 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Has a fear of IT departments almost killed Microsoft?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/has-a-fear-of-it-departments-almost-killed-microsoft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/has-a-fear-of-it-departments-almost-killed-microsoft/</link>
	<description>What's new and what matters in IT news, opinion and analysis.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 17:37:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Mpez0</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/has-a-fear-of-it-departments-almost-killed-microsoft/#comment-755</link>
		<dc:creator>Mpez0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/?p=3684#comment-755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@MarkWall
Who are the &quot;us customers of Microsoft&quot;?  It isn&#039;t most of the people using Microsoft products; it isn&#039;t even the IT departments described in the main article.  The big customers of Microsoft are the PC producers: HP, Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, etc.

Sure, you can argue that IT departments and individual users are customers of those PC manufacturers, and thus indirectly Microsoft customers.  But follow the money -- Microsoft is [I]very [/I]responsive to the expressed needs of those major vendors.  The vendors will be [I]somewhat [/I]responsive to us end users (including IT departments), but only somewhat, because they generally don&#039;t have a small number of customers who provide the vast majority of their revenue.

It&#039;s to neither MS nor your PC vendor&#039;s disadvantage to force you to rotate your PC hardware and software purchases.  MS is more than happy to do this because their customers are extremely happy to have you buy lots of new PCs.  It&#039;s only when the perceived advantage of the new package is as low as Vista&#039;s (despite MS&#039;s advertising), that there&#039;s enough pushback by end users through the PC vendors to have some effect.

There&#039;s no mystery or conspiracy here; MS is trying to meet the needs of their major customers.  It&#039;s just that most of the people who think they&#039;re MS customers really aren&#039;t.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@MarkWall<br />
Who are the &#8220;us customers of Microsoft&#8221;?  It isn&#8217;t most of the people using Microsoft products; it isn&#8217;t even the IT departments described in the main article.  The big customers of Microsoft are the PC producers: HP, Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, etc.</p>
<p>Sure, you can argue that IT departments and individual users are customers of those PC manufacturers, and thus indirectly Microsoft customers.  But follow the money &#8212; Microsoft is [I]very [/I]responsive to the expressed needs of those major vendors.  The vendors will be [I]somewhat [/I]responsive to us end users (including IT departments), but only somewhat, because they generally don&#8217;t have a small number of customers who provide the vast majority of their revenue.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s to neither MS nor your PC vendor&#8217;s disadvantage to force you to rotate your PC hardware and software purchases.  MS is more than happy to do this because their customers are extremely happy to have you buy lots of new PCs.  It&#8217;s only when the perceived advantage of the new package is as low as Vista&#8217;s (despite MS&#8217;s advertising), that there&#8217;s enough pushback by end users through the PC vendors to have some effect.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no mystery or conspiracy here; MS is trying to meet the needs of their major customers.  It&#8217;s just that most of the people who think they&#8217;re MS customers really aren&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkWall</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/has-a-fear-of-it-departments-almost-killed-microsoft/#comment-754</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkWall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/IT-watch-blog/?p=3684#comment-754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problem is that us customers of Microsoft have been treated as cash cows with artificially short lifecycles and massive business disruption by changing server OS&#039; too often for little if any advantage to the customers.  Years ago we moved to Linux servers to get away from these artificial lifecycles and we&#039;ve never looked back.  Our servers are more reliable and we aren&#039;t forced through major upheaval to get features we don&#039;t want.  Another reason we&#039;re pushing back against Microsoft is their attempt to dominate the web with substandard servers and applications.  IE won&#039;t work with well written web sites.  Badly written web sites only work with IE.  Windows 7 is a good operating system yet us Systems Managers dread the incredibly short lifecycle before Windows 8 comes out, no doubt with a whole new raft of incompatibilities with previous versions of Windows, incompatibilities with early Windows servers, databases etc etc.  All artificial, all designed to treat us as cash cows. Linux servers running Samba, MySQL, Apache and PHP.  They work.  They last.  We&#039;ve just been forced to use a Windows server with MS SQL server for our accounts package.  It took Microsoft 6 days to electronically deliver £3,500 of software.  Speaks volumes for their ability with web based technologies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is that us customers of Microsoft have been treated as cash cows with artificially short lifecycles and massive business disruption by changing server OS&#8217; too often for little if any advantage to the customers.  Years ago we moved to Linux servers to get away from these artificial lifecycles and we&#8217;ve never looked back.  Our servers are more reliable and we aren&#8217;t forced through major upheaval to get features we don&#8217;t want.  Another reason we&#8217;re pushing back against Microsoft is their attempt to dominate the web with substandard servers and applications.  IE won&#8217;t work with well written web sites.  Badly written web sites only work with IE.  Windows 7 is a good operating system yet us Systems Managers dread the incredibly short lifecycle before Windows 8 comes out, no doubt with a whole new raft of incompatibilities with previous versions of Windows, incompatibilities with early Windows servers, databases etc etc.  All artificial, all designed to treat us as cash cows. Linux servers running Samba, MySQL, Apache and PHP.  They work.  They last.  We&#8217;ve just been forced to use a Windows server with MS SQL server for our accounts package.  It took Microsoft 6 days to electronically deliver £3,500 of software.  Speaks volumes for their ability with web based technologies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
