Anyhow, I would advise not just reading somebody's opinion in a blog, but look to an actual news source for getting the full story...unless you're really not interested in it.
Anyhow, Intel spokespeople have stated outright (not the mysterious anonymous source or anonymous memo) that they are testing Vista and rolling out to various departments and will no doubt determine next steps from there.
The original source of the story was the Inquirer, which based their story on a "circulating memo" The New York Times followed up on the story and cited "a person with direct knowledge of the company’s plans."
The New York Times then contacted Intel. A spokesman for the company told the Times, "An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company."
I would imagine that Microsoft will bring right much pressue to bear on Intel, now that the story is out. Steven Ballmer and Paul Otellini, Intel’s chief executive, meet regularly. And, Microsoft did change the "Vista Ready" requirements so that Intel could sell chips.
Tom
Yes, making it rumor and conjecture until you get a public statement. And I would never lend much credence to anything the inquirer (with an i or an e) has to say as they are both tabloids. (except for the philly inquirer) You can throw the register into that mix also. They are both sensationalist. The fact that the NYT uses the inquirer as a source may indicate their desperation for readership...
When I was doing contract work up to the year 2000, EVERY company I worked at had an Apple in house. Especially at that time, if a business was doing a newsletter or dealt with a lawyer they had an Apple. So figures like these do not mean much. When a company like Intel starts replacing all their PC (which will not happen in my lifetime) with Macs, than this kind of story would be interesting.
I guess what we need to do is every time there is an anti Mac story out there, we need to post it here until the moderator gets off of his pro apple whatever.
RTG - I pointed it out that change in the industry is happening, its not a pro apple whatever - I found it personally interesting that Intel might be avoiding Vista to any degree knowing their long term close history with Microsoft. As for the Apple story, again I found it interesting that within two years that the number has grown. The comment that was made here about Vista promoting the mac may hold some truth to it. Yes I use a Mac at home, and I use XP at work. Having been a Microsoft MVP myself I feel I am pretty balanced between the two platforms. As much as I like my Mac, I don't see our office ever going that direction.
Please note I am not a moderator on this forum, when I post here I am a user just like you are.
Forced Family Fun... They'll thank you later for it! Have you checked out the new RV.net Blogs?
Yes, making it rumor and conjecture until you get a public statement. And I would never lend much credence to anything the inquirer (with an i or an e) has to say as they are both tabloids. (except for the philly inquirer) You can throw the register into that mix also. They are both sensationalist. The fact that the NYT uses the inquirer as a source may indicate their desperation for readership...
I read the New York Times article and no where did it cite the Inquirer. The reporter quotes two sources from Intel and two analysts from Gartner. I made my post because you belittled the original post as being based on "somebody's opinion blog" and advising that "an actual new source." The New York Times article also had a different take on what the Intel spokesperson said than you implied in your post.
As I said earlier, I belief the Microsoft will put a lot of pressure on Intel, especially because the story is public and those that make their living by pointing out negative in everything will milk the story.
I read the New York Times article and no where did it cite the Inquirer. The reporter quotes two sources from Intel and two analysts from Gartner. I made my post because you belittled the original post as being based on "somebody's opinion blog" and advising that "an actual new source."
Uh....
New York Times blog wrote:
"Word of Intel’s lukewarm response to Vista appeared Monday in The Inquirer, an irreverent London-based technology Web site."
Straight copy from the "article" (actually, just another blog under the guise of news)
pulsar wrote:
The New York Times article also had a different take on what the Intel spokesperson said than you implied in your post.
waroads wrote:
Anyhow, Intel spokespeople have stated outright (not the mysterious anonymous source or anonymous memo) that they are testing Vista and rolling out to various departments and will no doubt determine next steps from there.
New York Times blog wrote:
An Intel spokesman said the company was testing and deploying Vista in certain departments, but not across the company.
There it is in black and white. From a public spokesperson, not an anonymous "source". Tell me how the take was different?
pulsar wrote:
As I said earlier, I belief the Microsoft will put a lot of pressure on Intel, especially because the story is public and those that make their living by pointing out negative in everything will milk the story.
Tom
Of course you are stating that because it helps you to later be able to say that Intel didn't upgrade to Vista because they wanted to, but only because of the pressure that MS put on them after this astounding (anonymous and unverified) revelation.
We clearly have a disagreement on the meaning of the word "cite"
cite: to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), esp. as an authority: He cited the Constitution in his defense.
I believe he reported that the Inquirer broke the story, as I think he is obligated to do as a journalist. But nowhere in the article can I find where he "cited" the Inquirer.
He did his own research and cited two Intel sources and two Gartner sources.
You have stated again what you said about the Intel spokespeople said and your opinion as to what it meand; and you have stated what the Times reporter attributed to the Intel spokesperson. I'll let others decide for themselves if they are the same or different.
I see that if a source disagrees with your opinion then it is not worthy of consideration. I think that Mr. Lohr did what a reporter should do. He read (or heard of) a story in the Inquirer that cited one source. He then independently confirmed the story and cited "a person with direct knowledge of the company’s plans." Next he asked Intel for a response, and reported it.
Having gone that far, he then looked at the bigger picture and cited Gartner analysts for that part of the story.
Finally, I posted my opinion that Microsoft will bring pressure to bear on Intel. For whatever reason, which escapes me, you choose to denigrate that opinion by attributiting a nefarious reason for me to voice my opinion.
pulsar wrote: We clearly have a disagreement on the meaning of the word "cite"
I believe he reported that the Inquirer broke the story, as I think he is obligated to do as a journalist. But nowhere in the article can I find where he "cited" the Inquirer.
where did I ever use the word "cite"?
pulsar wrote:
You have stated again what you said about the Intel spokespeople said and your opinion as to what it meand; and you have stated what the Times reporter attributed to the Intel spokesperson. I'll let others decide for themselves if they are the same or different.
What others and why does it matter what they decide? You are the one that said it so I asked what you meant.
pulsar wrote:
I see that if a source disagrees with your opinion then it is not worthy of consideration. I think that Mr. Lohr did what a reporter should do. He read (or heard of) a story in the Inquirer that cited one source. He then independently confirmed the story and cited "a person with direct knowledge of the company’s plans." Next he asked Intel for a response, and reported it.
What you see is disregard for "anonymous" sources especially when the company is stating something different publically. Your choice if you think that anonymous sources are more reliable than actual attributable statements.
pulsar wrote:
Finally, I posted my opinion that Microsoft will bring pressure to bear on Intel. For whatever reason, which escapes me, you choose to denigrate that opinion by attributiting a nefarious reason for me to voice my opinion.
Tom
Pressure for what? For intel to continue what they are doing which is evaluate vista as a part of their typical refresh cycle? I really doubt they have to. You seem to think there is something nefarious going on....
scabello wrote: Intel is not going to upgrade because (a) there is no COMPELLING reason (i.e. no economic benefit -- those employees are not into music and video), and (b) "it takes a little getting used to", so there is a cost associated with it.
There was no compelling reason for me as an individual consumer to upgrade either. But buying a new computer of specific brand and model, there was no choice, except Vista, without additional expense.
So obviously the only one benefiting...$$$$...is Microsoft.
ryoung
2004 Dodge 3500 Dually HO 6 sp 4.10, Jordan Controller
2005 SunnyBrook 31BWKS
2004 Lance Lite 915
rray32539 wrote: Vista is one of the best things Microsoft has ever done. For Apple Macintosh sales, that is!
Though its rather funny to snicker at the comment, there is some reality to it perhaps. From Computer World June 26, "Survey: 8 in 10 businesses now using Macs which is up from 47% in 2006.
Read the fine print, 8 in 10 businesses now use Macs along with PC's. Mac still only has about a 5% share in the business world.
rray32539 wrote: Vista is one of the best things Microsoft has ever done. For Apple Macintosh sales, that is!
Though its rather funny to snicker at the comment, there is some reality to it perhaps. From Computer World June 26, "Survey: 8 in 10 businesses now using Macs which is up from 47% in 2006.
Read the fine print, 8 in 10 businesses now use Macs along with PC's. Mac still only has about a 5% share in the business world.
My eyes are older and fine print seems to be smaller than it used to be. Regardless, if we are reading the fine print in this article, not only does it include "...use Macs along with PC's," it states that Mac share of the business world is 8 to 10 percent.
I found so things in the article to be very intersting.
1) 21% of the companies surveyed said that had 50 or more Macs. That use to be 1 or 2 Macs.
2) 28% said that they are running Windows in a virtual machine on the Macs they have.
3) IT professionals noted that the reliability of Apple's hardware was a factor in shifting to Macs.
And this quote
4) "Many of our Windows developers have switched to XP and Vista virtual machines running on Macintosh hardware to circumvent the downtime they experienced with the unreliability — viruses, spyware, disruptive automatic updates — of Windows XP running on PCs," one IT manager told DiDio in a follow-up interview. (Laura DiDio is a research fellow at the company that did the survey.)
Offline
