Joe , see , as expetced , you write Search again in less than a week !!

" Joe, you have repeated the topic of "Live Search " few times

You seem exhausted .

I predict your entries for this week will be :

1) Microsoft Server 2008

2) Microsoft/EU ruling (again)

3) Microsoft WGA and Microsoft Update (again, coupled with some conspiracy theories )

4) Windows Vista SP1 (You happy to mention that Vista SP1 will be delayed)

5) Windows XP SP3 ( You will recommend to us to wait for XP SP3 and drop Vista )

6) Windows Live Search (Of course, you will not spare this topic and keep hammering)

Posted by Ron | September 25, 2007 4:05 AM

"The rumors of Live's death were premature" .

Since when and where the rumors started ? We don't recall we heard any rumors about the premature death of Live search

Perhaps the rumors are initiated from the ex-Jupiter analyst , Mr Joe (TNI) -the negative influence

John
Could be ! !

An example for the readers to why you have been seeing me post a lot of information on VCSY

LOL!! Here's recy/mtgmark1 responding to my post on the Yahoo/Msft board! Sounds like he's also getting desperate for us to sell. imo

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1296320&mid=1296570&tof=3&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
vcsy-is-best. I will answer you honestly and you will, of course, dismiss it.
I would NOT want to find myself in the position of holding millions of shares in a penny stock that trades on such thin and low volume. So, NO, I don't like your position.
Volume =interest=the life blood of pennies.
This is just another obvious fact you will have to ignore in order to support your position.It's a game of ring around the rosey and the likely hood is you will find yourself looking for a chair.
Let's expand this answer just a little. Also, remember that you get your information from someone that pronounced this a screaming buy at $5 a share, 8 yrs ago. OUCH!! Now let's take a look at who agrees with you. It's a group of similar bagholders that ALL say they originally bought 7-8 yrs ago.

SO I, MYSELF, WOULD NOT FEEL GOOD ABOUT HOLDING MILLIONS OF SHARES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO ME BY SOMEONE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN RIGHT AND ADMITS TO BEING AN 8 YR BAGHOLDER, WHO CAN ONLY OFFER OTHER HOPELESSLY STUCK LONGS AS HIS EVIDENCE TO BUY THIS CRAP COMPANY. MAYBE YOU CAN DIRECT ME TO THE FINANCIAL GURU THAT SAYS AVERAGING DOWN, OVER ALMOST A DECADE, ON A PENNY STOCK, WITH NO SALES, IS SOUND INVESTMENT ADVISE.
Don't you know what kind of a neophyte you expose yourself as, when you post this nonsense? Please get a financial degree from FABER U. Knowledge is good. lol

-------------------------------------------------Microsoft's obvious motive in any suspected efforts to damage VCSY-

The two VCSY patents act as pivot points for key elements of Microsoft's continually degraded performance toward attempting to field Bill Gates' early XML vision. The vision has yet to see the light of day, although, for years prior to the granting of 6826744 in November 2004, Microsoft was very energetic in demonstrating what they could do with XML. Now? Not.

They teach you in detective school that if you happen upon a scene and there is someone in the batch that has motive and opportunity and means, you should look at the dates and events and see if the suspect can be aligned with those. I would say Microsoft has the largest motives (which are the power and reach the 6826744 and 7076521 patents could provide Microsoft over all other manufacturers) and the most obvious opportunities (comprised of work done from at least 2000 to late 2004/early 2005 which could have put Microsoft on top of any other manufacturers were it not for the existence of the 6826744 patent) and certainly the means (which are doubtless legendary and often emphasized by advocates of Microsoft's predatory monopolistic manners).

So, in detective school, they also teach you to make note of such actors and dig into their backgrounds to see if they are in the habit of "offing" weaker associates with which they have similar motive and opportunity. And, sure enough, Microsoft has numerous events which tag them as someone you wouldn't want to hold your sandwich while you went to make a phone call.

Looks to me like our preliminary indictment of MSFT has numerous clues and indications which would likely drive a judge to view them with suspicion and a desire to examine. That's Microsoft's fault. Not ours.

VCSY longs are simply interested in the facts and they enjoy digging up factual items regarding Microsoft and apparent connections and allowing others to read.

I happen to be here to make the facts public and entertaining.

It's up to those who read to challenge the juxtaposition of those facts with the image Microsoft itself projects.

It's also up to those desiring to provide MSFT with an alibi or mitigating facts to rehabilitate MSFT's suspicious image. So far, nobody wants to take us up on the technological discussion. Nobody can knock out the patent claims. Nobody has offered a smidgen of evidence Microsoft can achieve Bill Gates' XML fantasies and schemes without relying on 6826744 or 7076521.

So far, Microsoft looks as "innocent" as a jealous woman with a bloody ax.

"Microsoft pales when compared to the integrated oils and producers."

Oh. I see. One other area they teach you to watch for in detective school is other actors who may be willing accomplices ready to provide a misdirection for the suspect's actions. Now, we find you, Mister Wacalaca, wanting us to turn our attention to world energy problems so we can find rascals in that particular industry.

Nice try, but, last we looked, VCSY patents related to web-platforming and web-applications... a place where Microsoft said they wanted to be from 2000 until 2005. Then, they said they didn't need to be there. Then, once VCSY sent them a cease and desist, they decided they actually did want to be on the web... but they haven't been able to do so.

If MSFT had been in the oil industry, the patents would not apply so we would have no need to be suspicious. But, thanks for giving us a perfect analogy to describe Microsoft's place in the software industry. Since they "pale when compared" to what you deride as abusive monopolistic actions in the oil industry, you've at least given us renewed confirmation MSFT are not to be trusted.

Ron, if you are not happy with these articles, why don't check out other sites.....Internet is a big place really, you know!!!!!

Here's anecdotal evidence MSFT is in reactionary mode...

Notice where your management are putting "virtualization".

They are putting it in as a beta release in an otherwise "completed" product release.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/show...
Analysis: Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Adds Virtualization -- In Beta Form

The Release Candidate of Windows Server 2008 will include the beta code for Microsoft's much-anticipated virtualization technology. Is that a good idea?

By Danielle Ruest and Nelson Ruest
InformationWeek
September 26, 2007 09:26 AM

When the production version of Windows Server 2008 (WS08) ships -- the official launch is planned for February 27, 2008 -- it will include beta software code. Microsoft announced that Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) will include the beta of Windows Server Virtualization (WSV) within the release version of Windows Server 2008, its updated flagship server operating system.

Why is Microsoft taking the drastic step of including beta code with the release of an otherwise finished product? According to Arun Jayendran, program manager for Windows Server Virtualization, it's because customers are so interested in the new WSV.

There is no doubt that there's a great deal of interest in server virtualization. There is also no doubt that Microsoft is behind the competition. As the major server operating system vendor, it needs to get into the virtualization space. But rushing beta code to market may be a risky tactic. Windows Server Virtualization will be an unfinished product: it will implement the hot virtualization method of the moment, hypervisor technology, in a kludgey way, and it will lack features like live migration.

Just trying to help ya'll understand!
(the mind is a terrible thing to waste)

"Microsoft's assets would be maximized by spinoffs."
Microsoft has some brilliant engineering and an incredible back-store of potential products held back because management doesn't know what to do with them.

But, there IS something standing in MSFT's way and that's the ability to extend itself onto and over the internet.

By this time, Vista should be able to interconnect with other Vistas over internet and interact (interoperate in an automated way. The fact that doesn't exist should raise an alarm bell.

It's what should concern you when everything on your instrument panel and yoke appear to fine but the movements don't get translated to the control surfaces.

The reason is that Microsoft only relies on their own proprietary COM/DCOM (component object model/distributed component object model) to accomplish this translation and COM/DCOM only works reliably within the operating system perimeter.

COM/DCOM doesn't work well across internet because the internet comes and goes and there is no ability on the other side of the conversation to carry on when the connection isn't available. When that happens, the conversations stops and breaks. COM/DCOM is thus "brittle" and not dependable for more than MSFT to MSFT communication.

This applies to ANY product MSFT has shown to date as a sold product to consumers. We don't know what their special clients and partners have, but, whatever they have, it hasn't migrated to the public sector.

Now, look at patent 7076521. What it does is connect to the proprietary datastore on the operating platform (ANY platform) and transports that data in a transformed/governed manner to an XML consuming destination. It also takes data from an XML producing location and transports that data in a transformed/governed way to a proprietary datastore destination (ANY destination ANY platform).

When that happens, you automatically build an interoperation between any resources with any resources.

If Microsoft could do that, there would be nothing to prevent them from enabling the use of Office (in a proprietary way on the client) with any other Office package anywhere (in a proprietary way in any server or other client) and do so in a loose-coupled (able to continue while offline and completing the work when online).

Now, the big question is: why can't they? And let's dismiss the "we don't want to make our products commodities" market speak because others are working very quickly to do just that while Microsoft stands by relinquishing control of that agenda by inaction.

So, why can't Microsoft do what 7076521 does? Because Microsoft can't do what 6826744 and they used it in their .Net products and did that without the owner's permissions. That's why Microsoft is being sued for infringement. And, if they don't settle over 744, they don't get to use 521.

It's like your falcon having a perfectly nice panel and yoke but refusing to install the components to interconnect the assembly to the control surfaces. Why? Costs too much? They should have considered that back in 2004 when the whole enchilada would have cost them a whole lot less than their intransigence and pedantic attitude cost them now.

So, for the want of a horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost.

It really is that simple and the fact nobody wants to say that shows just how cowed journalists and publishers and "expert opinion" has become by a monopoly who threatens to sue them for speaking truth.

THAT is why I think breaking Microsoft up into much more valuable components is such a good idea and I think the jusdicial elements in the US and Europe will see things the same way.

Then "Microsoft" and their shareholders will be able to fly under true control.

You may want to dig into that claim about stopwords. I've just tested (without quotes) "The Office," "The Nine," and "The Shining" on MSN, Google and Ask. MSN finished third on all three phrases.

Correction: The MSN I tested is still v1.0 on Live Search. One finds a "try it" link (sort of a demo-ish beta), and that one does deliver on better handling of search terms. Still, it's more of a MSN-old vs MSN-new improvement, rather than a Great Leap Forward among search engines.

Interesting thing - I just ran a few tests and found the new Live Search actually producing more relevant results than Google, e.g. when searching for "XML Editor":
http://www.xmlaficionado.com/2007/09/microsoft-releases-updated-live-search.html

Different issue (but you can save some money )
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/09/26/IBM-says-Symphony-downloaded-100000-times-in-first-week_1.html
IBM: Symphony downloaded 100,000 times in first week
"To be honest, we were surprised at the speed with which people jumped on this," said Mike Rhodin, general manager of both IBM Collaboration and Lotus Software, in an interview Wednesday. To keep up with the number of people interested in downloading Symphony, IBM tripled the number of download servers it had for the suite of productivity applications in the first few days of its release, he said.
-------
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2186653,00.asp

"Lotus Symphony, downloadable in a free beta version, consists of the OpenOffice.org engines for word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations, but comes dressed in a sleek, professional interface that looks far better than the ugly and amateurish one of the original OpenOffice. Compared with Microsoft's high-priced spread in Office 2007, IBM's freeware feels slightly bug-rich and feature-thin, but the price is right at zero dollars—compared with $400 for the standard edition of Office 2007. Lotus Symphony can save files in Microsoft Office format, though by default, it uses the open-source Open Document Format (ODF) standard. Unlike Microsoft Office, it won't surprise you by reformatting your documents in ways you don't expect."
----------
Truly, it's another excellent alternative to MS office , actually I am trying it and ...I am
really impressed.

..but Joe, you just wrote the similar entry few days ago ..please refer your previous entry :

" September 24, 2007 5:15 PM

Search: What Microsoft Should Do Next"

Even an amatuer blogger might not repeate and recyle an entry as frequent as you ..

VCSY.ob Stealth - is it for real? Is it needed?

Why is VCSY in stealth mode?

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kroes/antitrust_eu_us.pdf
Neelie Kroes, EU Commissioner for competition
Antitrust in the EU and the US ? our common objectives
Brussels, 26th September 2007

There cannot be many business people who doubt that a monopolist can use its market power to squash even the most efficient rival producers of goods or services that interact with the monopolized product. There cannot be many venture capitalists who would invest in a company whose market can at any moment fall under the sway of an entrenched neighboring monopolist whose behavior was subject to no limits.

What I will do is continue to look hard at the actions of monopolists. I will use my practical business experience to help me understand the dynamics of markets. I will look for answers that maintain the incentives of everyone on the market to innovate, and not just the friendly neighborhood monopolist. Power has to be used responsibly, by the enforcement agencies and by the monopolists. I will not look for fights, but where interventions will make consumers better off, I will not shy away from them.

I-Man, may I know what planet are you from ?

Th only action you can perform is Cut-and-Paste

What is VCSY ?

Please learn to write your own setences next time

Peter, you'll either learn about Vertical Computer Systems now when they are under 2 cents a share or later, when you're wishing you would've learned sooner.
(here's another copy and paste, it makes it easier for me)

What reason does VCSY's CEO Richard Wade have to keep our pps down.

First I want to say that Wade could have easily keep the pps up by better communication and putting out 3-4 fluff pr's every month. But he didn't. He wanted to keep the pps down. Why?

1) First Wade can show the court actual damages to pps caused by these patent infringers

2) Stealth - No one would expect a 2 cent pps company to be around long and/or have the resources to defend and go after patent infringers. This is important because most companies affected by these patents were not aware otherwise they would have put up resources to fight or challenge them. V has been operating under their radars for many years until now and now it may be too late. So far MS had been the only company to challenge these patents. If the court finds that MS has infringed on these patents then V can go after others that are using V's technology. This means recovery of more damages from other offending companies and licenses fees as well.

3) Wade has allowed long term shareholders to accumulate more cheap shares.

4) Wade may have made an agreement with other associated companies or had legal recommendations to hold down the pps.

5) Wade can now finally burn those mm's that have illegally shorted V for all these years.

I am sure Wade has other good reasons since he has the most to lose being the biggest single shareholder(Over 110 mm shares) Wade could easily put out some fluff pr's to get this price up if he wanted to sell out.

I am long & strong and I am not going to listen to a bunch of cry babies affect my judgement on this position. Like I said before this is either going to be my biggest pork chop or a biggest bust. But I like the odds and I am confident that Wade is going to do the right thing for his shareholders.

Stealth Windows update prevents XP repair

http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/27/03-Stealth-Windows-update-prevents-XP-repair

Micro$oft just can't seem to get anything right.

Why Microsoft must abandon Vista to save itself

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only

The writer of the article has been widely condemned as stupid, some valid points sure, but still stupid !
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only
Check out the comments on cnet for yourselves.

Ron, you're complaining about nothing again. Haven't you got anything better to do?

I suppose if Micro$oft itself says anything else about Vista you'll complain too?

Hi there,

just questioning the data you published for substance.

4.2 Million Search queries only(!) for Google in August 2007 (In my Opinion this must be a dily or hourly average) could you please state on this?

Just calculate: there are more than one Billion Internet users.

So if Google is experiencing only 4.2 Million Search queris a month this would mean, that the average Internet user uses Google not more than four times in his lifetime or every 238 months.

Actually that is not what I think made the term "to google" a synonym for searching.

If this is a daily everage I could believe that evrey internetuser is not using Google for more than 2 times a day (in everage). But I actually am using up more than the Google usage of lets say 20 Internet users that are not using Google at all on that day.

So probably its more a hourly everage.

What basis for the numbers did Nielsen publish when they published those markjet share data? Any glue?

Thanks and regard
Michael

Ok, looked it up myself on http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_070820.pdf an it actually is 4.1 Billion searches for google in August 2007. This is still a lot less than I thought but ... ok.

ms, leave search to the big boys, and just fix your toys, like wmp, and windows updates. so,e of them are counter productive and slow down the system.

windows live search has improved a lot. search share may probably improve even more after all services are integrated with skydrivelive.

they also have to introduce more individual services like blogs, news, photos to attract masses.

we r ready to bpo services 50 seats MNC setup we need good projects clients so help our services