Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:14 UTC
Windows After yesterday's TV advertisement, Microsoft finally unveiled the pricing for its Surface tablet - the ARM Windows RT version that is. The cheapest Surface - 32GB without touch cover - will set you back $499. They're aiming straight for iPad pricing here, ignoring the popular cheaper Android offerings. Update: only available in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States. As usual.
Permalink for comment 539063
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

That is the hardware vendor fault not Windows, My dell Laptop works fine with every OS I can throw at it ... this isn't Microsoft's fault it is the hardware vendor.

Hardware vendors have been doing this for decades. It's practically a scam. If I spend $700 on television it better be working 100%, but if I spend $700 on a PC desktop there is a high probability of it being crippled. That's what a monopoly is they sell shoddy products at inflated prices. Microsoft and their OEM partners sell a scam product. What's worse is that you need a serial key to use windows so it makes a hassle to reinstall windows.

Because Microsoft like Apple have released it with a particular software license that forbids you from forking it. As the maker of their software it is their right to release it under any license they choose to.

A license is permission. It only arises when you have the right to stop someone, and then you grant permission. But the right to stop flows from copyright. Licenses would largely evaporate without copyright law to prop it up. ie people could ignore any “license terms” a software designer tried to impose.

Absolute f--king rubbish..

Oh that's true, because the drivers in a pre-built computer can sometimes only respond to a certain operating system. Not all of them, but some do (HP computers) trust me I know this from experience.

The same copyright laws that protect open source software. If there wasn't any copyright law, Oracle or IBM would be selling their own proprietary version of linux.

BSD licenses is fine with either open source or proprietary. The problem is because software is covered by both patent and copyright restrictions then it becomes a legal nightmare. The one thing that open source software does prove is that copyrights are not necessary for software innovation and in fact that they are counter productive in many ways.

The most obvious example of this is that the internet is built on open source software. There is NO WAY that the internet would function to day if it was not due to open source software. If companies choose to retain full copyright restrictions then there is no way in hell that the internet and world wide web could function as cheaply and as efficiently as it does now.

If copyright law didn't exist there would be no open source software either and there would be no choice..

If copyright law didn't exist free software would be much more popular. If a software developer doesn't want to release their source code, then they don't have to it. They release the files in binary format, nothing wrong with that. But there would be be an incentive for developers to release their source code. Closed source software wouldn't go away and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Edited 2012-10-18 21:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0