For those in doubt of Microsoft shares...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob R. Ainscough
  • Start date Start date
R

Rob R. Ainscough

Just got a letter from Microsoft wanting to purchase my shares back at $24
(about) /share -- apparently they're wanting to purchase some 800 million
shares back. So I ask myself "why?". So go back in history and take a look
at the stock price 6 months prior to the release of Windows XP and then I
take a look at the stock price 6 months after the release of Windows XP --
well what do ya know, their stock doubled and they split.

So let me see, buy back 800 million shares at $24/share -- hold them for a
year knowing the stock will double, and sell them back for $48/share --
bingo, in 1 year (19,200,000,000) M$ earn 19.2 billion. Who said M$ wasn't
a good symbol for Microsoft? I suppose this does mean that Vista WILL ship
(ready or not because more is at stake) Feb 1st 2007 or close to it.
 
Combine that with the commitment to the Software Assurance customers to get
Vista out the door before some of their contracts expire at the end of the
year and it does look like Vista is in Ready Or Not Here We Come mode.
Personally, I think it will be ready.
 
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:49:09 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"

">Personally, I think it will be ready."

Yeah but if its not shares go down.

Still this has not gone unoticed just don't hold on to MSFT too long
after the probable split. Sold all my MSFT shares to buy Google when
it went public, did pretty well but I will be probably be buying MSFT
during Q3 this year maybe later for that very reason, I am expecting
the price to drop even lower yet I am thinking <$22-00 around
September maybe even high $20-00. $24-00 is overpriced, they have huge
legal and technical issues to resolve both sides of the pond, that EU
daily fine is gonna hurt and they need Vista very badly so they will
kick it out as soon as they can get away with it. It better be a lot
more ready than it is now.

Jonah
 
Just don't judge it on the GUI. The under-the-hood stuff has gotten a lot
of attention lately. I think it will go fine.
 
I don't know, they have release several "final" products as of late that
aren't even close to final (VS 2005 for example). The Beta 2 I have of
Vista looks to be a long long long way from completion. If you look at
Microsoft's feedback forum, I'm willing to bet close to Dec/Jan you see a
lot of bugs "closed due to time constraints" and basically fix it later.

If history is accurate I'd wait a few more months, then buy. Vista will
still never penetrate more than 1 in 5 people becauses there just isn't
enough there to "insulate" the remaining 4 of 5 people that just expect the
OS to work without prompts they don't understand (graying out the background
and asking the user want do you wanna do with an app that needs an open port
or access thru the firewal just will not fly for those 4 in 5). The OS just
has not gone far enough to even capture 2 in 5 people, so it'll be status
quo IMHO. But status guo will keep them alive and obviously they're needing
to use schemes like this to get some additional revenue (which might
actually be a bad sign).

But I suspect it WILL ship Feb '07, ready or not is how M$ work these days.

Rob
 
Forget Dec/Jan; its already happening. The last I heard MS was on bug level
5. And that was a month ago.
 
Bug levels are how MS prioritizes its bug handling. As rtm approaces, MS
raises the bar for whether or not a bug gets fixed. The judgment is made on
a combination of the bug level and the resources likely to be needed to fix
the problem and whether the fix can achieve acceptible QA. This is not a
practice unique to MS.

I don't know the specs that define the levels, nor do I know how high the
levels go. Nuisance bugs are very low. Feature hampering bugs are higher.
Obviously showstoppers are very high. Bug level 5 means that nuisances are
not getting fixed for rtm. What else is excluded at that level, I don't
know.

My point is that Vista development has moved well beyond "catching all the
bugs" to a stage where only fairly serious or obvious problems are going to
get attention before rtm. Some of these bugs will be fixed in updates and
some will not be fixed until a new release (Vienna or beyond).

MS does not publish the current bug level and won't comment on it. I
learned what I did inadvertantly.
 
Colin,

We haven't even reached release candidates yet (still on Beta
designation) -- we usually get at least 2 sometimes 3 RC's before it goes
final.

The "bug level" you describe is something I've never heard of and I'm a
developer with a $2500/yr MSDN subscription (as well as a shareholder) and
frequently provide MS with bugs via their feedback site. But you might be
confusing this with the "bug level" used to measure whether or not an RC
will be released, the RC will then go thru the same bug level process -- it
is a process that is repeated for each RC.

No doubt that there will be an SP1 for Vista within 1 year after it's
release, but my bet is still Feb '07 for a release date.

Rob.
 
I've never heard of "level x" bugs, but based on what I've seen to date and
the issues being posted, Vista still has a long way to go. There is some
pretty basic functionality that is still missing or just not working.
Anyway, we still have at least two or more "release Candidates" RC before we
can even think about a final product.

Rob.
 
A release candidate is an assertion that the system is ready for prime time.
It means, unless you folks find otherwise we plan to go with this version.
Folks will. That is expected. There will not be a series of release
candidates. There will be interim builds following the release of RC1
leading up to rtm.
 
Rob--


"Who said M$ wasn't a good symbol for Microsoft? I suppose this does mean
that Vista WILL ship
(ready or not because more is at stake) Feb 1st 2007 or close to it."

For the sake of the OS a lot of us hope it sure as hell does not.

I hope that the menatlity Vista needs to ship for money never sees the light
of a real day. It's a horrible idea. Any share holders who also use Vista
and know there way around it, need to get serious about the stability and
workability of Vista and take a close look at it. Ck out:

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/28/65-more-windows-vista-mistakes/

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/24/windows-vista-feedback/

http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6100866.html

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/

http://www.longhornblogs.com/

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/mclaws-is-right-on-windows-vista-ship-date/

CH
 
A whole lot of people using a whole lot of Windows and a whole lot of Vista
know it's not going to be near ready and fortunately there is a good chance
it is going to be delayed. The frenzy that is slapping it together right
now is ridiculous.
If it does ship in the current time frame it truly needs to be dubbed like
the Book title written by the daughter of one of the major ad campaign
architects for MSFT: "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates"

"Both authors are, in different ways, Microsoft insiders. Jennifer Edstrom
is the daughter of Pam Edstrom, Gates's long-time PR chief and spin doctor.
Marlin Eller is a 13-year veteran Microsoft developer who has worked on DOS,
early versions of Windows, and pen computing."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805057544/ref=sr_11_1/102-3215667-3228953?ie=UTF8

CH
 
I'm judging it on the under the hood stuff which is the biggest cause for
concern. The under the hood stuff is what's not working and is the most
critical. I mentioned some of the problems specifically in another thread.
Who gives a damn whether aero glass works or not?

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/28/65-more-windows-vista-mistakes/

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/24/windows-vista-feedback/

http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6100866.html

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/

http://www.longhornblogs.com/

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/mclaws-is-right-on-windows-vista-ship-date/

CH
 
I see points on both sides of the argument, for sure. But if MSFT is just
now investigating the process for delivery errors, and a routine upgrade
from a decidedly average example of XP Home causes myriads of issues ending
with a hard-lock, these are not "eye-candy" features; these are serious
"under-the-hood" delivery issues that unless corrected, make the entire
operating system irrelevant. Everything else could be perfect: if Joe
Average can't get it to install, it will not be a favourable review.
 
I suspect that the delivery issue is a lot easier to diagnose and resolve
than the other issues you mention. The issues with upgrades seem to revolve
around software on the system and not the base OS itself. I wish MS would
make it mandatory to remove all known programs that can cause trouble rather
than just issue an advisory. No one should be allowed to proceed without
making needed changes.
 
Absolutely, and I should have managed to make it clear. It is vital for Joe
Average to be able to use a large number of features and most of Vista
without being hamstrung at every turn. The more intuitive it is for people
to use menus, features, ect. the better as well.

CH
 
All of this could be automated, but it would require an entire revamp, and
that isn't going to happen. Vista is halfway there, with its hybrid of
upgrade/clean install, but they need to slipstream Update Advisor into the
installation process. Then, instead of asking, the UA could merely advise
that "The following Applications will be uninstalled before Vista
installation will proceed. Press 'Okay' to continue, or 'Exit' to cancel
the Vista installation."

And having an issue with burning an image to a disc is most likely old/dirty
burners, incompatible media or lack of understanding of the process by the
user. I really have a hard time believing MSFT or its contractors are not
capable of burning DVD's in quantity.
 
Back
Top