on 3/27/2002 5:33 AM, Greg Cook at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 3/26/02 6:28 PM, "Glenn L. Austin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> From a developers' standpoint, what Microsoft and Intel have been trying to >> do is limit the testing matrix, which is a good thing -- it reduces testing >> costs, time, and complexity (especially when trying to support hardware that >> was hacked together to get it to work to begin with). What it also does is >> strongly encourage users to upgrade their equipment every year, leading to a >> false "marketshare" number -- very few, if any, of the new machines are >> *actually* new users, instead most of the machines are going to replace >> existing machines, which end up gathering dust in the corner, but are still >> counted towards "market share," since there is no way to *actually* tell how >> many personal computers are still in operation. > > But, again, it is NOT that hard to predict how many copies of a new office > package will be purchased in a year.
I agree, but only if you disregard what analysts call "market share" because it has very little relation to reality. Maybe that's why so many companies (other than Microsoft) are surprised at the number of Mac programs sold in comparison to to what everyone commonly calls "market share." Do you get the feeling that I hold very little respect for the "market share" numbers? -- Glenn L. Austin <>< <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (360) 281-5436 -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
