Comments on: Microsoft Laying Off 5,000, Blames Netbook Sales http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales Notebooks and Laptops News, Deals and Reviews Thu, 17 May 2012 19:06:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: RB http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11789 RB Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:52:09 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11789 Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim. I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need. Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim.

I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need.

]]> By: RB http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11792 RB Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:52:00 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11792 Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim. I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need. Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim.

I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need.

]]> By: RB http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11793 RB Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:52:00 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11793 Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim. I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need. Intel should give thanks to the netbook sales. Without them things would be worse. They claim that netbook sales are taking away from (more profitable) laptop sales, but anecdotal evidence does not support this claim.

I think they are simply in denial that the entire market is down, save netbooks which are frequently, if not normally purchased in addition to the laptop people have because it fills a different need.

]]> By: theoak http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11788 theoak Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:37:27 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11788 "The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks. Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn't a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes? “The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks.

Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn’t a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes?

]]> By: theoak http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11790 theoak Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:37:00 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11790 "The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks. Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn't a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes? “The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks.

Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn’t a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes?

]]> By: theoak http://notebooks.com/2009/01/22/microsoft-laying-off-5000-blames-netbook-sales/#comment-11791 theoak Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:37:00 +0000 http://www.notebooks.com/?p=3034#comment-11791 "The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks. Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn't a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes? “The company is blaming a $465 million decrease in Windows OEM revenue on netbooks.

Microsoft: give us a reason to not use XP or Linux! Vista sure wasn’t a reason. Many, after trying it, ended up downgrading to XP. Windows 7 beta, although it seems to run faster than Vista, seems to pretty much be a bug-fixed version of Vista. Why do we have to pay again for bug fixes?

]]>