Given on-going combined costs of running Microsoft - I can't see how it's
possible to get your "MS costs back many times over" just by choosing
MS.
I'd chalk this up as very poor MS marketing trying to convince people
they can actually make money simply by going with MS.
Like that line of
reasoning that goes like:
I wasn't going to spend money, but look at this X
that I bought for only $200 - I saved $300.
Err.... are you
ever going to use it for anything?
No... but look at the
savings!
From my perspective: the person just spent $200 on
nothing.
Maybe the "spend money on MS and make it back many times over
for doing so" is like that.
On a parallel subject, I've actually seen
where someone would have been better off without the improved software. The
older software was faster, used less keystrokes to do the tasks and was far more
automated. The individual ended up completing less because they simply had to
do more manually.
I've always been boggled why decisions like that are
made. I can just imagine:
Manager: Yea! The New System is working
great!
other: so.... what are the stats with regards how much data
entry per person per hour are being accomplished?
Manager: They used to
be a person could complete 500 entries an hour. With the new system they only
complete 400 entries an hour but the intangible benefits are
huge!
other: .... .. ..... err.... ....
oookkkaaayyyyy
SNAP!
I just figured it out! It's like Bing where MS
actually pays people to use it!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|