Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 13:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Windows Even though the retail launch of Windows Vista just a couple of weeks away, Microsoft is still continuing to fine-tune its licensing and pricing details. Sources said that Microsoft will announce some time over the next few days that the two additional copies of Vista Home Premium for somewhere between USD 50 to USD 99 a piece. In order to qualify for the so-called 'Family Pack' promotion, customers will first need to purchase at retail a copy of Vista Ultimate, which carries an estimated retail price of USD 399. The deal will not be offered to those who purchase Ultimate preloaded on a new PC, sources said; it will be for customers buying and/or upgrading via retail channels only.
Order by: Score:
Unbelievably generous
by osterfrank on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:27 UTC
osterfrank
Member since:
2006-10-14

So I'll be able to buy one copy of Vista Ultimate and one copy of Vista Home Premium for less than $500? Wow, that's unbelievably generous!
Not.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Unbelievably generous
by airjrdn on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:39 UTC in reply to "Unbelievably generous"
airjrdn Member since:
2006-07-27

Curiously, what are your thoughts on the price of Photoshop or other comparably expensive software? Surely you get the fact that Vista is an order of magnitude more complex than Photoshop.

While I think $399 is pretty steep, I think it seems extremely cheap in comparison to a $450 photo editing package.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Photoshop is not an OS.

That's a silly argument.

Photoshop
=========
Smaller Market
Bought by Professionals
Loose Licensing
Choice for non Professional
Not needed for running of machine
Not preinstalled

Microsoft OS
============
Opposite of above.

etc. etc.

The reality is photoshop is not worth $450 for *me*. I don't use it for a living. I use gimp for the *occasional* edit and wouldn't be able to list the differences between the two. I'd pay about $40 for Photoshop.

Edited 2007-01-16 14:54

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by airjrdn on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
airjrdn Member since:
2006-07-27

I don't think it's a silly argument or comparison. I view the value of each based on it's complexity. To me, there's a reason an OS costs more than a CD burning application or photo editing package. Just as a software development tool generally costs more than a web browser. One is infinitely more complex than the other.

Don't get me wrong, I think $399 is a lot to pay too, but when compared to the cost of other applications out there, it's not outlandish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by ma_d on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows is more expensive than OS X, maybe that's why people are upset?

A lot of Windows cost is, supposedly, a really crumby support contract (which you don't get in OEM editions) and maybe people are resentful of that because they never use it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by kwanbis on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

MS sells 20 times what Apple sells, still MAC OS X is 200 for 5 licenses.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by unoengborg on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but most home users don't buy a $450 photo editing package. If they use Photoshop they most likely got it as a bundle with their scanner too a much lower price or they have pirated it.

They see the OS as something that comes for free with their computer. Buying it once more to get a non OEM version that can be expanded with extra family pack licenses for more computers will not go down well with most users.

Another thing, you can't compare the price of Vista to the price of Photoshop on bases of complexity. You have to consider the market for each program. Vista will be bundled on almost every new computer in the near future, while adobe have to do a lot more marketing to get their product sold. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think that Vista was a lot less expensive than Photoshop.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by bailey86 on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
bailey86 Member since:
2005-10-14

Ummm... there's something you've missed.

IT'S ONLY THE OPERATING SYSTEM!

It doesn't *do* anything except to enable programs to run on the computer. Serious programs such as Photoshop, Quark, Dreamweaver etc enable graphic designers to produce magazines, adverts etc etc etc etc.

Would you be happy to double the cost of your dvd player, mobile phone, ipod, car etc etc just to pay for the operating system?

MS is gouging consumers because ..... they can!

And if you think that it's worth paying MS for their add-ons - Hmmmmm let me think...

IE vs Firefox
Paint vs paintshop pro
MS firewall vs zone alarm
zilch vs AVG
Wordpad vs Openoffice

not to mention the other stuff you'll need to stop fragmentation, adware, spyware etc etc.

You still think your 500 dollars are worth it?

If you want *real* value for money get ubuntu, linspire, xandros etc etc etc

Happily for you mugs/astroturfers MS is bringing out MS live which will enable you to pay them even more money to try to block out viruses, worms etc which are generally caused by MS's poor prog.... actually fuggedit - can't be bothered anymore. Carry on as you are - who cares?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by Woogbear on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Linux has an advantage over Windows and OSX by being able to upgrade 1000's of programs at the touch of a button. And have a one click install of applications.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Unbelievably generous
by Woogbear on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Unbelievably generous"
RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by protagonist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Unbelievably generous"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"Please do not compare Linux to OS X. Linux is a caveman OS compared to OS X."


Have you actually used both OS's? As one who uses both I can say that statement is ridiculous to the extreme. There are some areas where OS X is better and some where Linux is better.

Granted, OS X has the prettiest interface, before the flamers start let me say this is my opinion, and is probably a bit easier to use on a daily basis. But if you are using a Debian based Linux upgrading your software is far superior to OS X.

Linux has the advantage when it comes to fixing flaws. The Linux community is much more responsive than Apple is. The advantage on this one definitely goes to Linux.

The Mac has the advantage when it comes to finished, polished commercial programs. You can do most of the same things in Linux but it usually does take a bit more work.

In any event, I use both daily, and Windows when I have to, and I normally use OS X to take care of all my routine daily computing tasks. I use my Linux machine to just have fun. I enjoy trying new distros and looking for that amazing new program that will probably crop up in the Linux world first. Both have their place. And both are equally accomplished at what they do best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by brewmastre on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Unbelievably generous"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

cyclops:
"Linux has an advantage over Windows and OSX by being able to upgrade 1000's of programs at the touch of a button. And have a one click install of applications."

Reply to cyclops from Woogbear:
"Please do not compare Linux to OS X. Linux is a caveman OS compared to OS X."

OK, first of all, cyclops is right, Linux with the right package management system can make for an awesome system in terms of maintenance and expansion

Second, why did everyone mod down Woogbear? Ok, so his statement is rather blunt but come on, -3?! No personal attacks, or offensive language, so how can his score get lowered? Can we get a moderator in here?!

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Unbelievably generous
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Unbelievably generous"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Second, why did everyone mod down Woogbear? Ok, so his statement is rather blunt but come on, -3?! No personal attacks, or offensive language, so how can his score get lowered? Can we get a moderator in here?!

That post was completely off-topic. The article is about Vista, and the post only mentions Linux and OSX...

Posts about GIMP vs. Photoshop are also off-topic. Come on, people, stay focused!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Ummm... there's something you've missed.

IT'S ONLY THE OPERATING SYSTEM!

It doesn't *do* anything except to enable programs to run on the computer. Serious programs such as Photoshop, Quark, Dreamweaver etc enable graphic designers to produce magazines, adverts etc etc etc etc.

Would you be happy to double the cost of your dvd player, mobile phone, ipod, car etc etc just to pay for the operating system?

MS is gouging consumers because ..... they can!

And if you think that it's worth paying MS for their add-ons - Hmmmmm let me think...

IE vs Firefox
Paint vs paintshop pro
MS firewall vs zone alarm
zilch vs AVG
Wordpad vs Openoffice

not to mention the other stuff you'll need to stop fragmentation, adware, spyware etc etc.

You still think your 500 dollars are worth it?

If you want *real* value for money get ubuntu, linspire, xandros etc etc etc


Ok, let's run with your logic for a second. You say an OS doesn't do anything, but apps like Quark, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver allow professionals to get real work done. So, my question to you is this:

How many of the apps you listed have native Linux versions? Unless there's a Linux port of Quark exists that I don't know about, then the answer is zero. And therein lies the real value of Windows, which is what you can run on it. When are people going to understand this? And no, running an app on Wine with bugs and glitches doesn't count!

As for OSX, people are asking why doesn't MS offer the same deal that Apple does for 5 licensed copy of the OS. I'm guessing it is because Apple has already sold you hardware to run the OS for much more than it was actually worth, so why shouldn't they be generous with OS upgrades? MS doesn't have the hardware as a source of revenue like APple does.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

you need to read his list again...all those programs have equivalents; are native applications; built into the OS. You clearly have never used Linux.

You actually chose Quark which is not on his list, and we all know why. Although I should point out that Scribus is an alternative. Although I believe that InDesign is becoming the application of choice in that Market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Unbelievably generous
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You actually chose Quark which is not on his list, and we all know why.

Actually, it was on his list - check again.

all those programs have equivalents; are native applications

Really? Where is the Dreamweaver equivalent? I haven't seen one yet. I tried NVU, and that program is so bad, I don't even want to use it for $0, and my needs are actually pretty basic.

As for Photoshop, I dunno ... I've talked to a couple of graphics professionals who say that Gimp is nice for free, but Photoshop it is not. For those that say it is, when you ask them what they do with it, the response is usually like: "Oh, I just use it to touch up a photo every now and then." Are there any serious professionals who prefer Gimp over Photoshop for reasons that aren't related to politics?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

your right. but having checked the post His post is simply saying.

1) Its the programs not the OS.
2) Bundled programs with Microsoft have better free equivalents.

In fact he bases all his arguments on the Microsoft platform. He actually makes no references to Linux in this.

Really for all but a serious designer NVU is better for novice users, and I've used both. I secretly really rate NVU as the Mozilla suites lost treasure. It used to be really buggy, but every release is a joy to play with; its a program to watch. I really rate OpenOffices HTML export function for cleaning up Microsoft Nonsense. Dreamweaver has become a bit of a standard which is a shame because I think its really bad...but it is a standard.

You will find lots of photoshop vs gimp stuff around, and your talking a pretty niche application, if you're talking about *serious* professionals. The trouble with GIMP is it falls between the two stools of too complex for novice users and Missing some important features for *professionals* Thats not to say that graphics editing is not healthy on linux http://www.cinepaint.org/ is used in movies, and krita is a new player on the scene http://www.koffice.org/krita/ and several levels of novice users are dealt with. Gimp gets better all the time and several problems have been knocked down and this will continue to http://www.gegl.org/#GEGL

The reality of these application is they are niche; alternatives are getting better, and suit all but the most talented armature, but they are not *industry* standards. What I find most interesting of those mentioned are what I think of as traditional MAC applications, not Windows ones.

If I say picking an area as a Linux user where I think there is a *real* weakness I would say video editing...DVD authoring particularly I would say there is no application I could recommend.

Edited 2007-01-16 19:34

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Unbelievably generous
by arielb on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Unbelievably generous"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

yes on the mac you will actually find apps that you can argue are better and more interesting than windows apps. Not "just" free and open source. Linux needs those kinds of apps

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"yes on the mac you will actually find apps that you can argue are better and more interesting than windows apps. Not "just" free and open source. Linux needs those kinds of apps"

You mean like apache; mysql; mplayer; k3b; AmaroK etc.

or my personal favorite little application comix

And remember all those programs you mention cost serious money, and are niche application etc etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Unbelievably generous
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Jan 2007 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Unbelievably generous"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Bundled programs with Microsoft have better free equivalents.

Since we've already established that the real value of Windows is the 3rd party apps you can run on it, then who the hell cares about the crappy apps that are included? That's not what I use it for.

In fact he bases all his arguments on the Microsoft platform. He actually makes no references to Linux in this.

Yes, he does:

'If you want *real* value for money get ubuntu, linspire, xandros etc etc etc'

In other words, he lists all of these applications that you can't run natively on Linux, then says Linux is the better value. Somebody explain this one to me, please?

(NVU) used to be really buggy, but every release is a joy to play with; its a program to watch.

I'm running what is listed as the latest stable version - 1.0. What version should I be running? Surely, it's got to be better than this for people to speak so highly of it. I've heard it compared favorably to Dreamweaver, but I'd say it doesn't even come close to Frontpage 98 (the last version of FP that I used).

The reality of these application is they are niche

You're right, but I'm saying that there are a lot of niche applications out there ;) Even soccer moms I know have their own niche apps. Anything vailable on Linux that you can print out calendars that includes with it an assload of Disney clipart? A friend of mine is an absolute slut for Pooh, and this is her 'killer app' ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Unbelievably generous
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Unbelievably generous"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I've heard it compared favorably to Dreamweaver, but I'd say it doesn't even come close to Frontpage 98

*spits drink over keyboard*

For the love of GOD, is nothing sacred?! Frontpage? That unspeakable abomination?? You must be joking...

I haven't tried NVU, but if you want a good web creation app on Linux, go for Quanta. It won't do all that Dreamweaver does, but it sure as hell is better than Frontpage...

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by antwarrior on Tue 16th Jan 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

I don't even understand why you are making such comparisons. It doesn't matter what argument you come up with for microsoft in favour of OSX pricing , microsofts operating system is still over priced. And I think many of us are missing the point. The piece of software is "JUST" an operating system. You can't do anything useful with it until you run programs on top of it. Vista may promise to do a lot of things but it's work a plug nickel apart from the programs that run on top of it.

So the arguments of gimp vs photoshop , quark vs scribus etc ,really are not worth having. ... they stray from the point. Is it worth forking out so much cash for an operating system , which is almost the same price as a new machine , when all it REALLY REALLY does is execute programs ..... please nobody even mention the "applications" that come with vista as a counter argument.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by cmost on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Let's compare notes. I mixed one copy of Linux with one copy of GIMP. I've got what Vista plus Photoshop would offer for the cost of a CD-R and a few minutes with my package manger. Why on earth would one want to pay $399.00 for the OS and another $400.00+ for Photoshop when they could have similar functionality for nothing? Oh wait, someone might have to overcome some brainwashing and that might prove too difficult.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by unoengborg on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, GIMP+Linux will do almost the same things as Vista+Photoshop.

The problem is that they will not do it the same way. It takes years to master Photshop and not all of that knowledge can easily be transfered to GIMP. The cost of retraining is much higher than the cost of Vista+Photoshop, so people will not switch until Linux+GIMP is significantly better than Vista+Photoshop.

It is also safe to assume that most home users of Photoshop have found some way of using it without paying full Adobe prices for it. A pirated version of Vista and Photoshop is just as inexpensive as Linux+GIMP. (At least until the BSA shows up).

Other things that hold people back is that they want to use the same program at home as at work, and the program at work seldom is Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by airjrdn on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
airjrdn Member since:
2006-07-27

Linux is only free if your time has no value.

There are too many basic functionality issues with Linux to make switching to it worth a couple hundred buck savings for the average Joe.

Hardware support - while constantly improving, is still nowhere as widespread as it is in Windows.

Recouping from screwups - have the average Joe install the wrong video drivers in Linux and let's see him muck his way back into X when presented with the ever-so-useful command prompt. In Windows the worst that happens is 640x480.

Installing software - yeah, it's easy if it's part of the distro's packaging repository, but what if it isn't? Can your mom download the development tools and compile her own apps?

Software configs - why is it I can answer a few questions during the setup of a Windows app but to do the same for the majority of Linux apps I have to edit text files? That went away with Windows 3.1 and should have gone away for Linux by now too.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

@airjrdn I liked your post.

Windows is only $399 if your time is no Value. Linux is easier to maintain than a Microsoft OS

There are no basic functionality issues with Linux; No advanced features in a Microsoft OS. Although I'm happy for you to explain what you mean.

In Windows an novice user mucks up *video drivers* its the same with X. The config file is a pain and will be gone with the X-org 7.3

My mum will *never* be in the situation where she will have to compile her own application. She will never want anything obscure or cutting edge *ever*

Even an experienced windows user will struggle with the registry. but like Linux has graphical programs that can chage settings.

-----------------------------------------------------

Off-topic
=========
Clearly you do not use linux so you have a misconseption about the command line. It is simply a different method of input that a power-user(sic) can use to do various tasks.

Many skillful Windows user also use this mode for recovery tasks etc.

I point this out because the advantages of text files over a registry or even a XML file are invaluble to a user; A login without a graphical is important especially if there is a problem with a windows drivers.

There are lots of problems with Linux but these aren't them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by jaypee on Tue 16th Jan 2007 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
jaypee Member since:
2005-07-28

Honestly, the "average Joe" everyone refers to has problems with Windows, too. I have made a good bit of extra money helping people remove spyware and virii from Windows PCs. "Average Joe" and "Average Jane" also have trouble installing the right print drivers, video drivers, modem/lan drivers, etc.

So, as long as they have a computer set up for them and never need to install new hardware or software, you're right, they're fine. But, if anything changes or breaks, they can be equally confused with Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Unbelievably generous
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Jan 2007 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Unbelievably generous"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

But, if anything changes or breaks, they can be equally confused with Windows.

True, but if something changes or breaks in Windows, they can usually find help, either from a friend 'who knows computers' or down the street at CompUSA for $100. If something breaks on their Linux box, who are they going to get support from? I personally don't know any Linux gurus, and if you call a hardware vendor for support and you're running Linux, they're usually gonna tell you to go f**k yourself.

And Grandpa Joe ain't gonna be hitting Google to find out why something isn't working right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by aGNUstic on Tue 16th Jan 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Unbelievably generous"
aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

`... Grandpa Joe ain't gonna be hitting Google to find out why something isn't working right.`

No. He is going to surfin' into those nice little porn sites lookin` at all them pretty girls on a Winders` box.

I should know ... I repair and rebuild enough of these machines.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Unbelievably generous
by archiesteel on Wed 17th Jan 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Unbelievably generous"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

If something breaks on their Linux box, who are they going to get support from?

...the person who installed it for them?

That said, it's very hard for a newbie to be able to break his/her Linux box in the first place - a lot harder than it is on Windows.

Off-topic, by the way. This isn't a Linux vs. Windows thread. Keep your usual criticism of Linux for the appropriate articles, please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by ma_d on Tue 16th Jan 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Hardware support - You mean that it's not as well matched to the subset of hardware that the typical consumer has. In reality Linux supports more devices, but these aren't the kind you find on a typical Dell.

Recouping from screwups - This usually renders a Windows install useless. Occasionally you can perform a quick reinstall and then install the right drivers, but sometimes it requires a full format and then a full reinstall before choosing the correct driver. It's not a lot easier to fix in Linux if you have no idea what you'e doing, but there are forums to help with that for the more socially capable end users with little fear ;) .


Installing software - Probably not, and she shouldn't. More and more programs come on autopackage now, which seems to work about 80% of the time (which kind of sucks, but it's getting better and better).
And my mom can't even operate a mouse an keyboard, so let's not talk about her ;) .

Software configs - You're lying. The majority of graphical Linux applications support dialogs for the things that typical users will change. A large group support dialogs for virtually every setting anyone would care about, and another large group filters this way down (KDE vs Gnome basically). Most encourage only obsessive people to head into their config files as config file parsers are often basic and easily broken by bad edits and even the robust ones still require very carefully crafted tokens for it to work (this is why config files suck to make changes in, that and relaunching the program).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by Xaero_Vincent on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

The difference is simple. Millions of people pirate Photoshop. Windows Vista isn't piratable because of WGA and the 30-day kill switch.

So it makes no sense but to buy Vista with a new computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Thats a strange statement to make when WGA is a new development even in the computing world.

Perhaps Photoshop is pirateable for a reason.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Unbelievably generous
by Woogbear on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Unbelievably generous"
Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

...because it helps Adobe control market share.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by Rugmonster on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
Rugmonster Member since:
2005-11-18

Windows Vista isn't piratable because of WGA and the 30-day kill switch.

Cause WGA is foolproof...
http://keznews.com/1957_New_Vista_RTM_Timer_Stopper_Crack

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by Bobe on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

Photoshop has a similar technology to activation in order to prevent piracy. I own Photoshop, but I don't own Windows, so I'm not sure how well their activation scheme is implemented compared to Microsoft's.

I do know that Photoshop allows you to install onto two machine that you own though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by CharAznable on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
CharAznable Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a ridiculous comparison. Photoshop is a professional level application, made for people who make a living using it. Your $450 dollars is an investment.

Complexity has nothing to do with it, because the marginal cost of software is exactly zero. It costs nothing to make another copy. Windows will make back its development cost by selling a lot more copies than Photoshop. Charging 400 bucks for it is totally insane.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by Woogbear on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

The average user does not need Photoshop. It is a waste of disk space.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by airjrdn on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
airjrdn Member since:
2006-07-27

Rediculous? How so? If I have to pay 40x the number of developers, and each of those developers want paid, it costs more to create Windows than Photoshop.

Your OS is an investment too, as is all of your software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Unbelievably generous
by jakesdad on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Unbelievably generous"
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

With that rational they should have had Vista out the door 40x faster ;)
Basically you are paying for bloat... And not just in the OS, you are paying for corporate bloat and subsidizing loss leaders.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by ma_d on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Unbelievably generous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

People make a living by using Photoshop. Most Windows users require Windows to make a living but only because the program they really need happens to run in that environment, not because Windows code is significantly helping them generate valuable content.

And Adobe has kept customers happy with Photoshop, Microsoft has not kept its customers happy but instead has been investigated by the justice department ;) .

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Most Windows users require Windows to make a living"

For most windows user, a browser and a CV maker is all they need. Although they are either not aware of alternatives; cannot use them; have other things in there with there lives life's like sports or soaps.

Windows strength is familiar; available. For most users there is not *that* application that doesn't work on an alternative platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Unbelievably generous
by Woogbear on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:18 UTC in reply to "Unbelievably generous"
Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

Apple's Family Pac is for 5 licenses and costs only $179. Microsoft could easily do the same thing and still be very profitable. The difference is that Microsoft's primary orientation is toward to corporate market and not the consumer market. This offer is more for appearances than generosity. I suspect there will be only a very few who would take avantage of this 'offer'.

Why is the offer for two additional copies of Home Premium and not Ultimate? All the versions of Vista are available on the DVD, except for Enterprise, the difference being determined by which product key you use. so it would not cost Microsoft any more to give 2 additional Ultimate product keys.

Don't get me wrong, I am using Vista already and love it, but we cannot afford their 'Family' Pack, so my computer will be the only on to have Vista until the time comes to replace a computer. The money spent on a 'Family' Pack could well go to the purchase of a new computer instead.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by PowerMacX on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

"Why is the offer for two additional copies of Home Premium and not Ultimate? All the versions of Vista are available on the DVD, except for Enterprise, the difference being determined by which product key you use. so it would not cost Microsoft any more to give 2 additional Ultimate product keys."

Some answers:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Unbelievably generous
by MollyC on Tue 16th Jan 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unbelievably generous"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"The difference is that Microsoft's primary orientation is toward to corporate market and not the consumer market."

I think corporations already get a discount via volume licenses anyway.


"This offer is more for appearances than generosity. I suspect there will be only a very few who would take avantage of this 'offer'."

The same goes for Mac, though. I've known many that copy OSX to multiple machines, regardless of the "Family Pac".

Regarding this MS deal (which doesn't sound like it's been finalized), it's a step in the right direction, but sucks, IMO. If it were up to me, I'd do a "Family Pac" for Home and Home Premium. I don't think I'd be as generous as Apple's. :p I'm thinking $200 for four Home licenses and $250 for four Home Premium. I wouldn't offer any family pack for Ultimate. Or maybe, a pack of 1 ultimate and 3 home (which I guess is the current proposal).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Unbelievably generous
by Edward on Tue 16th Jan 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "Unbelievably generous"
Edward Member since:
2005-09-17

Ya I know, MS is so greedy. For $600 I could get a PS3, I would do that before paying out $400 for Vista Home.

Reply Score: 1

Its a good move by Microsoft.
by cyclops on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:43 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Its simply about stopping the home user buying one "retail" copy from Microsoft, and copying it onto the other machines at home.

This is not viewed on as *naughty* even though Vista's 5765 word says as so. Although they fully understand that if they ever enforced this, there would lots of bad press.

So all they have just done, is made it not worthwhile breaking the EULA. They can always ramp up the prices later.

The only thing that I particularly object to is its for the "Premium" package which is far too expensive, and have crippled home as to make it a non-upgrade. I feel like I'm forced to buy Ultimate if I went the Vista route.

Edited 2007-01-16 14:55

Reply Score: 3

RE: Its a good move by Microsoft.
by bailey86 on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:22 UTC in reply to "Its a good move by Microsoft."
bailey86 Member since:
2005-10-14

Thought that product activation stopped the installation on to other machines?

Reply Score: 2

drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

Only on bought copies. Dovnloaded versions have product activation disabled. (One more reason to download, and not to buy.) (If the price tag isn't enough of a reason.)

Reply Score: 1

Rugmonster Member since:
2005-11-18

How many average users know where they can download Windows for free? Much less, how many would be able to follow a guide to crack activation? My experience says they are pretty much stuck paying for what they get.

Reply Score: 1

MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

It may not be "generous", but why should a household that has several computers under constant use be subsidized by people who limit themselves to one PC? And that is exactly what is happening when somebody buys one copy of Windows to use on several computers. Think about it: Microsoft needs a way to recoup development and support costs, as well as reporting a profit.

As for those who want free goodies, just do what I do: use open source. You don't have to pay, you don't have restrictions, you don't have a bad conscious, and you don't have to fret about the law. In my books, any one of those four would make open source an excellent deal!

Reply Score: 1

Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

Microsoft would still be very profitable if it offered the full version of Ultimate for $129. There is no need for six different versions of Vista.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I find your post distasteful. Microsoft have Billions stored up and is a monopoly.

your not "subsidizing" anyone.

Edited 2007-01-16 15:46

Reply Score: 5

brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

"I find your post distasteful. Microsoft have Billions stored up and is a monopoly.

your not "subsidizing" anyone."

So what, you mod him down? His post is not distasteful. MacTo makes a perfectly valid point. Microsoft is only somewhat a monopoly. You can go to Dell's site right now and buy a new computer with XP or Red Hat. Now honestly, how many people do you think are really going to opt for Red Hat? I personally think any flavour of Linux is superior to any version of Windows but people just want familiarity.

Reply Score: 1

MAC OS X Family Pack as an example
by rswiz on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:31 UTC
rswiz
Member since:
2007-01-16

Why doesn't MS follow Apple's steps? I recently bought a family pack (5) licenses of MAC OS X for $250 CDN. I am sure that even if MS wants to make some cash a $300 or $350 family pack makes a heckuva lot of sense for the HOME user in terms of dollars and does wonders for consumer relations.

My two cents.

Reply Score: 5

Woogbear Member since:
2006-07-12

That is because Microsoft does nto understand the comsumer market like Apple does. They are primarily focussed on the corporate world.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"That is because Microsoft does nto understand the comsumer market like Apple does. They are primarily focussed on the corporate world."

It could be that it's because Apple sells the hardware. Sure, one can pirate retail versions of OSX (and many do pirate OSX upgrades), but you still can only run it on hardware bought from Apple, so Apple at least made *something* off of you. But Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. If one pirates Windows, then Microsoft has made nothing in the deal.

Then again, I don't think this is a piracy issue. Activation stops most casual piracy. Those that take the measures required to circumvent product activation are hardcore pirates who couldn't care less about a family pack to begin with. This is more about getting more people to upgrade. If one has 4 computers, then he's more likely to upgrade all 4 to Vista if a family pack is available.

Reply Score: 2

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft don't know where they are focusing. Vista is anything but corporate. Massive hardware specs, gadgets, glass - this is a consumer OS with an Enterprise price. They should have stuck with the W2K design

Reply Score: 3

Micrososft office
by The Terran on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:47 UTC
The Terran
Member since:
2006-11-07

Interesting enough I bought Microsoft Office for Students & Teachers which cost approx £120 (can't remember the exact amount - was a year ago) but that was licensed for up to 3 home PC's which was handy as I had 3 pc's to install it on

I think they should do something similar with Visa

Reply Score: 1

RE: Micrososft office
by ma_d on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "Micrososft office"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I pay about $100 a year and I used to get limitless XP Pro licenses for free, now I get one for life and still pay the same. The educational trend with Microsoft doesn't seem to be to give out more software these days...

It took us years to get Office 2003.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Micrososft office
by DrillSgt on Tue 16th Jan 2007 22:42 UTC in reply to "Micrososft office"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Interesting enough I bought Microsoft Office for Students & Teachers which cost approx £120 (can't remember the exact amount - was a year ago) but that was licensed for up to 3 home PC's which was handy as I had 3 pc's to install it on

I think they should do something similar with Visa"


That's great if you have students in the house. Some of us don't have that option unfortunately.

Reply Score: 2

People are forgetting
by shotsman on Tue 16th Jan 2007 18:31 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

That the sums look worse when you replace full blown Photoshop with Elements which is far far cheaper than the $400+ quoted. This does everything that over 90% of amateurs need in a photo editing package.

IMHO, this move is aimed at the average users who don't know how to pirate their O/S. I am sure that there will be a good but limited takeup of this offer. Many will baulk at the $399 cost of a full retail version of Ultimate especially when they have just shelled out for an OEM version with their shiny new PC.

The Apple Family License is far more sendible and easier to understand and more importantly justify to a family.
Edit spelling

Edited 2007-01-16 18:32

Reply Score: 1

Happy to be danish...
by brostenen on Tue 16th Jan 2007 21:52 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

I'm from Denmark.
Here the EULA comes SECOND.
So if the law says that u can use something on different types of hardware, then U are allowed.

So....
If i as a dane, in denmark, buy a piece of software, then i am able to install it on as many different types of computer as I please, as long as it is on one machine at a time..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Happy to be danish...
by h3rman on Wed 17th Jan 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "Happy to be danish..."
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

I'm from Denmark.
Here the EULA comes SECOND.
So if the law says that u can use something on different types of hardware, then U are allowed.
(..)
If i as a dane, in denmark, buy a piece of software, then i am able to install it on as many different types of computer as I please, as long as it is on one machine at a time..


Are you really sure? I thought MS type EULA say that when you're not able to comply with both the EULA ánd local laws, you should be so kind not to use the software and return it.

Reply Score: 2

What?
by twenex on Wed 17th Jan 2007 01:29 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

You mean by not buying four copies of Vista, instead of saving £1600 I'll only be saving £550?! You bastards!

Edited 2007-01-17 01:35

Reply Score: 2

Ultimate is not selling
by roger64 on Wed 17th Jan 2007 01:54 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

If Microsoft is still fine-tuning its prices, there must be,IMHO, but one reason: Ultimate is not selling well at all and they have to make it more attractive without looking as they were backpedaling on previously published prices.

Hope they will think about ten -and more- children families...maybe at that time I will think about it again ;-)

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

So you install Vista on your old computer, and it runs like cr@p. Now you have to get new PCs since you've already invested so much.

Reply Score: 2

YEs it does.
by brostenen on Wed 17th Jan 2007 09:21 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

H3rman:
Yes I am shure.
In Denmark, the national law IS ABOVE the "company's law", (in this case the EULA).

In denmark, software is considered as a stand alone product, so U are allowed to install it on as many different machines as U please, or do whatever u want as long as it is not illegal (cracking and so).
Still, only if it is on one machine at a time (one license pr. machine).

The same as buying spareparts for your mercedes, wich is not the original mercedes parts, then U are allowed to install it.
And the mercedes company are not granted the right to stop U in doing it.
The only problem here, is that U are not covered by some type of refund or so, if it makes the rest of the car crash or destoy other parts, or something like that.

Also.
U are allowed to remove the copy protection of dvd's and music-cd's, as long as it is for the use of the product (linux and so).
U are allowed to remove copy-protection to make a single backup for protection of U'r purchage.
Here, the national law, is STILL above "company-law".

Edited 2007-01-17 09:22

Reply Score: 1

A nother thing!!!
by brostenen on Wed 17th Jan 2007 09:27 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

H3rman
If this is right, that U have to comply....
Then NO microsoft product are sold the way microsoft want to...
In other words, they are in there right to stop selling in denmark, and then abandon denmark for good....

It's something we call consumerlaw.

Edited 2007-01-17 09:40

Reply Score: 1