Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2007 12:28 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Windows Critics who blasted Microsoft three months ago for failing to deliver Windows Vista add-ons have again called the company on the carpet, this time for missing its self-imposed deadline to provide promised extras. In late June, bloggers and users were already panning Vista Ultimate Extras as a bust. Extras, available only to customers running the top-end Vista edition, was one of the features cited by Microsoft to distinguish the USD 399 operating system from its USD 239 cousin, Home Premium. Microsoft's online marketing, for instance, touted Extras as 'cutting-edge programs, innovative services, and unique publications' that would be regularly offered to Ultimate users.
Order by: Score:
haha
by liamdawe on Tue 25th Sep 2007 12:40 UTC
liamdawe
Member since:
2006-07-04

Gutted is all i can say. Why even bother with Microsoft, you can't say you actually expected to receive goods with all the crap around Vista going on right now.

Reply Score: 13

I'm disapointed
by SReilly on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:06 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

...but not really all that surprised and hardly able to complain.

Vista Ultimate is the first version of Windows I have bought, ever, so I can hardly start complaining to Microsoft about delivering the goods, seeming how I have spend many years using they're operating systems without paying them a dime.

What I find lacking in common courtesy is MS not providing for all they're long standing customers and enthusiasts who have been buying Windows for years. Ultimate is targeted at the serious enthusiast, yet MS has failed to deliver. When the enthusiast get disappointed, platform evangelism tends to get curbed.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they make good with SP1 and deal with the stability and performance kinks, then I can wait a while longer for the Extras.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm disapointed
by gustl on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:08 UTC in reply to "I'm disapointed"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Are you sure you pirated their SW?

Because usually you got a preinstalled Windows when you bought the computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm disapointed
by SReilly on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm disapointed"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I have been building my own machines for a very long time. ;-)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I'm disapointed
by Laurence on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm disapointed"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Are you sure you pirated their SW?

Because usually you got a preinstalled Windows when you bought the computer."


I think most people on here either build their own PCs or know someone who knows how to build a computer.

Ultimately it's the smarter option: it's cheaper and you get a tailored system for your specific requirements.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I'm disapointed
by KugelKurt on Wed 26th Sep 2007 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm disapointed"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

it's cheaper

I'm sorry, but often that claim is just false. When you buy single parts, the distributor has a quite high profit margin for every single piece of hardware.
If you buy a complete system, the profit margin is applied to the PC as a whole.
This, of course, strongly depends on where you buy the system. Bigger distributors have a very small profit margin and hope to sell a lot system to compensate the smaller margin.

I gave up building my own PCs years ago. The price for retail PCs is lower or at least the same, the warranty is longer, and the service is often better.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I'm disapointed
by SReilly on Wed 26th Sep 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm disapointed"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

The price for retail PCs is lower or at least the same, the warranty is longer, and the service is often better.

Absolutely correct. With midrange to low end PCs, it's cheaper to buy from a large OEM.

The difference, in my experience, is when dealing with high end systems. The cost of a high end system from Dell or HP can be considerably more then when assembling from bought components. Usually, large OEMs offset this by adding free memory upgrades or price reductions on monitors and other peripherals.

So, knowing this, why do I roll my own? It's quite simple, control. I want to select each and every component that goes into my machine. I don't want sub standard RAM, or a HD with a slow seek time and only 8mb of catch.

If you know a good internet hardware component vendor, you can also get OEM components for far cheaper then retail price. Usually these online stores offer price reduction deals for spending a certain amount of money per order.

But most of all, it gives me a feeling of enormous well being to be able to assemble a machine. I suppose a car mechanic would probably feel the same after having restored or assembled a car.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm disapointed
by startxjeff on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm disapointed"
startxjeff Member since:
2006-09-29

Uh, hate to tell you, but enthusiasts generally do not buy Dell or HP. They go to newegg or frys, buy parts that they want and install whatever OS.

I myself, bought an OEM Vista Home Premium two weeks ago for an MPC machine, and also installed Debian 64 on a different machine for doing real computer work (ie: development).

Both machines are my own creation.

The Vista box is the appliance PC -- it's hooked to the big screen TV for movies and games, with digital wireless audio for stereo. It's the brain dead box - a glorified DVR appliance that looks pretty on the TV, and people say - "wow you have your computer hooked up to the TV?" when they visit, and I correct them. "No, my computer is upstairs. This is the Vista media zombie".


btw - an OEM copy of Vista Home Premium on newegg is only a little over 100 bucks. Too bad it's hardware locked - as you can never upgrade a computer with the OEM copy of Vista. (you have to get retail version for that)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I'm disapointed
by MNKyDeth on Tue 25th Sep 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm disapointed"
MNKyDeth Member since:
2006-07-24

btw - an OEM copy of Vista Home Premium on newegg is only a little over 100 bucks. Too bad it's hardware locked - as you can never upgrade a computer with the OEM copy of Vista. (you have to get retail version for that)


Actually, I have tested this theory and all you have to do is tell the people on the phone that the motherboard was defective. They instantly proceed to activate vista.

Edited 2007-09-25 19:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm disapointed
by SReilly on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm disapointed"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Thanks for that, I really am gonna need it. :-)

Reply Score: 2

When to pay?
by gustl on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:06 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

And here we see again: Do not pay, unless ALL contract points are fulfilled.

Reply Score: 4

SUE!
by stestagg on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:14 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

Everyone who bought Vista Ultimate should individually sue Microsoft for breach of contract or something (whatever the US Equivalent of a small-claims hearing is). Even if you don't have a valid case, it will seriously mess with Microsofts Legal department and maybe MS will spend more than the $100 that they conned you out of trying to fix the problem ;) .

Reply Score: 6

RE: SUE!
by SReilly on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:21 UTC in reply to "SUE!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I'd love two sure MS, just for the shear hell of it, but starting a legal claim in the EU tends to be quite a bit more expensive then in the states (something I find makes for allot less stupid lawsuits, but that's off topic).

Thing is, ain't no one stopping all you US citizens. ;-)

Edited 2007-09-25 13:21 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: SUE!
by stestagg on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: SUE!"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Well, aparrently, a small claims proceeding (certainly suitable here) costs £30 or £50 (depending on the exact ammount being claimed for), and the cost of a solicitor if you use one. Most of this can be recovered if (when) you win.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SUE!
by SReilly on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SUE!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Sure, in the UK. But in Luxembourg (and most other European countries) suing someone is quite a bit more expensive with no guarantees of getting your money back, plus you don't automatically get the money back of the defendant if you win a claims case, at least in Luxembourg.

The idea is to try and keep under control what could possibly become a litigation culture, something the US is having a hard time with considering all the added crap that comes alone with one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SUE!
by Spellcheck on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SUE!"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

If you don't receive your "claim" when you win a *small claims* case, assuming the company is solvent, then you haven't made a small claim -- it's something else entirely. Small claims is for disputes over small amounts of money. For example, a rebate or refund improperly honored or an outrageous bill that the company won't correct after asking them to repeatedly (usually bait and switch situations).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SUE!
by Doc Pain on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SUE!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Up to this point, a civil lawsuit has been considered. But what about a criminal one?

In Germany, you have the option to formulate a criminal complaint at your local police station, the criminal investigation department, or the public prosecutor's department. This is for free (as long as you don't involve a lawyer to assist you). You accuse MICROS~1 of fraud, because the features they claimed to be included in their product weren't present in fact. This would be a criminal offense.

But I won't think any state prosecutor will take such an accusation to court, because any public interest would be denied.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: SUE!
by Spellcheck on Fri 28th Sep 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SUE!"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

No. It's a breach of contract, at most.

Reply Score: 1

RE: SUE!
by looncraz on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:02 UTC in reply to "SUE!"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

This would fall under breach of contract and/or false advertising, depending on the wording MS used to 'promise' said product(s).

This could be done in the U.S. for about $50 without a lawyer ( you will lose, the judges are too corrupt for the most part ), or with a lawyer for another chunk ranging from $400 to $2,500, all in a small claims court, but you will likely still lose. Unless you run into one of the few non-business minded judges, or one who has some brains ( VERY UNLIKELY, these people are generally elected, and aren't always required to even have legal experience (though this is a more per-county and per-precinct concern, the vastly numerous smaller local courts ).

For false advertising, contact the BBB (better business bureau) and other consumer protection agency's ( such as the CPA :-)) to fight the battle, then you can file a civil class-action ( or solo ) suit to recover perceived damages. This would require a few phones calls, some gas money, filing fees near $50. Sadly, the extras will likely be delivered before you get a hearing, but the BBB could have filed against them already on behalf of consumers should enough complain. This will lead to larger results with little of your input. The problem is known.

So, those of you who bought the products.. call the Consumer Protection Agency and the Better Business Bureau, it may not get anything done, but it should have the effect of the both agencies launching investigations or queries, and possibly even taking action ( normally outside of the court system, MS would have a big bill regardless ).

Then, if you must, file a small-claims suit to recover lost product value. Though, MS will just throw the EULA which no one reads at you. You know, the thing where it says you are MS's biatch???

--The loon

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: SUE!
by elsewhere on Tue 25th Sep 2007 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE: SUE!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

This would fall under breach of contract and/or false advertising, depending on the wording MS used to 'promise' said product(s).

This could be done in the U.S. for about $50 without a lawyer ( you will lose, the judges are too corrupt for the most part ), or with a lawyer for another chunk ranging from $400 to $2,500, all in a small claims court, but you will likely still lose. Unless you run into one of the few non-business minded judges, or one who has some brains ( VERY UNLIKELY, these people are generally elected, and aren't always required to even have legal experience (though this is a more per-county and per-precinct concern, the vastly numerous smaller local courts ).


There was no contract, and false advertising isn't something that generally can be handled in small claims court. Any argument would have to be based on claiming that MS committed to future benefits in exchange for purchasing the product presently, but in the absence of anything specific with timelines or detailed descriptions, MS likely wouldn't be on the hook for anything.

Arguing for damages would be difficult, because MS could argue that the plaintiff had full use of the OS, with features unavailable in lower-priced versions. The best you could hope for is MS being forced to refund the purchase price.

BUT, and here's the best part, depending on the locale and the claim amount, there's a very good chance that MS wouldn't even bother or be able to send a representative. In fact, that's something many people rely on when suing larger organizations in small claims court for nominal amounts of money.

Failure to show by the defendant will almost always result in an automatic claim in favor of the plaintiff (at least in Canada, but AFAIK it's similar in the US) assuming that the complaint isn't too far off the wall. Once you have that judgement, you then have options available to exercise that claim.

So, it's a crap shoot going the small claims route, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. I suspect MS would have a much harder time dealing with thousands of ankle-biting small claims cases across the country than they would with a nice-and-tidy class action suit that their lawyers are much better suited for. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: SUE!
by looncraz on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SUE!"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Exactly, and excellent points.

How things work at the local level, sadly, changes wildly depending upon which court is handling the small-claims.

I am sure this couldn't be handled at the j.p.'s office, so you would likely need to go to a larger municipal court, which in 'smaller' towns ( say < 25,000 pop ) is likely to be under-staffed (or 'over-booked') most of the time. These judges are generally hard-a$$e$ who just want you out of the court room, others actually care.

Small claims ain't gonna get you a jury, or a fair verdict normally ( if both sides are present ), but rushed judges may well be more likely to listen to the claim and see your side of it quicker, simply because they are rushed. So, simply, if you're gonna do it, try and get some intel on the judge first. Reading his BIO will tell you *NOTHING*. Instead, just sit in the court-room for a few days prior watching the judge work, and figure out how he runs his court-room.

If you can impress the judge by acting just how he wants, and present information exactly, it might not even matter if your facts are valid. Ahh.. the wonderful world of psychology.

--The loon

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: SUE!
by Obscurus on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SUE!"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Here in Australia, this sort of thing falls under the Jurisdiction of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), although the ACCC has been a bit of a toothless tiger when it comes to investigating big companies like MS and administering the Trade Practises Act 1974. Anyone could make a complaint to the ACCC, provided you have exhausted all of the other avenues (writing to the company, small claims etc), and they would investigate the matter. In theory, the ACCC wields a big stick, but in practise they don't often use it to great effect. By the time you have jumped through all of the hoops to get a resolution from the ACCC, Microsoft would have released the next version of Windows...

Reply Score: 2

Ultimate cd's
by MNKyDeth on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:25 UTC
MNKyDeth
Member since:
2006-07-24

Doesn't the Ultimate dvd's MS sells have both the 32x and x86_64 version of vista on them?
If so, I am pretty sure this is what they meant by "unique publications".

I also assume "innovative services" means the windows update service. As MS puts more checking software in it than anyone and how they make sure it gets on your machine does get more inovative.

Oh and the "cutting-edge programs" has just got to be the updated cmd front-end wich will now let you use tab completion. lol

Reply Score: 7

RE: Ultimate cd's
by TemporalBeing on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "Ultimate cd's"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

All Microsoft distributed Vista DVD's have every version of Vista on them - x86, and x86-64, as well as everything from Home to Ultimate. However, you only get a license for one of those editions.

For example, you'll get a Vista DVD, and a license for Vista Ultimate 32-bit x86, or you'll get a license for Vista Ultimate 64-bit x86 (x86-64). You could use the same DVD to install both licenses, but you cannot take the 32-bit x86 license and use it to install the Vista Ultimate 64-bit x86 version.

Nor could you take the Vista Home Edition license and use it to install Vista Business Edition - or Vista Ultimate and use it to install Vista Home Edition.

Since they are distributing the software this way, expect that there will at some point, likely in the next year, a crack that will allow you to install one of the other versions - or perhaps even upgrade from one version to another. It wouldn't surprise me if the cracker network already had such a crack; but eventually it'll be out in the open.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ultimate cd's
by baadger on Tue 25th Sep 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Ultimate cd's"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

All Microsoft distributed Vista DVD's have every version of Vista on them - x86, and x86-64


No they don't, I have an official MSDN x86 only ISO of RTM right here, and I have a friend who bought a retail copy of Vista "x64" and his media only has x86_64 install options.

As far as I know, there is no *official* all in one disc shipping both x86 and x86_64 install options.

All Vista media does include all *editions* of Vista, but not all *architectures*.

You could use the same DVD to install both licenses, but you cannot take the 32-bit x86 license and use it to install the Vista Ultimate 64-bit x86 version.


Wrong again, I have a license for Vista Business Edition (Essentially the same as Home Premium with a few minor differences) provided to me for free via university.

The download link provided is an x86 ISO, but I had no problems using the CD key (Which is unique to me, all students have different keys, I checked) and installing and activating an x86_64 install using my friends "x64" media.

Since they are distributing the software this way, expect that there will at some point, likely in the next year, a crack that will allow you to install one of the other versions - or perhaps even upgrade from one version to another.


Cracks have bee readily available for Vista activation since *before* RTM and the current generation of cracks will 'activate' any edition in either x86 or x86_64 flavors. Microsoft themselves make it possible to install any edition of Vista from any media without inserting a CD key during install...just leave the field blank.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ultimate cd's
by broken_symlink on Wed 26th Sep 2007 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Ultimate cd's"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

the fact that you are saying that there is no publicly available crack is news to me. i thought vista would of been cracked a week before it came out ;-p maybe the crackers just don't care anymore and have moved on to linux or maybe they are afraid of running vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ultimate cd's
by Laurence on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "Ultimate cd's"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Oh and the "cutting-edge programs" has just got to be the updated cmd front-end wich will now let you use tab completion."


This was available in XP too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ultimate cd's
by MNKyDeth on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Ultimate cd's"
MNKyDeth Member since:
2006-07-24

Using a clients computer wich has XP on it and it doesn't seem to use tab completion. Guess there is someplace to enable it.
You must also realize my post was a joke and a poke at vista. Yes I have vista on another comp as I had to learn it in order to fix it at my job.
I'm just thankfull my job allows me to use any OS I want whenever I want to do my job. My job is stupid easy as long as I can use Linux or BSD. Make me use MS OS's and then I would have to actually work.

Never used a mac OS so I cannot comment on those.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ultimate cd's
by Laurence on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ultimate cd's"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Using a clients computer wich has XP on it and it doesn't seem to use tab completion. Guess there is someplace to enable it. "


IIRC there is no option to enable/disable it.
It's definitely on XP though: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310530#appliesto

I know you were only joking though - I was just being pedantic (sorry).

Reply Score: 2

stop using MS
by it9985 on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:26 UTC
it9985
Member since:
2007-09-25

Like the idea to sue MS. Bill Gate is going to promise more feature in the next release of Windows.

Reply Score: 5

v stop using MS
by it9985 on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:35 UTC
$160 screen saver?
by mzilikazi on Tue 25th Sep 2007 13:48 UTC
mzilikazi
Member since:
2006-02-11

Pardon my ignorance but how does a video screen saver and some language packs equate to "cutting-edge programs, innovative services, and unique publications"? The language packs can't even be considered useful for all users of Vista so........they paid $160 for a screen saver?

Reply Score: 11

RE: $160 screen saver?
by spikeb on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:03 UTC in reply to "$160 screen saver?"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

nobody ever said Vista users were all that bright

Reply Score: 15

RE: $160 screen saver?
by wakeupneo on Wed 26th Sep 2007 08:41 UTC in reply to "$160 screen saver?"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

But getting people to actually pay $160 for a screensaver IS innovative! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Moths to a flame.
by systyrant on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:07 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

Sometimes I look at Microsoft customers like the proverbial idiot who keeps sticking his hand into the fire. Well, mainly the ones who still complain every time they get burned by Microsoft.

Maybe people should stop buying OS based on how pretty they look and instead buy based on how well it suit their needs. Of course saying that is almost as tired as complaining Microsoft users.

Microsoft is Microsoft. If you haven't figured out hey they work yet you might not be smart enough to even own a computer.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Moths to a flame.
by KugelKurt on Wed 26th Sep 2007 08:14 UTC in reply to "Moths to a flame."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe people should stop buying OS based on how pretty they look

If most people bought an OS by the looks of it, WinXP had never been a success.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Moths to a flame.
by systyrant on Wed 26th Sep 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Moths to a flame."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Quite right. Most people don't really buy an OS based on it's looks. Most people get the OS with a new computer purchase. They don't really have to make a choice as it's already made for them. However, if computers came with no OS (starting today) and the consumer was left with the first choice I would assume that most would choose Windows and they might just pick the prettier version. Well, maybe. ;)

** A side thought

If people were "smart" would they dump Windows and buy Linux or an Apple computer? Probably not. I don't think the majority of people dislike Windows or even Microsoft. The average user doesn't get caught up in these religious debates. For most people it's about getting the job done and Windows can do that.

Of course I always hold out hope that someday Linux will prevail at the desktop and server OS for the majority of computers. Not because I think it's the best, but rather because I like it's openness.

Reply Score: 2

from the article...
by jtrapp on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:08 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

My favorite quote:

"The only 'ultimate' thing about my copy of Vista is that it is the last copy I will buy of a Microsoft OS

Reply Score: 12

Funny
by daddio on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:52 UTC in reply to "from the article..."
daddio Member since:
2007-07-14

It reminded me of my first thoughts when I saw the name Vista Ultimate

definition: Vista == a view
definition: Ultimate == final or last

definition: Windows Vista Ultimate edition == the last edition of Windows(tm) we will ever view.

YAY!

Reply Score: 5

cost analysis
by chrish on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:16 UTC
chrish
Member since:
2005-07-14

How is Vista Ultimate worth three times the cost of Mac OS X? They have practically the same feature set.

Are you paying 3x as much for the privilege of running on cheaper hardware?

- chrish

Reply Score: 7

RE: cost analysis
by Spellcheck on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "cost analysis"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

You don't pay for service-pack-level upgrades?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: cost analysis
by bornagainenguin on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE: cost analysis"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Ummm yeah... You mean like the Service Pack 3 for XP that still hasn't come out now, for how many years?

Get a new talking point please!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: cost analysis
by DrillSgt on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Ummm yeah... You mean like the Service Pack 3 for XP that still hasn't come out now, for how many years?

Get a new talking point please!"


His point was valid though. You pay a one time cost for Vista of $399. That will be the cost for the next 3-5 years, and the only one you will pay for the OS. Each 9-12 months a service pack point release of OSX is released, each costing $129. Over a period of 3-5 years that will cost you $387-$645, depending on how long you keep your Mac. At least the service packs for Vista are included with the cost of the OS. If you are on a 3 year cycle with your machines, you will save $12 by owning a Mac, if you are on a longer cycle, the Mac is more expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: cost analysis
by LobalSurgery on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: cost analysis"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

You are working from false premises. It doesn't cost $129 per year. OS 10.4 was released in April 2005 - that single $129 upgrade has carried nearly three years. It'll probably be another 3 years before 10.6 is released. So, ~$260 for 6 years, which is about half as expensive as Windows, given the figures you cited ($399 every 5 years).

A service pack is pretty comparable to 10.4.X updates - they consist of bug, security and compatibility fixes. Over the past 2.5 years there have been TEN of these for OS 10.4, all free. You get more of them than sevice packs for Windows, but you don't have to wait nearly as long between them. If you need a fix, it's nice not to have to wait 3+ years.

Edited for clarity.

Edited 2007-09-25 21:43

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: cost analysis
by mbot on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: cost analysis"
mbot Member since:
2007-09-18

Service packs aren't comparable to 10.4.x releases. I'd say several .x releases are like a service pack.

Service packs

1) contain far more fixes than any .x release and
2) are more thoroughly tested.

Also, there are more people who don't upgrade to a .x release because of some bug. Very few hold back on a service pack to wait for the next SP. You can argue that it's because they're not updated as often, and thus you must upgrade to a SP, but I'd say they're more polished.

Both releases have their pros and cons. Obviously, XP SP3 has been long over due though Vista SP1 seems to come too early for my taste, probably to get some more Vista adopters.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: cost analysis
by KugelKurt on Wed 26th Sep 2007 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: cost analysis"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Very few hold back on a service pack to wait for the next SP.

Yeah, the SP2 of WinXP took the world by storm....

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: cost analysis
by bornagainenguin on Thu 27th Sep 2007 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: cost analysis"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Errrk!

Please tell that to all the people with Laptops containing ATI Radeon Mobility chipsets who were stuck at XPSP1 or suffer using Windows compatibility video drivers! I can't tell you how many heartaches and headaches I had over that issue with XPSP2 due to manufacturers refusing to see their XP drivers needed to be updated to deal with SP2's new code...

Thank God for the ATI mobility Modder! Thank God for the Omega Radeon drivers!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: cost analysis
by Spellcheck on Thu 27th Sep 2007 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: cost analysis"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

Right, because hardware vendors never write themselves into a corner with their sub-par drivers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: cost analysis
by KugelKurt on Wed 26th Sep 2007 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: cost analysis"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Service Packs for Mac OS X get rereased every three months.
New major revisions of Mac OS X get released every 18-24 months.

To quote John Siracusa from ArsTechnica:
"Tiger is the best version of Mac OS X yet. It offers substantial improvements over Panther in all important areas. The performance improvements are immediately noticeable. Every major bundled application has been improved. There's an unprecedented number of substantial, totally new features and technologies (...)
This is all on top of the most significant revision to the core operating system in the history of Mac OS X. (...)
Overall, Tiger is impressive."

> http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars/21

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: cost analysis
by bornagainenguin on Thu 27th Sep 2007 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: cost analysis"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

False analogy here.

First people have gotten a false idea of what a Microsoft service pack is, thanks to XPSP2 which IIRC required massive rewrites of code and added new features such as the Security Center and the Network applet. I've even heard tell that much of the code was reworked from Server 2003 and added to the delays experienced by Vista, requiring its code be junked and a new reworking of the Server 2003 code being used as a base for Vista.

All service packs are--all they are intended to be are update packs with all the updates for an OS bundled together in an offline capable installer. We're talking about BUG FIXES here people!

Secondly, I don't know about you, but generally service packs from Microsoft have resulted in a slower over all operating system experience for me. Contrast this with the Mac experience. I never see an update to OSX without reading through countless posts of "wow it's faster now!!!"

Apple may be perhaps releasing its OS revisions a little more often than Microsoft does service packs, but this is IMHO a Good Thing(TM)! Because you get more and pay less. The opposite seems to be true when it comes to Microsoft....

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: cost analysis
by Spellcheck on Thu 27th Sep 2007 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: cost analysis"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

BUG FIXES


And functional updates to the browser, media player, control panels... I have to match your hyperbole to make it seem silly.

generally service packs from Microsoft have resulted in a slower over all operating system experience for me


I've actually never heard that, and definitely never noticed that (and I ran XP sans SP for years, then XP with SP2 for years, on the same hardware). Now, the bug fixes provided by SPs 1 & 2 have made for better stability, so even if there were a performance hit, I probably wouldn't care. But the performance card gets used a lot, and it makes me wonder what some people are running that I'm not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: cost analysis
by Kroc on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE: cost analysis"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That makes Vista one heck of an expensive XP service pack.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: cost analysis
by Spellcheck on Wed 26th Sep 2007 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

XP could be considered a cosmetic service pack to 2k. Vista changes too much to be analagous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: cost analysis
by bornagainenguin on Thu 27th Sep 2007 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: cost analysis"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Clear type anyone?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: cost analysis
by Spellcheck on Thu 27th Sep 2007 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: cost analysis"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

I'll take some.

Reply Score: 1

RE: cost analysis
by netpython on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "cost analysis"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Could we have the best of both worlds: running OSX on cheaper hardware?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: cost analysis
by stestagg on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: cost analysis"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

My mac-mini was only £300. That's $150 to you guys. I'd say that that's not bad for a computer + OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: cost analysis
by justinbest on Wed 26th Sep 2007 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
justinbest Member since:
2006-06-29

Except that here in the US, the mac mini's start at $599, and go up from there if you add stuff to them. If they were only $150, they'd literally be flying out the doors here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: cost analysis
by stestagg on Thu 27th Sep 2007 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: cost analysis"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Sorry, did the conversion the wrong way ;) , I'll admit that $150 would be an awesome price ;) . But still ~$600 is pretty decent for a full system, in the UK anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: cost analysis
by stestagg on Thu 27th Sep 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Sorry, did the conversion the wrong way ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: cost analysis
by ElCabri on Thu 27th Sep 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
ElCabri Member since:
2006-11-28

UKP300 is about USD600. Quit using Excel for currency conversion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: cost analysis
by Laurence on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: cost analysis"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Could we have the best of both worlds: running OSX on cheaper hardware?"


Now that OS X runs on Intel processors then yes you can. You'd have to hack the system to boot off of a BIOS but that patch is readily available online (though obviously not supported by Apple)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: cost analysis
by snozzberry on Wed 26th Sep 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cost analysis"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Well, it's a good thing then that Apple isn't the kind of company that would use updates to brick cracked platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: cost analysis
by bornagainenguin on Thu 27th Sep 2007 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE: cost analysis"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Hear! Hear!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

Vista Ultimate Huh?!
by drcoldfoot on Tue 25th Sep 2007 14:49 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

Sounds To Me Like Vista is the Ultimate Rip-off!

Reply Score: 5

Suckers!
by DevL on Tue 25th Sep 2007 15:42 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

Common sense dictates that you evaluate a product based on its current features and not its future, potential, maybe-if-we-can-be-arsed features.

Then again, if anyone would evalute Windows based on its current features none would buy it...

Reply Score: 7

We have a saying in Spanish
by CharAznable on Tue 25th Sep 2007 15:44 UTC
CharAznable
Member since:
2005-07-06

that roughly translates to: "A musician who has been paid ahead of time cannot play in tune"

Seriously, this is Microsoft. Everyone who dropped $300 bucks for a desktop OS should have known.

Edited 2007-09-25 15:49

Reply Score: 2

Ultimate != extras
by stooovie on Tue 25th Sep 2007 15:46 UTC
stooovie
Member since:
2006-01-25

Ultimate does not equal Extras. In Ultimate, you get all features from both business and home branches of Vista (Shadow Copy, Domains, RDP, Media Center...), Extras are just an icing on the cake.

Missing icing, that is. That's for sure. It's a shame. But the USD160 difference between Home Premium and Business is NOT just in the Extras.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ultimate != extras
by monodeldiablo on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:42 UTC in reply to "Ultimate != extras"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

Then it's even more pathetic, since those are all "features" you can get for free elsewhere.

Reply Score: 5

'Ultimate' is more than just 'Extras'
by jrronimo on Tue 25th Sep 2007 15:54 UTC
jrronimo
Member since:
2006-02-28

Vista Ultimate has a lot more to it than the paltry Ultimate Extras. Among other things, it has all of the features of the other versions (which, arguably, shouldn't exist, but they do so we'll go from there): Yes, what I am about to say are 'rare' situations, but Ultimate was targeted towards Enthusiasts, after all, which are supposed to be the high end of the Bell Curve amongst users.

Ultimate is the only copy of Windows Vista that you can both join to a domain and still use Media Center. Or BitLocker.

Ultimate gives you access to the features of Business and Home Premium in one package: I like having the 'Administrator' account enabled, which is something you can't do in Home Premium. I like having access to advanced sharing features and security options.

Okay, so maybe these aren't the greatest lists of reasons to buy Vista Ultimate (and certainly don't /sound/ like $130 in extra features), but it seems to me that Ultimate has more going for it than a lack of Extras.

That being said, insofar as the extras that /have/ been released are concerned, Texas Hold 'Em is a waste, but DreamScene I really quite like.

Here's a thought for an Ultimate Extra: Live Gold. If you, Microsoft (for that one MSFTie reading), want to really position Vista Ultimate as the Gamer's OS (a statement of constant ridicule amongst my friends), allow Vista Ultimate users the service of Live -- don't make them pay to play Halo 2 or Shadowrun online; just let them have it. It's worth it to the 'few' users who buy Ultimate (since Live is what, $60/yr?) *IF* enough games they want that feature Live come out.

That'd be a nice extra service.

Reply Score: 2

Remember XP Themes
by powderblue on Tue 25th Sep 2007 16:51 UTC
powderblue
Member since:
2007-07-22

I remember when XP was released and Microsoft told everybody they would be continually creating themes for XP that you could download. Their theming system was built so you could add more then the default themes but they never released anything. All we ever got from them was Royale which was from Media Center Edition and a few from the Plus! packs which you had to pay extra for. After that I wouldn't trust them again about getting free extras ever again.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Remember XP Themes
by Kroc on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:18 UTC in reply to "Remember XP Themes"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

They also made a Zune theme, whoop. All the MS themes are nothing more than different coloured bars. Nothing like the creativity the community has come up with. Ironically, skinning Windows to look like a Mac is very popular...

Reply Score: 2

Windows DreamScene released
by poundsmack on Tue 25th Sep 2007 17:56 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

http://winbeta.org/comments.php?id=10441&catid=1

now people can stop bitching ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Ha, what a crock
by MrMotane on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:48 UTC
MrMotane
Member since:
2005-12-31

I stopped using MS OS's at XP, when I had to register to use my computer. When I change out a mobo I have to who? I use Mac and Linux. I'll never buy Vista. It doesn't surprise me to see something like this. The only way they will change is for people to stop buying the damn OS. So if there is anyone to blame it's the customer buying the product.

Reply Score: 6

no surprise
by cg0def on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:02 UTC
cg0def
Member since:
2006-02-12

premium .... suckaz ...

Reply Score: 1

I don't see it
by nalf38 on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:44 UTC
nalf38
Member since:
2006-09-01

I have yet to see what the average user has to gain from Vista over XP, other than eye candy, which is arguably faster and more stable under Linux/ComizFusion anyway.

Reply Score: 3

Complaining leads to nothing ---
by GENIUS on Wed 26th Sep 2007 00:06 UTC
GENIUS
Member since:
2007-09-10

No one forces you to purchase, buy or install Microsoft Vista and you can buy a machine from Dell, HP, heck even Wal-China-Mart sells machines with some Linux distro installed.


Good grief, I would suspect most of the complainers are presently running Win XP or even Vista Premium/Ultimate or some fashion of the OS.

What is next a law suit filed over the sun not rising early enough in the morning. Law suits really achieve one outcome, Lawyers becoming filthy rich, and the legal system becoming twisted around the unjust outcome from crooked lawyers/judges put in office by the same people you are complaining about.

Face it, Microsoft is a GLOBAL company with no cares/concerns about no one or any ethics of business operations. All of the CEO's of the MEGA Corporations get filthy rich while the jobs are off-shored in 3rd world locals such as India for example with an abundant of cheap labor. No different than Microsoft that is why he gives away MILLIONS of dollars to India because he wants to protect his labor interest. Money buys off people, politicians, and of Government officials. Why do you think he is in the position he is in today? Think about it, a bunch of people complaining will do nothing just like the EU is going to do nothing...

Reply Score: 0

cutting edge
by dwave on Wed 26th Sep 2007 00:17 UTC
dwave
Member since:
2006-09-19

"cutting-edge programs" clearly refers to this sharp edged piece of paper that comes with the boxed version and usually contains some hefty additions to the EULA. Sorry, no breach of contract there.

Reply Score: 1