>
>b. Your distinction doesn't make any sense.   That's an unintelligible
>perversion of the meaning and context of "dominance" in an attempt to
>generate a response that _looks_ like a rebuttal.  

It makes no sense because you keep pretending you can take
things out of context and "assume" you know I meant
something not written.

>in fact your
>statements were trying to claim
> _total_ market share of currently used
>business desktops _in_general not "power" or "influence" of larger
>businesses or whatever you think you mean.

You really are a sad fool.  If I'd meant that I'd have
written it.  Arguing [that someone doesn't mean what they
wrote] but instead [means something different that you find
easier to argue against], is madness on your part. 



>Don't take it out on me if you can't keep track of what you've been
>making up as you go along & not writing clearly.

LOL.

Quite an imagination you have there.  

>
>>Even so, the last survey I had seen did put win98 boxes as
>>the majority.
>
>How many years ago was this exactly?  Survey of what/who/where
>exactly?

Why would I supply any useful information if you're merely
going to argue that I meant something I didn't write so you
can find more to argue about?

Tell ya what, since you "know" what I mean instead of what I
wrote,  _________________________________ .

>
>>  I cannot assume Win2K becomes a majority
>>until a subsequent survey finds it to be the case.
>
>So you have no basis to make a claim of Win2k's dominance.  Boy you
>just stepped in it again BAD!

I did not actively seek % yesterday, that is true, but so
far you make no mention of EVER attempting to find any
useful data rather than making things up as you go along.

>
>And because you haven't seen a survey done on an OS that's been on the
>market over 5 years it doesn't exist?  By the time surveys in your
>world are done the numbers are already skewed by obsolescence/
>decommissioning.

So again you falsely assume you know what i meant, because
you have no argument otherwise.  The surveys always include
the newest MS OS, are you dense enough that you think
they'll just put it under some kind of category generically
labeled "other" ?


>
>>  I have
>>seen both used extensively but one thing is for certain,
>>that WinXP usage is still in the minority.  At least, it WAS
>>at that time, 
>
>"At that time" ??

Yes.  Instead of fictional delusions that you refer to, I
make no claim other than data I've seen.  It's not my job to
keep a running tally on OS use and so I have other things to
do too, thus any data is post-dated.  Even a study released
today would be dated when it was taken rather than today.
While I don't recall the specific date, the last data I saw
was in the first quarter of this year, March IIRC.

If it really bothers you enough, you ought to go around
counting the world's desktops and their OS.  It would be a
good use of your time, LOL


>
>When exactly was the last time you saw business' computers?  Your
>qualifications for making _current_ generalizations are pretty much
>out the window right now.

When did you?  It's laughable that you have NO facts and
still feel your random opinion has any weight, particularly
when you tend to assume things not in evidnece as it suits
your arguments.


>
>>a level of support for 2K has now been dropped
>>and it is expected that will cause a few more businesses to
>>migrate to XP.  Will it then be a majority?  How long would
>>it take?  I won't guess but rather waiting for some evidence
>>of it.
>
>All you're doing _is_ guessing.  The problem is drawing
>generalizations from limited anecdotal experience from the past & some
>alleged past survey you won't cite (both which contradict each other), ...

So far we've seen nothing from you except posturing.
Nothing even remotely resembling fact.  If you had ANY
evidence that contradicts the surveys I've seen, I would
weight it, just as I've done those studies.

I have no reason to try to convince anyone that the # of
WIn2k boxes is higher than WinXP boxes.  So far that
"appears" to be the case.  

All along you seek ways to argue with anything that didn't
coincide with a pre-conceived notion you had that was not
based on any facts at all.  That's quite an imagination you
have and IF you ever learned to stop jumping to conclusions
you'd then realize just how ignorant you are.


>...  while ignoring normal life cycles which are a necessary part of
>mainstream business, and thinking that all that makes a good basis for
>a macro-generalization of _today_.



>
>Sheeh.  No wonder you're so defensive.

Actually I was taking pity on you.  You haven't grasped any
kind of method for determining the difference between
fiction and fact.   

It seems rather pointless to supply ANY evidence since you
don't like to deal with facts and reality, but since you
whine about it, here's a link, supply at least one yourself
or you'll now look like even more of a fool.

http://www.assetmetrix.com/forms/index.asp?template_id=106

Note that IF you do find any evidence of your (vague claims
aimed mostly at creating argument), I will in fact consider
them as evidence for any further discussions.  In other
words, I prefer evidence over nonsense created in your mind
for argument's sake.  Provide us with a link or two, it
might just motivate me to find even more supporting
evidence, maybe even the original surveys I saw (above link
isn't one of them).  You don't really want to consider
evidence though, do you?