Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft presented the results for its second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year yesterday, which ended on December 29 2009. As it turns out, thanks to sales of Windows 7, Microsoft experienced a record quarter, which is especially welcome after the previous two lacklustre ones. It sold 60 million Windows 7 licenses during this record quarter.
Thread beginning with comment 406702
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

Captain Obvious is working in the Microsoft Marketing department with this release.

Upgrading a virtual monopoly provides huge results. That's not exactly a surprise. In its day, wouldn't a Commodore 64 upgrade have been huge? How about a CP/M-80 upgrade or a combined CP/M-80/86/68000 upgrade?

It's only been since WinNT and Win95 that the majority of people started thinking about computers for home and usually, those machines were so outdated by the time the next release came that they couldn't easily upgrade.

Further, Microsoft can claim the number, but shouldn't they subtract all the Vista upgrades since it took them all this time to correct their mistakes?

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Captain Obvious is working in the Microsoft Marketing department with this release.

Upgrading a virtual monopoly provides huge results. That's not exactly a surprise.


Hmmm I would have agreed in 2002 but now that Apple has 12% share in the US I'd call it a duopoly. It's still an open market, IBM could spend a billion and clone OSX but like other tech giants they don't care about the desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


Hmmm I would have agreed in 2002 but now that Apple has 12% share in the US I'd call it a duopoly. It's still an open market, IBM could spend a billion and clone OS X but like other tech giants they don't care about the desktop.


That would be inaccurate. IBM care plenty about the desktop, but management there don't understand it at all, especially when there isn't any IBM hardware involved.

Reply Parent Score: 2