|Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):|
That wouldn´t be a big problem in itself if any of your remarks went at least a millimeter beyond offical Microsoft advertising.
There are valid arguments either way. But a certain minimum of perspective beyond Microsoft partner mailings would only help your case.
Nice try. Really. (Applause.) You can always tell the people for whom this is not a debate, but religious dogma: they go straight for the person, not the message. As I said, and you want to ignore, I'm not some schlep who just happens to have a few desktop machines and plays some games on the weekends. Some of us actually make our living (and a good one at that) using Microsoft's software. Of course, if your objections deviated even one millimeter from the "attack Microsoft as only a marketing machine" line, they might have more merit. You conveniently ignore my direct statements that I work in a heterogeneous environment and am therefore exposed to quite some number of software platforms. Believe me, I'm quite qualified to comment upon the competitive position my chosen software occupies in the competitive marketplace. And I noticed you conveniently ignored the part where I *asked* for a different perspective. You will also notice that I never once disputed it. If he says it's easier for him to do those things on his Mac, *I believe him.* He was quite clear that it was his experience, and that a lot of this has to do with learned behaviors.
By the way, I happen to agree with Microsoft because I think their assumptions and approach are *right.* You can treat me like a brainwashed moron if you want to, and I might not be surprised. But there are lots of other decision makers like me. Now, you can assume that we are just a bunch of morons all duped by the biggest conspiracy in history, or you can separate your technical religion from what this really is: business.
I will grant you one point. You are correct when you say that I am not in a position to directly compare the two platforms. That's why I was very careful not to say Windows was better than the Mac. You'll also note that I said the typical user probably won't notice any difference in stability between the two platforms. All you said in return that there was a big gap, but of course, you fail to describe it.
So, let's see... First, attack your opponent. Next, say they're wrong, but never describe how.
|Quoting Thomasphoto60 (Reply 28):|
For some strange reason, this result only happens to emerge in surveys which happen to be made on behalf of Microsoft, not in independent ones. I wonder why that is
Oh, right. This is right out of the kook playbook. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger because there *must* be something wrong with them. Okay, let's rattle them off now.
First, attack your opponent. Next, say they're wrong, but never describe how. Then, claim that any information contrary to your position is just paid lies.
The Yankee Group, a paid Microsoft shill. Try again. You may actually go to their website and see that they are an independent company.
Oh, and sabotaging interoperability. That's another good one. Yup, the mighty Microsoft, sitting around thinking about ways to jam up all your browsers and ruin your computing experience. Once again, you've brilliantly illustrated both my points: that Microsoft haters are pathological (and dogmatic; just read your post) and that you want to give an IP pass to the software industry. You've pretty much used all the cliches. Got any more?
There is a major difference between me your ilk. I have chosen Microsoft software because I agree with their business model and I like their software. I freely grant anybody else the same. I mean that. I have no animus toward Sun, Novell, IBM, Oracle, Apple, or anybody else. Their software works.
It's not personal; it's business, something that you can't seem to grasp.
Got it? It's not personal. It's business.
Here's what I tell my students in class, many of whom have extensive backgrounds in non-Microsoft products and want to compare: we will compare technologies all you want. It's fun, it's insightful, and the classroom is the best possible place to do it. But I won't tolerate a pissing match or holy war. Why? I consider the question about whose technology is "better" to be both misplaced and irrelevant. Only techies focus on "better technology." The real world focuses on "return on technology." At the end of the day, business only cares about two things. (1) Did my technology do what I needed it to do? And, (2) Did my technology provide a return on my investment? If the answer to those two questions are "yes" and "yes" then their choice was a good one.
This same question applies to a potential Mac vs. PC
buyer. If you *want* a Mac, buy it! Did you miss the part where I said (twice) to buy whatever makes you happy? Aaron Adams, the first person on the Apple switch TV
commercials, is a friend of mine. He buys what makes him happy. I buy what makes me happy, and that happens to be something different than what he buys.
Let's look at an example. As noted, my present client has chosen Microsoft software for OLAP and reporting. (Actually, more than that. They have switched to Exchange, and are presently discarding Netware in favor of Active Directory. I think they will make the total switch from LDAP to AD
in the not-too-distant future. But I'm sure they're just dupes too, right?) The SQL
Server licensing is multiples cheaper than its competition. The hardware is considerably less expensive than the mahines running DB2. Do they like this? Sure. But it doesn't matter, and the reason is obvious. The lone subject matter we are using for process prototyping is a tiny part of the supply chain. This tiny part of the supply chain sees 1.5% of their total revenues flow through it, or $1 billion annually. A substantial portion of that stream is actually loss to my client. If the work we are doing in just this one area recoups 2%, that's $20 million, annually. The three year payback for this effort would be $60 million. The total cost of development, including software, hardware, and a handful of employees led by a high dollar consultant will not exceed $1 million.
Let's say they didn't choose Microsoft products, but went with Cognos, or Microstrategy, etc. Let's say that the licensing is 10x what it is presently (not an overstatement, BTW). Let's say the cost to provide the same answers for this one subject matter area is 3x what it costs now: $3 million. Do you think they'd be dissatisfied with their decision? Heck no! The technical people will be hailed as geniuses and real business contirbutors if they do this successfully *regardless of the software chosen.*
As a business owner, I have chosen the software writer that I think gives me the best chance for success. This is no religion; it's business. If I didn't think Microsoft gave me this best chance, I wouldn't have picked them. Into the future, if I think somebody else will give me a better chance, you can be sure I'll switch.
Will you? I already know the answer to the question, and it so clearly illustrates that I am not the one engaged in a pissing match: "Not if it's Microsoft."
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!