Microsoft announced on Tuesday US prices for Windows Vista, the long-awaited new version of the operating system that sits on more than 90 percent of the world’s personal computers. The software maker set the retail price for Vista at between USD 100 and USD 259 for users upgrading from older versions of Windows. The prices range from the basic version of Vista to the top-end ‘ultimate’ edition. For consumers looking to buy Vista without an upgrade, the products will cost between USD 199 to USD 399, Microsoft said.
“Ultimate edition,” eh? Ah well, at least they didn’t name it something like “hoary hedgehog”
More on topic: has MS ever released windows for more than $300 USD? I seem to recall the professional version being about $100 more expensive, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything higher than that.
More on topic: has MS ever released windows for more than $300 USD? I seem to recall the professional version being about $100 more expensive, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything higher than that.
I don’t think so, not unless you count the server versions. Of course, 95% of Vista sales will be via an OEM copy, so it won’t cost nearly that much. Still though, $400 for Ultimate seems very steep.
95% of sales will be OEM ?
where did you get that figure ?
Microsoft will miss the valuable Xmas market, and people who but a PC this Xmas will find they will have to fork out cash for the latest offering.
If a load of people buy computers at xmas, then upgrade when Vista gets released, that is an upgrade, and I can assure you, that is not an OEM sale.
It is actually a great marketing ploy. Microsoft gets to sell new users 2 copies of Windows in a couple of months.
Microsoft will miss the valuable Xmas market, and people who but a PC this Xmas will find they will have to fork out cash for the latest offering.
Have to?
Who, pray tell, will be holding a gun to daddy’s temple demanding 400 smacks for Bullonghorn Vista Ultimate X 2009 Extremeo edition?
They is shrewed dude…just not dat shrewed.
Sarcasm aside I seriously doubt anyone smart enough to be able to upgrade their new PC to Vista is going to buy a PC a month or two before a major Windows upgrade is due. Especially considering that “VISTA COUNTDOWN O METER” will be smeared all over the Dell website as you order.
Microsoft will more likely give OEMs a nice little “free upgrade to Vista” coupon/rebate to include with all post-November-31st purchases. That upgrade is to crappola Home or junky Home Premium. Once installed you get one of them fancy pop ups informing you that for just 199.99(!!!)(?) you can instantly and seamlessly upgrade (reboot required!) to Bullonghorn Vista Ultimate X 2009 Extremeo edition.
This is not some shrewed marketing ploy. It’s just the closest thing we’ll get to Microsoft finally admitting that “we screwed the kitty.”
(if you couldn’t tell, the preceding was entirely sarcasm
)
These are a extremely expensive given the overall poor state that Vista is in. From almost all impressions I get, Vista is still far from stable, secure and fast enough to justify such a price.
Hopefully I can win a copy, for my shelf, somehow through some Microsoft funded competition.
If *I* win one I’ll send it to you 😉
Gee, thanks. 😉
This is one OS transition, Im not going to enjoy :/
The pricing for Vista is, as expected, outrageous. Also why are there so many versions? As if it wasn’t bad enough when MS decided to launch “Home” and “Professional” versions of XP for no apparent reason. It seems to me that a single slimmed down version of Vista would be preferable (and cheaper). MS could simply use PLUS! style add-on packs to add any other, more advanced or specific features such as the Aero glass effects and Tablet or Media Center specific tools. This more modular approach would make a lot more sense while being much less confusing to users. It also would offer better value for the money. But, alas no, greedy MS is probably already counting the extra revenue it will receive when people upgrade their OEM supplied “basic” or “Home” version of Vista to “Business” or “Ultra.” This is double-dipping. Microsoft should offer a trade-in program or comp the difference in licensing costs. Not that this will matter much to me. I already have all of Vista’s so called innovative features for free on my Linux workstation. With my super slick xgl/compiz powered dream machine, I see no reason to pay for the buggy bloatware that is Vista.
Edited 2006-09-05 22:28
So true. Why pay for something when anyone can get buggy bloatware for free like in Linux. Plus people can spend up to 1 week just to get World of Warcraft up using dodgy hacks/libs. Think how much smarter someone will be when they look back on how much time they spent compiling/installing random stuff even though they have no idea what that stuff’s does. Saved a 100$ though.
But I agree with the versions bit. They need to simplify and make a home/pro editions only.
Hmm. This comment reads like you haven’t touched GNU/Linux in years. Oh well, your loss, not ours…
He has not touched it at all, he read a website about it a few years ago.
It must piss off the OSS fundies that Vista is getting more coverage nowadays. lol
Maybe it’s time to issue a new fatwa to get the herd to make more noise?
I’ve got a better idea. We should just issue an order for more, better OSS software.
what the hell is a fatwa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
A fatwa, plural fataawa, is a legal pronouncement in Islam, done by a law specialist on an issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where “fiqh,” Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fatwas is known as a mujtahid or a mufti. In many Muslim countries, e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, etc. there exists an official Mufti position, to which a distinguished expert in the field of Islamic law is named by the authorities of the country.
…
Fatawa are expected to deal with religious issues, subtle points of interpretation of the “fiqh”, as well as various mundane matters, as examplified by the cases cited in the archives linked below. In exceptional cases, religious issues and political ones seem to be inextricably intertwined, as examplified by the following fatawa :
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 pronounced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie, the author of the Satanic Verses. [This is the one that probably did most to make “fatwa” a household word.]
Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1998, declaring war on America.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi released a fatwa on April 14th 2004, stating that the boycott of American and Israeli products was an obligation for all who are able.
Edited 2006-09-06 01:46
Another one? My spam filter’s going to clog up 🙁
They’ll leave eventually. After I show them for what they are.
“..when they look back on how much time they spent compiling/installing random stuff even though they have no idea what that stuff’s does. Saved a 100$ though.”
beats spending time and money trying to keep Windows secure, in my book.
“So true. Why pay for something when anyone can get buggy bloatware for free like in Linux. Plus people can spend up to 1 week just to get World of Warcraft up using dodgy hacks/libs. Think how much smarter someone will be when they look back on how much time they spent compiling/installing random stuff even though they have no idea what that stuff’s does.”
I don’t know what distro you were using, but mine was installed and up and running within twenty minutes of burning the CD-ROM. Since then, i’ve had absolutely no crashes and have yet to compile any program as everything I need is available via the package manager (which contains over 15,000 applications.) It seems to me your experience was so bad because you didn’t do some basic research before making the leap to Linux.
I already have all of Vista’s so called innovative features for free on my Linux workstation.
You have virtual folders and per-application audio sliders?
I already have all of Vista’s so called innovative features for free on my Linux workstation.
You have virtual folders and per-application audio sliders?
If only “Linux” had taken a few hints from BeOS like Microsoft did…
“You have virtual folders and per-application audio sliders?”
Yes:
Do a search in nautilus. Bookmark that search and have a virtual folder on your desktop.
Rhythmbox and Totem have their own audio sliders that set the volume to be different to the main volume setting. Or do you mean something different?
There are lots of features Linux has that Windows doesn’t. It sounds like Vista is only just now providing the feature where it leaves the extension along while renaming a file.
Last night I spent a few hours ripping lots of vinyl real time onto my PC. I could even listen to the Ogg Vorbis tracks while they were in the process of being created. How do I do that on Windows?
Ah! Thanks for your speedy reply.
“Do a search in nautilus. Bookmark that search and have a virtual folder on your desktop. ”
Interesting. I suppose the other half of the question is: can you assign arbitrary metadata to any file and then use that metadata as a search critera?
“Rhythmbox and Totem have their own audio sliders that set the volume to be different to the main volume setting. Or do you mean something different? ”
I do mean something different. As I understand the feature, every application’s volume level will be able to be individually adjusted by a centralized audio panel. Of course, the need for this is greater on Windows, as Linux doesn’t seem to suffer from a plague of apps that persist in making annoying noises. And Konqueror probably has an audio slider already, heh.
“There are lots of features Linux has that Windows doesn’t. ”
Oh certainly, certainly. This isn’t about which is better (hard to determine, because everyone’s tastes and needs are different), it’s about the truth in the statement: “I already have all of Vista’s so called innovative features for free on my Linux workstation.”
“Last night I spent a few hours ripping lots of vinyl real time onto my PC. I could even listen to the Ogg Vorbis tracks while they were in the process of being created. How do I do that on Windows?”
I have no clue how vinyl-ripping would be accomplished on any system. But iTunes on WinXP can play tracks while importing them from CD.
“Interesting. I suppose the other half of the question is: can you assign arbitrary metadata to any file and then use that metadata as a search critera?”
You’ve always been able to apply arbitrary meta data in nautilus, just right click a file, go to the notes tab and type away. I haven’t checked if it comes in through searches but I’d guess so as things like tags you’ve give images in F-Spot do.
“I do mean something different. As I understand the feature, every application’s volume level will be able to be individually adjusted by a centralized audio panel.”
That’s peculiar 🙂 I can see where it might be useful in certain circumstances, but seems to involve a lot of babysitting. I do have different volume settings for different apps so, so that’s why it doesn’t seem all that innovative.
“I have no clue how vinyl-ripping would be accomplished on any system. But iTunes on WinXP can play tracks while importing them from CD.”
Straight from line-in using GStreamer. I was expecting to have to rip a side of a record to wav and split it, then convert each of those to Ogg Vorbis seperately. But I was able to create a 4 line script to do it using a call for each track to a single GStreamer pipeline. I may create a little GUI app based around it, using GStreamer properly as it was very easy to achieve.
My brother does a similar thing on Windows, and it’s much more involved, so I was hoping a windows fanatic would hit me with an easy one stage process to do it so I could pass it on 🙂
Quite intersting, thanks for the info.
Sorry I’m not as fanatical about Windows as you’d like
Don’t need virtual folders, and I’m surprised “per-application audio sliders” aren’t “too complicated.”
Oh, I forgot: they’re from Microsoft, therefore they can’t be.
I can’t wait till people start using the Microsoft Shell. (Codename Gonad, wasn’t it?) Suddenly all the “Linux is too hard” blatherers will be typing away on their keyboards using pipes.
“Don’t need virtual folders”
I do. Thanks to this thread, I now know that Gnome has ’em.
“and I’m surprised “per-application audio sliders” aren’t “too complicated.””
They very well could be. I certainly don’t expect eveyone to take advantage of the feature. There’s been plenty of times when I wished I had the feature though.
“Oh, I forgot: they’re from Microsoft, therefore they can’t be.”
I think you misspelled “Apple” there.
“Virtual folders are specially formatted XML files that aggregate the results from a database query into a presentable format that acts exactly like a normal folder in Windows Vista. Put another way, virtual folders store search results. So when you search for a group of files–using certain criteria–you can save those results as a virtual folder. Because they are database queries, virtual folders are dynamic. That is, their contents change over time, depending on what’s going on in your system.” –Paul Thurrott
GNOME 2.14, which is the default interface on many current Linux distributions, includes Saved Searches, which are virtual folders whose contents are determined by the results of a search query. So, YES, I have that “innovative feature” of Vista
As to per-application audio sliders? I’m not sure what you’re talking about precisely so I can’t give an informed rebuttel. Sorry.
As to per-application audio sliders? I’m not sure what you’re talking about precisely so I can’t give an informed rebuttel. Sorry.
I went in a bit more depth here:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15746&comment_id=159663
The thread has gotten a bit large, hasn’t it
“Also why are there so many versions?”
Ultimate and Home Premium have the the Media Center features in them. If you don’t need MCE, and don’t need to log onto a domain, buy the Home Basic.
“I see no reason to pay for the buggy bloatware that is Vista”
I thought we established that Linux is way more bloated. And only used by a miniscule portion of computer users.
I thought we established that Linux is way more bloated. And only used by a miniscule portion of computer users.
No, we only established that Windows fanatics like yourself can use lies and statistics to “prove” your damn lies.
And only used by a miniscule portion of computer users.
who tend to be a choosy lot, and as such, wouldn’t be using it if they weren’t very satisfied with it.
They’re always lying when they don’t agree with you. Please, we Linux users lie all the time. I recall the “Linux has waay more market share than you think” and “xxxx is the year of the Linux desktop” claims. Still, that is far too much for an OS. $100 is acceptable. $400 is not.
No, they’re lying when they misrepresent the facts. That’s what lying means.
“we Linux users”
I consider myself a GNU/Linux user first , I know the Linux kernel ship on everything , but its rarely rare I have to play or change it setting once its properly setup and have the right drivers.
“lie all the time”
No , and thats the problem , we dont lie , where brutally honest , but then when your facing the best liars in the worlds , theyre going to put themself in a good light , and every truth is going to be seen as a flaw and a bad thing.
“Linux has waay more market share than you think”
Thats not a lie , thats the truth , most people put it behind Apple and in the low one digit , when its globally at 29%.
Apple as only one platform , the Apple hardware , thats why they get so low numbers ( Dell offered to ship Mac OS X on its hardware , but they said no ) , a lot of GNU/Linux user Dual and tripple boot ( we have a good majority that like Apple hardware ( 30% ) of the Apple user are GNU/Linux users ).
“xxxx is the year of the Linux desktop”
Its the truth , we dont make that much effort into other category in comparaison ( Super computer , Clusters , servers , web server are all dominated by GNU/Linux ) and we get tons of software and tools and distribution each years. People mix the phrase with :
This year GNU/Linux will crush Windows and Microsoft and everything else out of existance and be the dominating OS on the desktop.
“That is far too much for an OS. $100 is acceptable. $400 is not”
When what most people buy are 200$ – 1000$ computers with the OS included , paying 400$ only for the OS is seen as too much …
With all the communist association your nick reminded me of this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Red
“”Thats not a lie , thats the truth , most people put it behind Apple and in the low one digit , when its globally at 29%.
Apple as only one platform , the Apple hardware , thats why they get so low numbers ( Dell offered to ship Mac OS X on its hardware , but they said no ) , a lot of GNU/Linux user Dual and tripple boot ( we have a good majority that like Apple hardware ( 30% ) of the Apple user are GNU/Linux users ). “”
Can you prove to me that these numbers are true?
The annoying part about this, which I suffered myself, is that if you’re trying to become XP or Server 2003 certified, you need to have the higher spec version to sign onto a domain as part of the experience.
Even then, there are many people who run domains at home to lock down their computers from their kids doing all sorts of crazy stuff. Seems extreme, but not really all that stupid when you think about it.
Having said that, I really don’t see how having all these different versions is a problem, given that by comparison there are far more Linux distributions tailored for all sorts of folk out there.
The problem is cost for the upper spec version I think, given that you KNOW through history that it will have issues and join the monthly swag of patch cycles.
Security is earnt, NOT a given through marketing, especially from Microsoft.
Edited 2006-09-05 22:50
Even then, there are many people who run domains at home to lock down their computers from their kids doing all sorts of crazy stuff. Seems extreme, but not really all that stupid when you think about it.
In which case savvy kid shoves a live cd in the tray and outsmarts mum and dad.
Unless you lock the BIOS/CMOS down with a password and prevent CD-ROM booting.
screwdriver – jumper – cmos reset….
parents outfoxed again
Wooden spoon, backhand, feather duster, [insert your favourite physical punishment implement here]… parent’s win.
Feather Duster?
Can I get a loud “WTF?”
“Also why are there so many versions?”
Ultimate and Home Premium have the the Media Center features in them. If you don’t need MCE, and don’t need to log onto a domain, buy the Home Basic.
“I see no reason to pay for the buggy bloatware that is Vista”
I thought we established that Linux is way more bloated. And only used by a miniscule portion of computer users.
//Ultimate and Home Premium have the the Media Center features in them. If you don’t need MCE, and don’t need to log onto a domain, buy the Home Basic. //
Actually, what I don’t need is WGA, DRM, call-home spyware, license keys and/or registration hoops to jump through, and any proprietary lock-in file formats or networking or logon protocols. What I would really like is cross-platform interoperability and data portability. So to get those options I buy which version? (Hint: answer is don’t buy any version of Windows).
//I thought we established that Linux is way more bloated.//
In what strange alternate universe is this?
no networking protocals? are you sure? Have fun with no connectivity of any sort…
Linux is only bloated if you make it so.
That said, most distros tend to make it so, or at least end up with a bloated system by the time the user configures it to their wishes.
“I thought we established that Linux is way more bloated. And only used by a miniscule portion of computer users.”
Who are the “we”. Its not true, I think what you say is an outright lie.
More bloated than what Vista or XP or Server2003 vs any of these http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/ Seriously Microsoft do some good products, but what are you on about.
Run Windows95 on a modern machine and watch that baby fly. Then sit down and write a list of What Vista has in its OS thats *needed* that 95 didn’t have, and then ask yourself why adding those things to that OS would make it slow.
i was waiting for it, but now i’ll stick with my new guest, Ubuntu Linux =)..
Linux is not bloatware in any sense of the word. A Distibution may be bloated with Applications. An application may be bloated with too many features. Code may get bloated to accommodate legacy features.
what bloatware are people actually talking about in windows, code bloat, feature bloat, too many included applications, or just that its running slow.
“Linux is not bloatware in any sense of the word.”
A certain frame of mind might think that the kernel is bloated in regards to filesystems and drivers.
Why does every discussion on here turns into “Linux rules/sucks!”? This discussion is about Vista and it’s pretty window effects. “drool”
“Linux rules/sucks!” Its like that because if you are are talking about a comparison Linux is really easy to compare, FREE vs $200 to $400 and you get more with linux.
Thats why they have all these TCO arguments. That Microsoft spends Millions on.
you missed the point of all them TCO arguments.
it does not matter if linux is free, microsoft says windows is better value for money because it is not free ???????
like microsoft say, there is more to it than initial cost, like training staff.
emmm, linux is so easy these days complete noobs pick it up very easily. it is more intuitive than windows.
ok, so they also said it is the cost of upgrades and support.
hmmmm linux support costs big money, if you want 24/7 telephone support, but then, microsoft support is expensive too. 33% dearer than radhats..
oh, and you need to pay for a license for each person using each piece of software, oh, wait, thats windows..
but the worse thing… after all the “truly independent”, ie, not microsoft sponsored, reports say that the TCO of windows is higher, purchasers for most businesses go out and buy windows anyway..
there is a saying. ” there is one born every minute”
but the worse thing… after all the “truly independent”, ie, not microsoft sponsored, reports say that the TCO of windows is higher, purchasers for most businesses go out and buy windows anyway..
there is a saying. ” there is one born every minute”
At my work what killed Linux on the desktop was the applications.
Our infastructure relies on so many customized applications these days for various business processes its hard to look at re-writing or even coming up with a kludge for the situation (i.e Wine etc) without a damn good reason, and we can’t fine one.
Even with the windows issues we deal with all and all the infastructure we have built works and we are still growing the business.
Now we do use Linux, in fact we use HP/UX, AIX on RS6000 machines and Solaris on Sun hardware but our corporate desktops are likely to stay Windows based.
I’d bet that lasts at least another 5-10 years if MS did absolutely nothing from this day forward.
A sucker born every minute is the fool who migrates an entire organization based on the up front costs of the software, thats a sucker. There is far more than licensing fees to investigate when looking at a transition.
A sucker born every minute is the fool who migrates an entire organization based on the up front costs of the software, thats a sucker. There is far more than licensing fees to investigate when looking at a transition.
Agreed. TCO for example, which study after study shows MS can’t match.
Agreed. TCO for example, which study after study shows MS can’t match.
Well there is that and other things, like the effects of change on established business processes. You can’t really calculate that one until you make a move and it can be very costly when either a mistake is made or you misjudge the effects on your establishment.
I do think that eventually linux distros will win out on the corporate desktop, in fact I think it’ll win corporate america before it wins on the home machine front.
However I don’t think its ready for the majority of business out there today. The OS itself is ready, but the 3rd party market is not there yet. Thats what killed it for us, the COTS availability was just not there for our needs.
I’m sure we’ll revisit Linux on the desktop at some future point as we are always looking for an edge in technology. Its just not ready for us today.
First two paragraphs: Agreed.
Paragraph 3: As an applications platform, agreed. As an OS, no version of Windows I’ve seen beats it.
Paragraph 4: And may you have lots of success with it!
Agreed. TCO for example, which study after study shows MS can’t match.
Based on what evidence? Sorry, companies want commercially supported versions of software, so that rules out the freebie distributions for a start; remove the small ‘fly by night’ compaanies, and you’re pretty much left with two major players, Novell in one corner, and Red Hat in another.
Then lets compare their licencing arrangements; in one corner, I’ll use Red Hat as the example, they’re tbe biggest player, and there for, the equivilant of comparing like with like, that is Red Hat Desktop, the best deals they can do is an upfront of $13500 for the first 50 desktops, and then $3500 for every group of 50 desktop ater that.
Compare that to Microsoft Select licencing; which is a large licencing scheme which gives companies access to all of Microsofts latest and greatest software at a flat rate price; and whats better than that? the fact that the employees of the organisation can run the SAME software, which is licenced under Microsoft Select, at home as well! so not only does the company end up benefiting with predictable software licencing costs, end users benefit with having the latest softwrae available at home as they would at work.
So how is the above scenario show that Microsoft can”t match Linux TCO, because every study, and every IT professional will tell you that Microsoft compared to the alternatives come off pretty damn cheap.
Based on what evidence? Sorry, companies want commercially supported versions of software, so that rules out the freebie distributions for a start; remove the small ‘fly by night’ compaanies, and you’re pretty much left with two major players, Novell in one corner, and Red Hat in another.
You can also get support from other companies. Schools in Carmarthenshire, Wales, for example, have teamed up with the vendor of an OSS mail solution to provide mail for staff and students, running on SusE I believe. Motive? Lower TCO.
Then lets compare their licencing arrangements; in one corner, I’ll use Red Hat as the example, they’re tbe biggest player, and there for, the equivilant of comparing like with like, that is Red Hat Desktop, the best deals they can do is an upfront of $13500 for the first 50 desktops, and then $3500 for every group of 50 desktop ater that.
You can get SLED complete with support for fifty bucks a year – even an unemployed person could afford that.
Compare that to Microsoft Select licencing;
For which you give no figures, only an advert:
which is a large licencing scheme which gives companies access to all of Microsofts latest and greatest software at a flat rate price; and whats better than that? the fact that the employees of the organisation can run the SAME software, which is licenced under Microsoft Select, at home as well! so not only does the company end up benefiting with predictable software licencing costs, end users benefit with having the latest softwrae available at home as they would at work.
As above, home users can probably afford to buy SLED. Or they can stick with OpenSUSE or the distribution of their choice.
Plus you forgot that this is TOTAL Cost of Ownership we’re talking about. Compare the upfront costs of RHEL and SLED and MS if you like, but then you have to factor in downtime due to viruses, malware, spyware, buggy applications, system crashes, etc. There’s a reason Microsoft stopped its “Get the Facts” campaign on lower MS TCO: People WERE getting the facts, and they WEREN’T getting Microsoft.
// As above, home users can probably afford to buy SLED.//
As a home user with a DSL modem and “unlimited” download allowance, I have obtained more than twenty different Linux distributions for effectively no cost at all other than the blank CD or DVD meia on which to burn the .iso image.
OpenSuse 10.1 was but one of those. No cost. I didn’t particularly like it … I preferred Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS (mostly because of Synaptic over YAST) … but I can confirm that once you repair the broken updater zen OpenSuse 10.1 works fine.
Edited 2006-09-06 12:17
As a home user with a DSL modem and “unlimited” download allowance, I have obtained more than twenty different Linux distributions for effectively no cost at all other than the blank CD or DVD meia on which to burn the .iso image.
Granted, but my comments were in reply to worries about paid-for support. Personally I’ve had just as much luck with unpaid forum support (if not more), but businesses like to think if they pay for something it’s intrinsically of more value than if they don’t.
OpenSuse 10.1 was but one of those. No cost. I didn’t particularly like it … I preferred Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS (mostly because of Synaptic over YAST) … but I can confirm that once you repair the broken updater zen OpenSuse 10.1 works fine.
Again, we’re talking about distros with commercial support *from the supplier*. You know the saying, the customer (in this kaiwai) is always right. I suppose I should try Ubuntu again on the space I have spare on my laptop; the last time I tried it, it, erm, didn’t exactly work. At the moment I’m perfectly happy with OpenSuSE 10.0 Live Edition, which also had the advantage I didn’t have to do *anything* except type in the WEP key to get the wireless working, unlike 10.1
//Again, we’re talking about distros with commercial support *from the supplier*. You know the saying, the customer (in this kaiwai) is always right.//
Fair enough. I find this thinking more than a little strange, especially when you consider that even with Windows there is better support available off the net for free than one can get *from the supplier* … but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
//I suppose I should try Ubuntu again on the space I have spare on my laptop; the last time I tried it, it, erm, didn’t exactly work. At the moment I’m perfectly happy with OpenSuSE 10.0 Live Edition, which also had the advantage I didn’t have to do *anything* except type in the WEP key to get the wireless working, unlike 10.1//
My suggest with Ubuntu is to wait for Edgy Eft (version 6.10) which is due out in a month or so. This version will have a video-hardware-accelerated desktop. Whizz bang!
In the meanwhile, I’d suggest trying out PCLinuxOS 93a “big daddy”. This is by far the most user-friendly and newbie-friendly Linux desktop OS out there. If you ever want to set up someone else new to Linux, this is the one to give them IMO.
Fair enough. I find this thinking more than a little strange,
Yes, so do I!
My suggest with Ubuntu is to wait for Edgy Eft (version 6.10) which is due out in a month or so. This version will have a video-hardware-accelerated desktop. Whizz bang!
In the meanwhile, I’d suggest trying out PCLinuxOS 93a “big daddy”. This is by far the most user-friendly and newbie-friendly Linux desktop OS out there. If you ever want to set up someone else new to Linux, this is the one to give them IMO.
Thanks, I’ll bear that in mind.
You can also get support from other companies. Schools in Carmarthenshire, Wales, for example, have teamed up with the vendor of an OSS mail solution to provide mail for staff and students, running on SusE I believe. Motive? Lower TCO.
So not only did that OSS company provide support for their mail solution, they also supported SuSE? How nice, supporting a distribution that they’re completely unfamilar with, I’d love that assurance when things go wrong, “sorry, we’ve only really worked with Debian” – I guess when the chips are down, you’ll be down with them, wondering why you didn’t see the value then of commercial support.
You can get SLED complete with support for fifty bucks a year – even an unemployed person could afford that.
Which lacks ISV and IHV support, and worse, its from a company on its last legs! am I going to ‘dice with death’ by purchasing from a company who may or may not be around in 2-3 years time given its financial state and incompetant management?
For which you give no figures, only an advert:[snip]
As above, home users can probably afford to buy SLED. Or they can stick with OpenSUSE or the distribution of their choice.
The company negotiates a deal, and as for the end user, gee, $50 per year, or FREE, damn, thats gotta be a difficult choice; you either pay $50 per year for an operating system with terrible hardware support, and next to no commercial ISV”s to provide games and productivity software, not only for work but for personal use; the other hand, for FREE they get the latest version of Windows and the latest version of Office – around a grands worth of value, for free.
Plus you forgot that this is TOTAL Cost of Ownership we’re talking about. Compare the upfront costs of RHEL and SLED and MS if you like, but then you have to factor in downtime due to viruses, malware, spyware, buggy applications, system crashes, etc. There’s a reason Microsoft stopped its “Get the Facts” campaign on lower MS TCO: People WERE getting the facts, and they WEREN’T getting Microsoft.
I hope you realise that on your side of the bench, you’re just as guilty as Microsoft, of propagating the lie that Linux has a low TCO or even free.
TCO is ALWAYS worked out on a ‘best case scenario’ – that best case scenario assumes thats when a customer rings up and expects a fix for a problem, it is actualy delivered ontime and addresses the issue (and doesn’t break anything around it!) – and as we all know, there is no such thing as a ‘flawless operation’.
Also, have you actually USED Windows 2003; granted, Windows 2000 was a great leap forward over Windows NT 4, but Windows 2003 compared to Windows 2000 is like comparing Linux 2.2 to Linux 2.6; they’re worlds apart, and it would unfair to compare such radically different products.
What I challenge you to do is this; get a quality server from one of the big names – heck, go get a Sun Opteron server, load it with Windows 2003, and use it in production for a few months; I can tell you, that Windows 2003 has now finally stepped up to the crease and delivered; yes, I used to be a massive anti-Microsoft zealot, with Bill Gates Voodoo doll and all, but maybe I’m optimisitic for you, but you like me will wake up, realise that Microsoft has actually started to provide good products, and they’re delivering on their security promise.
Edited 2006-09-06 20:00
You start with misinformation, you continue with a reference to W2K3 which is totally and utterly irrelevant to me as a home user, and then you conclude by insulting me and expect me to believe that after 30 years of “They are the enemy” Soviet style propaganda, MS have actually managed to buckle down and produce a good product. Too late for me, and maybe too late for them.
Congratulations on your conversion from anti-MS zealot to MS shill. Myself, I prefer to rely on good sense.
Provide evidence that I am a Microsoft shill given that I’m running a Mac right now, and going to have two PC’s soon that will be running Xorg + KDE + FreeSBD; I might even flirt a little with ubuntu.
Unlike you, I’d not deluded into thinking that Linux is ready for the end user.
//Unlike you, I’d not deluded into thinking that Linux is ready for the end user.//
Actually, the claim has now gone a lot further than just that.
The claim now would not only be that “Linux is ready for the end user”, but now would be:
(a) that Linux is more secure,
(b) that Linux is more able to run on typical current business office hardware than Vista,
(c) that it will be easier to switch to Linux than it will be to upgrade to Vista,
(d) that a switch to Linux will have less impact on your end users than an upgrade to Vista,
(e) that a switch to Linux will have less impact on your computing operations than a switch to Vista, and
(f) (pertinent to this thread) that a switch to Linux will cost far less than an upgrade to Vista.
Here, check it out for yourself:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3179571720.html
Edited 2006-09-07 05:50
Yeap, I know the song dance of the cult; its sad and pathetic; the reality is, there is no alternative to Windows on generic PC’s, and ultimately, when you look at all the facts, Windows still comes out on top.
Now, I’m sure, like me, you have no problems with an individual saying that for what they do, and the machine they own, they find that the experience Linux (replace that with anything else) provides to them is superior to Windows.
What does froast my cookies (and boils my spuds) is when there their personal experience then transforms and morphs into a template that all users should move to their operating system because they find it great.
For me, I don’t try to move people to FreeBSD, because its not suitable for everyone; my brother, who needs Maple, Solidworks, Matlab, and numerous other applications which aren’t available on Linux, needs to be running Windows; for me, my requirements aren’t so rigid, but at the same time, I have expectations for things to “just work”(tm) out of the box; and Windows for 95% of people, does the job quite nicely.
//my brother, who needs Maple, Solidworks, Matlab,//
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html
http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/systemreq/index.aspx
Solidworks – Well, two out of three isn’t bad. Does it have to be Solidworks? There are other solutions for 3D CAD on Linux.
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html
http://varicad.com/index.phtml
http://www.lx-office.com/LX/products/architektur/arcad/easy
http://www.icaads.com/index_en.html#
http://www.digitalscores.com/jcsoftware/
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Graphics/CAD/
Or … you could run Solidworks on Linux under Win4Lin.
http://www.win4lin.com/content/view/64/125/
Edited 2006-09-07 12:13
Yes, unfortunately it has to be solid works, as part of his engineer degree is not only, well, engineering, but learning the ‘tools of the trade’ – there is also the issue of his massive collection of games he would like to play, but primarily, its the applications.
What I would love to see is atleast *one* of the *NIX’s taking off, be it Linux, OpenSolaris (either the Sun Solaris distribution or GNUSolaris etc) or FreeBSD/PC-BSD for the desktop. I just *hope* that if commercial software companies don’t come to the party, the opensource alternatives will be ‘good enough’.
For me, Amarok is superior to iTunes, KOffice is superior to OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office in regards to getting things done in a non-complicated manner; its just that there needs to be more commercially available software for those who need it, be it a game or application, there is normally atleast one or two applications that hold back an individuals migration; clear the roadblocks, and more people will migrate.
Novell and Ubuntu are heading in the right direction, but at the same time I think its going to be a gradual progression, not something that just “takes off’ as some Linux and opensource fanboys try to make out; just look at Apple for this; they’ve got the best product line up for over 20 years, but its taking time to build up the customer base; its easy to maintain a customer/marker share, but it is alot more difficult to rebuild it, especially with fierce competition from Dell and HP/Compaq.
//Yes, unfortunately it has to be solid works, as part of his engineer degree is not only, well, engineering, but learning the ‘tools of the trade’//
OK then, here is his solution:
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html
http://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/systemreq/index.aspx
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=318
From the Wine website
Think of it as an environment for running windows apps in Linux. It seems that someone has gotten Solidworks to run.
Enjoy!
na, he’s happy with Windows – the old story, why rock the boat to see if it sinks or floats.
” At my work what killed Linux on the desktop was the applications. ”
No , it was the employee.
“its hard to look at re-writing ”
Should read : the employee dont know how to code and are protecting there job by blaming the platform instead of there own lack of knowledge.
“coming up with a kludge for the situation”
Should read : Employee are not trained to make Wine integration and dont know how to use it.
“without a damn good reason”
Security , Stability , etc … if you got 30 million per year to loose in process not working due to maintenance , security fix , and the OS you use , its your company problem.
“Even with the windows issues”
Should read : the employee issue with windows.
“we deal with all ”
Should read : costing the company millions in the process.
“and all the infastructure we have built ”
Should read : the Job protection we have created by using and only using Microsoft products.
“we are still growing the business.”
Should read : we are still making Microsoft profits grows and our company suffer only a minor hit of hundred of million on profit due to employee incompetance , but hey they would nerver notice.
“Now we do use Linux”
Not really.
” in fact we use HP/UX, AIX on RS6000 machines and Solaris on Sun hardware ”
Thats not GNU/Linux , those are opponent and competition servers solutions.
” I’d bet that lasts at least another 5-10 years if MS did absolutely nothing from this day forward. ”
Thats how much time left you got before your pension ?
” is the fool who migrates an entire organization based on the up front costs of the software”
Or the Manager who have incompetant like you as employee and who listen to what you have to say on the mather.
“There is far more than licensing fees to investigate when looking at a transition.”
1) Employee competance. If they dont know what theyre doing and are not competent on the OS or software , its a 100% guarantee on failure.
When someone cant work with a machine , you get someone who can , when you get someone who cant work with a software you get someone who can , when someone cant work with an OS who is saving you money , you get someone who can.
Its like asking your horse driver if they can operate cars , some can , others cant , most of them whont.
No , it was the employee.
Our employees are trained on whatever we run.
Should read : the employee dont know how to code and are protecting there job by blaming the platform instead of there own lack of knowledge.
No its called not being able to justify the costs in re-writing hundreds of ‘line of business’ applications.
Should read : Employee are not trained to make Wine integration and dont know how to use it.
There is no wine integration, its a freakin’ hack at best. If you want to peg critical business systems to wine you are out of your mind.
Security , Stability , etc … if you got 30 million per year to loose in process not working due to maintenance , security fix , and the OS you use , its your company problem.
Thats the problem, contrary to what people like you believe, a lot of organizations are getting stability and security out of Windows. We have had processes in place for a long time now that make windows security work for us.
There is maintenance on everything, even our *nix side has support people.
Should read : the Job protection we have created by usig and only using Microsoft products.
We use a bit of everything, AIX,HP/UX,RedHat,Solaris and yes even windows.
Of course you are such a troll I don’t expect you to grasp that.
Not really.
Don’t try and tell me WTF we use and do not use at my place of business you little twerp. You have no clue.
Thats not GNU/Linux , those are opponent and competition servers solutions.
Hell yeah, we take the best system for the job.
Thats how much time left you got before your pension ?
No I’m a young one, I have a good 30+ years left.
Or the Manager who have incompetant like you as employee and who listen to what you have to say on the mather.
Actually I was all for it until multiple groups of people in multiple locations all came back and said ‘no’.
We don’t have a single IT person here you twit. The company has over 100,000 employees in multiple countries.
I guess a company pulling down billions a year hired thousands of idiots. We’ll just fire them all and hire just you, sounds like a great idea!
1) Employee competance. If they dont know what theyre doing and are not competent on the OS or software , its a 100% guarantee on failure.
Thank you captain obvious!
When someone cant work with a machine , you get someone who can , when you get someone who cant work with a software you get someone who can , when someone cant work with an OS who is saving you money , you get someone who can.
No actually you usually provide training and support for them until they can perform on the machine.
We can’t afford to kick people to the curb because they don’t know how to use a certain software app. Its hard to find people who are certified and have the knowledge/skills to build the products we build to begin with.
I think you are narrow minded at best, and probably a disaster waiting to happen for an unsuspecting IT department at worst. Either way you certainly don’t ‘get it’
“Our employees are trained on whatever we run.”
Let me guess your one of the trainer … Training never replace experience anyway.
“its called not being able to justify the costs in re-writing hundreds of ‘line of business’ applications.”
* Saving on maintenance cost ( employee time + software patching )
* saving on up time ( its up all the time )
* make more money , due to no shortage due to software or hardware related problem.
* doubling process power instead of buying software license.
“There is no wine integration”
Off course wine work out of the box with everything perfectly … thats why you dont use it (cynical) …
“its a freakin’ hack at best.”
If thats the level of expertise at your shop , then yes …
“If you want to peg critical business systems to wine you are out of your mind. ”
Then I am out of mu mind so does everyone who use it to run Windows legacy application in a secure environment.
“Thats the problem”
No , I aint THE problem at YOUR shop.
“contrary to what people like you believe”
I dont believe , I know , thats the difference between you and I , I will test things and see if they can be implemented before implementing them.
“a lot of organizations are getting stability and security out of Windows. ”
Stability and security are not comments one hear mentionned with windows , quite the contrary.
“We have had processes in place for a long time now that make windows security work for us. ”
Do you read what you write ? You need a process to make windows security work for you , Windows security is suppose to work for you without a process.
” There is maintenance on everything, even our *nix side has support people. ”
True , but its the details and cost that are interesting.
” We use a bit of everything, AIX,HP/UX,RedHat,Solaris and yes even windows.”
So your trying to sugest that you use AIX,HP/UX,RedHat,Solaris for your desktop solution ?
” Of course you are such a troll I don’t expect you to grasp that. ”
I grasp it , but unlike you I see a real problem with it.
” Don’t try and tell me WTF we use and do not use at my place of business you little twerp. You have no clue.”
Not trying at all , I meant it entirely when I say you dont use what you call Linux. GNU/Linux as an entire galaxy to offer that you know nothing about.
“Hell yeah, we take the best system for the job.”
No , you take what employee like you can run and know how to use. wich is one of my point entirely.
“No I’m a young one, I have a good 30+ years left.”
Statistically , today unless your the boss , owner or a partner , little chance of that happening.
” Actually I was all for it until multiple groups of people in multiple locations all came back and said ‘no’.”
I wonder why they said no after you said yes , maybe because you did not offer a working solution …
” We don’t have a single IT person here you twit. The company has over 100,000 employees in multiple countries. ”
100,000 employee to maintain windows …
” I guess a company pulling down billions a year hired thousands of idiots. We’ll just fire them all and hire just you, sounds like a great idea! ”
If they cant use GNU/Linux …
“Thank you captain obvious!”
Yes , like you figured it out , I recall you saying something about running critical process on windows …
“No actually you usually provide training and support for them until they can perform on the machine.”
You whant someone who can perform now , the only time a company is going to offer training is when they cant replace someone by someone else who ask for a cheaper salary by putting an ads in the papers.
“We can’t afford … we build to begin with.”
like I said it become an employee problem.
“I think you are narrow minded at best”
Thanks , that mean I have a mind …
“and probably a disaster waiting to happen for an unsuspecting IT department at worst.”
If by disaster , you mean the incompetent employee getting fired , then yes.
“Either way you certainly don’t ‘get it'”
Your right , I dont get how YOU work , but some company have too much money to waste.
Let me guess your one of the trainer … Training never replace experience anyway.
No I do not train people. Have done so in the past, but it is not my primary job function.
* Saving on maintenance cost ( employee time + software patching )
* saving on up time ( its up all the time )
* make more money , due to no shortage due to software or hardware related problem.
* doubling process power instead of buying software license.
The line of business applications we run right now are low maintenance and provide good uptime. If they did not we would be looking to replace them.
If thats the level of expertise at your shop , then yes …
No Wine is a HACK. You end up with font issues, slow performance and in general a lot of f*cking around to configure applications. Thats not what I want in a mission critical system.
Then I am out of mu mind so does everyone who use it to run Windows legacy application in a secure environment.
I might trust it to some old ancient app that is known to run well. For the majority of our current software Wine does not cut it.
No , I aint THE problem at YOUR shop.
We don’t have a PROBLEM at my shop, the whole thing is running quite well.
I dont believe , I know , thats the difference between you and I , I will test things and see if they can be implemented before implementing them.
Oh we test, and you know what our tests showed? Linux was not ready for our corporate desktop. End of story.
Stability and security are not comments one hear mentionned with windows , quite the contrary.
I’m sure for someone like you its hard to grasp but we do it every day.
Do you read what you write ? You need a process to make windows security work for you , Windows security is suppose to work for you without a process.
Security is a process enterprise wide. Unless you think that a large network is secure with zero configuration.
So your trying to sugest that you use AIX,HP/UX,RedHat,Solaris for your desktop solution ?
AIX yes we do, we have CAD workstations the people running them use them all day as a desktop machine. They use a Citrix session they can utilize to get email and access to windows applications.
Not trying at all , I meant it entirely when I say you dont use what you call Linux. GNU/Linux as an entire galaxy to offer that you know nothing about.
I run Linux at home for starters, so I’m aware of whats available. I can utilize a Redhat and Debian system here just a few feet away, so I use it at work and yes I’m aware of what is available.
No , you take what employee like you can run and know how to use. wich is one of my point entirely.
No we use what we deem best for the job based on a lot of different variables. I did not know how to use certain functions of AIX when I started here but we didn’t replace the machines just because I had no clue, I learned as others are expected to do.
I wonder why they said no after you said yes , maybe because you did not offer a working solution …
I was willing to look into it, we had other groups in the company that were either mixed on doing it, or a few that looked at doing it and decided it was not worth the cost/effort.
100,000 employee to maintain windows …
100,000 employees TOTAL you @sshat.
If they cant use GNU/Linux …
I never said they can’t use it, I said it was decided that it was not a good replacement for windows on our desktop machines.
Maybe you should take some basic English Reading comprehension classes before posting on the forums.
You whant someone who can perform now , the only time a company is going to offer training is when they cant replace someone by someone else who ask for a cheaper salary by putting an ads in the papers.
Is that not what I said? We can’t afford to let someone go just because they don’t know how to use a software application.
Your right , I dont get how YOU work , but some company have too much money to waste.
At this point I’m done corresponding with you.
You apparently can’t read english
You seem close minded and combative
You are a troll (I mean that in a friendly way in your case)
Have a good day!
” Have a good day! ”
you too …
wow, that was a sad bit of trolling, even for you.
//This discussion is about Vista and it’s pretty window effects. “drool”//
Actually, this discussion is about “Microsoft Sets Pricing for Windows Vista”.
In that context, surely it is entirely on topic to raise the point that one can get better software including a full set of applications and “pretty window effects” with Linux and compiz with Xgl or AIGLX, for an all-up price of $0.
surely it is entirely on topic to raise the point that one can get better software including a full set of applications and “pretty window effects” with Linux and compiz with Xgl or AIGLX, for an all-up price of $0.
no
because you missed out on the other things linux already has that vista might have, in the future.
Vista “innovations” Linux equivalent
Instant search Beagle
Aero Xgl
Desktop Widgets Superkaramba
Network Explorer Bonjour
Bitlocker Built in encyrpt
Security ????? proven security
People always say Linux is playing catch-up….
How can you catch up when you are already ahead ?
“How can you catch up when you are already ahead ?”
1) Marketing
2) Friendly Paid for information technology and market research advisory firm you own saying every hour your the best in every form possible.
3) Discussing other OS all the time , describing them in the mind of the publicx with a billion dollar budget. “GNU/Linux is Cancer” , sorry but NO ONE whants cancer.
4) Getting all the big brand name OEM to not ship anything but your OS.
etc …
Vista is beeing discussed 1000 more time then GNU/Linux distribution who are already on the market , it also as hardware and system ready , AND WAITING , for it to ship , wich GNU/Linux will get access to after they have been on the market and sold with or as a windows solution or Apple solution for months.
When people go into a Best Buy ( or almost any computer store ) they see almost all windows , if your lucky tucked away in the corner there is some Apple systems and if your really lucky they have one computer with GNU/Linux on it and some distributio for sale. Thats where they got there immense monopoly from. Why do you think Apple started making Apple store …
Microsoft dont have to ship a good product , good software , good security , good anything , they have to sale it to Hardware maker and get access to hardware prototype.
People in the stree will say :
– Beagle ? thats an unreleased Beatle song album or a dog product ?
– Aero XGL , thats a new kind of chocolate bars ?
– Desktop Widgets Superkaramba , cool Apple got new widgets ?
– Network Explorer Bonjour ? Apple software got an upgrade ?
– Bitlocker Built in encyrpt ? Cool a new antivirus for windows ?
– Security ????? proven security ? If it where not secure , hardware maker would not ship it on there hardware.
———-
NOBODY is asking the right questions :
“the products will cost between USD 199 to USD 399, Microsoft said.”
What do I get for that price ?
199$ ? It come on a new Hard disk , right ?
What do I get for 199? The right to make copy ? the right to modify it ? the right to install it on more then one computer ?
For 399$ I get a low level Dell computer with the OS ?
They dont have a 51% market that people lie about and say is 99%+ , for no reason.
GNU/Linux is not playing catch up on software , it never was.
Better software? I’d agree with you mostly, except for the giant gaping hole that is OpenOffice(allbutWriter).
Seriously, you can’t use OpenOffice.Org Calc to plot x versus y. I tried. You can plot x versus index and y versus index. That’s really not useful for what I need Calc to do, usually. There are other, far more powerful and far more suitable programs for graphing on Linux, but some of them take far more setup time to make just a simple graph.
OpenOffice.Org Impress is THE most likely piece of software to crash my computer. It takes up a lot of resources to just do a simple presentation. If you do ANYTHING more than a couple simple effects it will bog down, and may completely hang X such that you can’t switch to another virtual terminal to kill it. This happens even with Impress presentations, so it’s not a Powerpoint incompatibility.
Both of these need a lot of love (features in Calc’s case, speed and stability in Impress’s case).
This is OpenOffice.Org 2.0.3 on Xubuntu Dapper Drake, by the way. If these problems are at all specific to Ubuntu, please let me know. I’d like to be able to deliver presentations with Linux…
As for the actual TOPIC of this article, I sadly don’t think it matters what they charge for Vista. Within months, that’s all you’ll be able to buy anyway. I personally don’t see a reason to upgrade from XP, so I won’t. I probably will end up submerged in a sea of Vista eventually, but hopefully the work Microsoft put into reworking large portions of code pays off so it’ll be less buggy.
(I wonder if Microsoft’s labelling of XP as ‘less buggy’ has anything to do with everyone clicking ‘don’t send’ when an application crashes)
“Seriously, you can’t use OpenOffice.Org Calc to plot x versus y. I tried. You can plot x versus index and y versus index. That’s really not useful for what I need Calc to do, usually. There are other, far more powerful and far more suitable programs for graphing on Linux, but some of them take far more setup time to make just a simple graph.”
Have you tried using Gnumeric? I’ve always prefered Gnumeric to OpenOffice.org Calc.
“Why does every discussion on here turns into “Linux rules/sucks!”?””
It’s just like the Linux threads that turns into Windows rules/sucks, only vice-versa.
“This discussion is about Vista and it’s pretty window effects. “drool””
It’s about the Vista pricing, actually.
Okay, but how much will my OEM veresion off NewEgg cost?
LOL Microsoft really dumb-down many people,in order to spend that kind of money. when they can do the same things in linux for FREE
For many people, 150$ is nothing compared to the burden of migrating to a different system. You have to take care of compatibility and migration, getting used to the new look & feel, the new ways of doing your work, etc. For others, time can be money. Thus, laying down money for a production boost might worth it.
Furthermore, while the software stack above Linux can do the same things for free, it’s not a perfect clone. In other words, the alternatives are behaving differently. In particular, audio/video/picture manipulation and gaming are not done the same way, which can be a major turnoff. Sadly, there isn’t an alternative for everything, either. While Wine can help, it’s not perfect.
That’s without mentionning that most people will get a copy of Vista for “free”, most often with a new computer… In my case, my university got an MSDNAA, where I’ll be able to get Vista for less than 10$. At such prices, people will choose convenience over free beer (unless you care of the source, of course).
Honestly, I don’t think their pricing schemes are that bad, at least for industrial countries. Ultimate is a bit over-the-top, but most people will be okay with Home Premium. There are too many versions, though. A bit confusing.
//For many people, 150$ is nothing compared to the burden of migrating to a different system. You have to take care of compatibility and migration, getting used to the new look & feel, the new ways of doing your work, etc. For others, time can be money. Thus, laying down money for a production boost might worth it. //
Vista will require migration as well. With Vista also “You have to take care of compatibility and migration, getting used to the new look & feel, the new ways of doing your work, etc.”
//Furthermore, while the software stack above Linux can do the same things for free, it’s not a perfect clone. In other words, the alternatives are behaving differently. In particular, audio/video/picture manipulation and gaming are not done the same way, which can be a major turnoff.//
Same turnoff exactly applies to moving from XP to Vista … except that the move to Vista will cost a lot more $$$ than a move to a decent Linux distribution would.
//That’s without mentionning that most people will get a copy of Vista for “free”, most often with a new computer… In my case, my university got an MSDNAA, where I’ll be able to get Vista for less than 10$. At such prices, people will choose convenience over free beer (unless you care of the source, of course).//
What convenience? You are likely to have to pay for a new OS, an upgraded machine and several new applications for any move to Vista. Sticking with XP or moving to a Linux solution will be way less expensive. The only real difference is, a move to Linux would bring with it a huge improvement in the lack of malware hassles and license and registration type hassles, and there is absolutely zero threat of being bothered by a BSA audit or anything similar.
Vista will require migration as well. With Vista also “You have to take care of compatibility and migration, getting used to the new look & feel, the new ways of doing your work, etc.”
Sure, you cannot avoid this. However, Microsoft is doing a great job with backward compatibility for existing applications. You cannot rely on software compatibility when you change to an OS from a different lineage.
Same turnoff exactly applies to moving from XP to Vista … except that the move to Vista will cost a lot more $$$ than a move to a decent Linux distribution would.
Churning the same bullshit as others… There are so many parameters, so many variables in a system that can lead to scenarios where the opposite would actually happen. Just think about Microsoft shops with some MS-Windows-exclusive software involved. Making such absolute statement is never a good idea. Many Linux advocates accuse Microsoft of spreading FUD; retaliating with the same medecine isn’t the way to go…
What convenience? You are likely to have to pay for a new OS, an upgraded machine and several new applications for any move to Vista. Sticking with XP or moving to a Linux solution will be way less expensive.
Because you wouldn’t have to pay for new hardware or software for Linux? What about replacing “Win-hardware” or getting specialisated/scientific software? The GNU/Linux userland is mostly free, but there are many scenarios where you don’t have free alternatives. The world doesn’t revolve around office work.
The only real difference is, a move to Linux would bring with it a huge improvement in the lack of malware hassles and license and registration type hassles, and there is absolutely zero threat of being bothered by a BSA audit or anything similar.
Sorry, never had issues with malwares, neither with registrations…
Hey, I have nothing against GNU/Linux; after all, I’m using it everyday. It’s just not some magic panacea for all your computing woes like some overhyping fanboys are pretending.
When Linux doesn’t suit your needs, Vista might be a nice alternative at a fair price (except for Ultimate, anyway).
LOL Microsoft really dumb-down many people,in order to spend that kind of money. when they can do the same things in linux for FREE
The whole point is that you can’t do everything in Linux that you can with Windows. If you could, there would be no reason for Windows to exist. Perhaps one of these days, some of you hardcore Linux fanatics will figure that out and shut the f**k up already.
And just so you don’t think I’m totally biased, there are also things you can’t do in Windows that you can do in Linux. It just depends on what you need. Remember kids, everything is a tool – use the best tool for the job. If you worship at the Altar of Stallman, then you’ve got no business going anywhere near a proprietary OS. But please respect those who don’t share the same religion as you.
The whole point is that you can’t do everything in Linux that you can with Windows. If you could, there would be no reason for Windows to exist.
Except that some people would still like it. God help them. It’s called “choice”. What you said is like saying that if Fords are just as good as Chryslers, there’s no reason for Chrysler to exist.
Perhaps one of these days, some of you hardcore Linux fanatics will figure that out and shut the f**k up already.
Fanatics never stfu already. Especially when not told to. And that goes for Windows fanatics too.
Except that some people would still like it. God help them. It’s called “choice”. What you said is like saying that if Fords are just as good as Chryslers, there’s no reason for Chrysler to exist.
Well, the difference here is that Fords don’t cost $0 as Linux does.
Thats why you see more Honda and Toyota and Hyundai car on the market …
Fords cost more and offer less , the difference is off course people have a real choice. You dont get Ford by default and have to go out and look for another car make after you where forced to buy a Ford.
Well, the difference here is that Fords don’t cost $0 as Linux does.
They do if you steal them. For once the automobile/computer analogy actually works!
Edited 2006-09-06 09:57
Methinks I’ll sit this one out. My current box does everything I need it to do. I see no compelling reason to switch.
I may, however, upgrade — yes, upgrade — to GNU/Linux. I’m already running the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro on a 2nd box. I really like it, and it gets better with every release.
//I may, however, upgrade — yes, upgrade — to GNU/Linux. I’m already running the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro on a 2nd box. I really like it, and it gets better with every release.//
Although a bit off-topic: I see where the upcoming version of Ubuntu (version 6.10) with the strange release name of “Edgy Eft” includes Xorg 7.1 and therefore AIGLX – brining with it all the accelerated snazzy windows eye-candy effects equivalent of Aero.
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=03672#0
“No, we only established that Windows fanatics like yourself can use lies and statistics to “prove” your damn lies.”
So you get a +5 for that trolling bullshit. This place sucks.
oh and linux fans don’t lie (even without statistics)?
LOL
There’s a difference between “fans” and “fanatics”. And no, not all Linux fans (or fanatics) refrain from lying. Nor do all Windows fanatics refrain from telling the truth.
If this place sucks, why are you here?
I see from your comment rating that you’re well on your way to full blown troll yourself.
We all have our Trolls, they have all been known to “exaggerate” things.
The difference, in the main, is that the Linux Kernel people, the distributors, etc. don’t lie.
Unlike some prprietary software companies.
Indeed, trust is important.
People are set up to trust other people though, not software.
Geeks trust Opensource because it’s made by geeks and the motivations for things is implicitly understood.
Non-geeks don’t have that confort. They certainly can’t look at the code in a meaningful way. The altruism of giving away an operating system makes them suspicious before anything else. Must be some kind of trick, right? Anything given away can’t be worth anything.
But commerice is understood. Both sides get something of equal value, and thus you can trust in what you’re getting. The people before you wouldn’t have bought the products otherwise. After all, companies are rich because they deserve to be rich.
…I’ll stop rambling now before I have a total cynicism overload.
//Geeks trust Opensource because it’s made by geeks and the motivations for things is implicitly understood.
Non-geeks don’t have that confort. They certainly can’t look at the code in a meaningful way. The altruism of giving away an operating system makes them suspicious before anything else. Must be some kind of trick, right? Anything given away can’t be worth anything. //
I can see why people might think along these lines, but it isn’t actually the “way it works out”.
Firstly, as a non-geek, I don’t need to be able to decipher the actual source code in order to find trust in Open Source. All I need to know is that (1) the source code is available to anyone, and (2) there are a large number of geeks that can access the code, understand the code, compile it themselves to confirm that it generates the same binaries as are available from the repositories, and (3) that said geeks then use the selfsame code as end users themselves.
In other words, the trust comes from the fact that the code is openly auditable, not from my own ability to audit it.
//But commerice is understood. Both sides get something of equal value, and thus you can trust in what you’re getting.//
Once again, this isn’t the way it works out. Commercial code vendors plainly do not “trust” end users – witness WGA and DRM and license keys – all sorts of obvious components to the commercial software that are pointedly NOT in the best interests of the end user. You get none of this sort of nonsense – and no malware at all – in Open Source code.
Firstly, as a non-geek
You’re arguing cogently about opensource sociology on a message board about computers on the internet. You may lack geek skills, but I doubt you lack a geek mindset.
In other words, the trust comes from the fact that the code is openly auditable, not from my own ability to audit it.
I absolutely agree. But you’re missing a premise: the belief that if code is auditable, geeks using that code will audit it and then loudly complain if they find anything wrong, instead of exploiting. I am positing that this understanding about geek nature (and by extension the sociology of open source communities) is what non-geeks tend to not have. Lack of understanding breeds lack of trust. Especially in comparison to an omnipresent, time tested alternative.
Me: But commerice is understood. Both sides get something of equal value, and thus you can trust in what you’re getting.
You: Once again, this isn’t the way it works out. Commercial code vendors plainly do not “trust” end users
Well, the thrust of my argument here was about non-geek consumers trusting companies, not the other way around. I should have made that clearer. But as long as you brought it up, companies absolutely tend to trust the results of commerce over alternatives such as charity or donations. To say that one method is trusted more than others does not mean that the trust is total.
Similarly, non-geek consumers tend to trust the expensive product of corporations over free alternatives.
Edited 2006-09-06 21:49
//The altruism of giving away an operating system makes them suspicious before anything else. Must be some kind of trick, right? Anything given away can’t be worth anything. //
Another misconception.
Open Source code is not “given away”. Open Source code thrives on a “pay it forward” principle.
It works like this: “I have started a coding project … here it is … if you add bits that you are good at then we both get a better application out of the collaboration”.
Edited 2006-09-06 13:50
//Open Source code is not “given away”. Open Source code thrives on a “pay it forward” principle. //
For those who do not understand this reference, here are some links that might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_It_Forward
http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org/
http://www.payitforwardmovement.com/
http://payitforward.warnerbros.com/Pay_It_Forward/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_roots
Oh, and here is one for the Windows fans “cheering” on public message boards for a hyper-expensive commercial product that is still vapourware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Edited 2006-09-06 14:26
How does that [pay it forward] relate to OSS, exactly?
Normally I hear OSS, well GPL devs anyway, say that they are paid for their efforts in other GPL code. But if “pay it forward” were really the basis of OSS distribution, why does Red Hat charge so much for its enterprise OS? Why do Red Hat execs make millions of dollars (real dollars, not “code”) off the work of free labor? Red Hat execs certainly don’t believe in the altruism of “pay it forward”, though they certainly exploit that mindset when lining their pockets.
I give full credit to the likes of Red Hat and IBM. They identified a segment of a profession that thinks the highest virtue in life is to work for free (sorry, I mean, work for “code”), and they swept in and took advantage of such naivte. Red Hat takes the fruits of free labor, wraps it in not-so-pretty package, and sells it for big bucks while the creators of the work get little more than an “Atta boy!!” in return. And the creators of the work *like* it that way, out of some delusion that they’re making a better world or are sticking it to the Man (MS and whatever other commercial software company they see fit to despise at any given time). Sorry, but it sounds like a children’s crusade to me with RMS as the pied piper (except he’s deluded enough to believe in the cause himself; well, he can afford to, seeing as MIT provided him with free room and board for his whole life; why does he care about actually making a living?).
Here’s why I prefer MS and Apple over “pay it forward”. MS and Apple are honest about the exchange. They say, here’s our product, here’s the price. Pay it or don’t. A simple straight-forward exchange of currency for goods. No philisophical BS accompanied by lots of hand waving and “kum-bai-ya”.
Reminds me of the Alec Guiness line from Lawrence of Arabia, playing Prince Feisal: “With Lawrence, mercy is a passion, with me it is merely good manners. You may judge which is the more reliable.” Which is to say, do not trust one whose primary motivation is based on “passion”. There had better be some logical thinking besides “passion”.
And MS and Apple actually pay the programmers of their OSes!! Wow, what a novel concept, that programmers are worth as much as (and possibly, dare I say it, *more than*) consultants (who are the prime money earners in the OSS world).
Oh, and regarding the philosophy of giving away software and making money on support? That is the most backward thinking I ever heard of. The “ideal” piece of software is powrful, flexible, and easy to use, with no support required. The goal should be to make software better and better to lessen the need for support. The “give it away and earn money on support” philosophy goes against that, and actually provides a disincentive to making easy to use, flexible software. That model also gives rise to the “consultants are worth more than programmers” (or more precisely, “consultants are worth paying while programmers”, so the advice of the former is worth money while the product of the latter should be free (as in beer)) mindset, which I find repugnant.
Whatever, I only program as a hobby now. I made my money as a professional programmer and retired. I don’t believe in working for free while some exec or consultant gets fat off my work.
//But if “pay it forward” were really the basis of OSS distribution, why does Red Hat charge so much for its enterprise OS? Why do Red Hat execs make millions of dollars (real dollars, not “code”) off the work of free labor?//
RedHat doesn’t charge for the code. RedHat charges for support. RedHat gives out their source code at the cost of distribution.
Don’t believe me?
Well, here is a version of RedHat’s product, made from that source code, for free:
http://www.centos.org/
Oh, and here is another source as well:
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
You don’t get RedHat’s support for that.
Therefore, the ONLY thing that RedHat charges for is support.
Some people are willing to pay for that. Especially for code that is supported, independently audited and has no lock-in features at all.
Edited 2006-09-06 15:12
Another misconception.
My point is not that it’s true, but that it is believed.
By the time it comes out to the public Vista 32-bit will be quality. The 64-bit maybe a different story as it will most likely not as compatible.
However, either way it will be better than any version of Linux for the most part. Stability, security, and polish.
If you want to see something really cool, something that Linux is not going to be able to do for you check this video out.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231438
Play this video and get towards the end and you will see what you can do even without having the latest hardware. It won’t work for 1999 hardware, but still this is quality folks that Linux cannot deliever.
This works not just for HD video or audio, but for video games as well.
So I don’t care about spending more on Windows than Linux because it is simply worth more and I don’t have to waste my time getting things to actually work like they should.
It is kind of like would you rather download a crappy (low resolution and someone recording it from inside a theater) movie for free on your computer and do what you want with it or pay and get a HD high quality experience and be able to have the freedom to do what you want with it as well?
I think the choice is obvious.
By the time it comes out to the public Vista 32-bit will be quality. The 64-bit maybe a different story as it will most likely not as compatible.
Umm, ok. An opinion, and therefore neither true nor false.
However, either way it will be better than any version of Linux for the most part.
In what way?
Stability, security, and polish.
More polished, perhaps. Linux users typically don’t care if they can’t have an orgasm over their OS, as long as it works. More stable and secure? Funny.
Play this video and get towards the end and you will see what you can do even without having the latest hardware. It won’t work for 1999 hardware, but still this is quality folks that Linux cannot deliever.
Well that’s five minutes of Microsoft management bull I’ll never get back. No, i didn’t watch all of that interminable video. Thanks a lot.
So I don’t care about spending more on Windows than Linux because it is simply worth more
I’d quite happily spend as much money on Linux as its worth, which as far as I’m concerned, is far more than Windows.
@proforma
I think the choice is obvious.
FreeDOS FTW!
“If you want to see something really cool, something that Linux is not going to be able to do for you check this video out.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231438 ”
I actually downloaded that 176M piece of garbage and fast forwarded to the last 7 minutes. Let me get this straight. You’re completely blown away by the fact that after 7+ years of working on Vista, Microsoft managed to build a Windows version of Mplayer? Where exactly is this stuff that Linux supposedly can’t do?
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=231438
Play this video and get towards the end and you will see what you can do even without having the latest hardware. It won’t work for 1999 hardware, but still this is quality folks that Linux cannot deliever.
It’s only available in WMV9, and I can’t be arsed to reboot to watch it (damn 64-bit system). Could somebody describe what’s on it?
It is kind of like would you rather download a crappy (low resolution and someone recording it from inside a theater) movie for free on your computer and do what you want with it or pay and get a HD high quality experience and be able to have the freedom to do what you want with it as well?
If you think you’re going to have “the freedom to do what you want” with HD movies on your Vista PC, I’m afraid you’ve got an nasty surprise coming.
If you think you’re going to have “the freedom to do what you want” with HD movies on your Vista PC, I’m afraid you’ve got an nasty surprise coming.
Well, you’ll probably be able to do a lot more with them than you can in Linux
Personally, I don’t have any intention of playing any DRM’d HD content on my computer. But I like knowing that at least I have the option, if I were to someday decide to do so.
And if somebody does crack the DRM, then you can pretty much do what you want with them in any OS.
And if somebody does crack the DRM, then you can pretty much do what you want with them in any OS.
That has already been done, there is an application which can strip the DRM off music which has been downloaded of subscription.
That has already been done, there is an application which can strip the DRM off music which has been downloaded of subscription.
We’re talking HD content here – think Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
oops <blush> but then again, assuming it is encoded the same way, it should work without too many problems – but even so, I think they’re fighting a losing battle – Apple and Microsoft know it, but ultimately they must atleast appear to give a toss about ‘intellectual property’ or otherwise the studios will simply run back into their cave of slader and lawsuites against teenagers on limewire.
Basically it’s a bunch of Microsoft devs watching a video on Vista (instead of fixing their crappy OS, which is what they’re paid for) and going “Ooooh I can move the window around without the video or audio jumping.” Like I said before, it’s nothing revolutionary and Linux boxes have been doing this for quite a while now.
I’m actually laughing at this point.
Come on, there must be a Windows user with a clue SOMEWHERE.
proforma, you’re wasting your time with these lot; according to them, Microsoft can do nothing right, and GNU/Linux is superior, and anyone who has dares to question them must be part of the ‘non-believers’ – its like watching a internet version of the Poll Pot and Comare Rouge, trying to purge out and eliminate anyone who dares question their cult.
For me, I have no loyalty to Microsoft or Dell or any other company; they’re just companies, making products for people to use; they’re neither good or bad, evil or moral; its as simple as that.
Christ knows, I can’t work out why some people here have some sort of loveing attachment to companies; but I cam assure you one thing; the average user doesn’t give a shit, they buy a computer to get things done; they don’t buy a computer to learn the in’s and outs, they don’t buy a computer to debug something or learn how to recompile or patch an application that is causig problems.
Some of these pompus GNU/Linux users need to get out into the real world and take a good wiff ot reality, because the reality is; Linux growth has slipped well below the over all shipment growth, and Windows 2003 and Solaris are taking off.
The hype has ended, Solaris is now opensource, the reason for running Linux has now been extinguished; Linux was developed as a cheap, good enough UNIX alternative/replacement that was first adopted by ISP’s, then worked out from there, but now, there is an alternative.
On the desktop, each year, there is the constant repeat that ‘this year is the year of the desktop’ and yet, nothing is delivered; still the same crappy, unstable driver API, still the same lack of commercial desktop software such as Adobe Creative Suite, MYOB, Quicken, a decent quality viable alternative to Microsoft Office – when is IBM finally going to show some real opensource love, and opensource their Lotus Smart Suite?
I’ll probably get marked down to -5 because some nut will annouce a fatwa on my ass, and demand that I convert to their ‘religion’ or threated to get ‘destroyed’ – But I guess thats typical of that ilk; you can have express your opinion here, but it seems that its only ok if it is the right one which they agree with.
With the terrible opinion you have of the people around here, it’s kind of a wonder you still post and visit. That’s just genuine curiosity–I’m not suggesting anything like “love it or leave it.”
“The hype has ended, Solaris is now opensource, the reason for running Linux has now been extinguished; Linux was developed as a cheap, good enough UNIX alternative/replacement that was first adopted by ISP’s, then worked out from there, but now, there is an alternative.”
That’s a curious thing. Kinda like saying that, well, since humans have Canada now, England and France are no longer needed.
Linux isn’t just software, it’s also a culture. Cultures have momentum. People tend to see their culture as the best, to play up the good elements of their culture while downplaying the best parts of other cultures. Unless the difference in quality is quite dramatic. But even emmigrants from a culture want to hold on to their old ways and get grumpy when they can’t.
UI conventions are part of culture. Ways of installing programs are part of culture. Support resources, software libraries, supported filetypes–all culture. To some, GPL is apple pie while CDDL is squid pie. It’s probably tasty, but it’s no replacement.
So, don’t be surprised when Linux users and Mac OS users and *BSD users stay in their “fantasy land” and happily work and play and continue to improve the things around them. And continue to find like-minded people to join them. Probably not many, but does that matter?
“Winning the war for the desktop” really isn’t the point. That’d just be a feather in one’s cap, a good deed done by bringing the superior culture to the masses.
And if it doesn’t happen? Well. Germany has a much higher GDP than, say, Portugal. Bravo, Germany has won. I’m sure the Portugese will see the error of their ways and begin converting immediately.
I will pass on your old and already answered scripted insults and lies.
People dont have a problem with your opinions , its the lies and blaming game and insult you trow in with it they object to.
Its strange that you feel the need to discuss GNU/Linux offer and options in a thread where Microsoft is the main topic and its pricing. When you claim you dont care for a product and have no loyalty to any company.
Care to be on subject for a change and tell me why 199$ is a good price/offer for the Home version ?
What are the difference between the version and there pricing ?
Why is there so many version of the same product from the same company ?
Why is the Ultimate version so higly priced ? Is the legal XP user going ot get a rebate for this version to get the full version ?
I can get GNU/Linux for no cost , and this days really good versions too , what is in Vista pricing that I should be on the lookout for ?
What new hardware and technology is Vista going to be offering legally based on price ?
I already know the answer to the question I asked about Vista , but the answer and discussion about vista where done with someone else and somewhere else , because here and now , people like you feel the need to insult my platform of choice and my work and are not interested in an honest comparaison on price.
The reason why is simple , there offer is not that great and is not what they first mentionned it would be. Also no cost is hard to compete with on a pricing discussion.
I am also going to to get it by default on some hardware I wil buy in the futur anyway , because its cheaper to keep it on then ask for what I whant.
“…security…”
No, you don’t get that with Vista, it’s $50 p.a. extra.
//No, you don’t get that with Vista, it’s $50 p.a. extra.//
Actually, with Vista it is $50 p.a. extra to try to get rid of the malware once it has infected the machine. No amount of money apparently will stop the malware from infesting a Windows machine in the first place.
That is the one thing really that Windows has it all over any other platform. There is infinitely more malware for Windows, and it is far far easier to get …
As was said above … “Plus you forgot that this is TOTAL Cost of Ownership we’re talking about. Compare the upfront costs of RHEL and SLED and MS if you like, but then you have to factor in downtime due to viruses, malware, spyware, buggy applications, system crashes, etc. “
Too true. Too too true.
I’ve lost count of the number of Windows installs I have been asked to “disinfect”. One some net-connected Windows machines I have seen literally hundreds of viruses and other malware (on just the one machine), yet I have never ever encountered a single instance of malware on any Linux machine ever.
Edited 2006-09-06 12:06
“For consumers looking to buy Vista without an upgrade, the products will cost between $199 to $399, Microsoft said.”
F*(king OUCH
“For consumers looking to buy Vista without an upgrade, the products will cost between $199 to $399, Microsoft said.”
F*(king OUCH
Yup. And yet you can get the GNU/Linux Ubuntu distro for free. Hell, Canonical will even send it to you on a CD for free. They recommend asking for at least 10 so you can give ’em away. This is the better upgrade, in my view.
I fully agree, except I’m an Xubuntu kinda guy =)
sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
for all the xfce’eee goodness
of course we cannot mention here that you can click xubuntu-desktop in synaptic and install it that way…. no, these windows guys think you need magic pixies and spells before you can install software on a linux machine.
let them think we have to use apt-get all the time.
Well I do use aptitude all the time, but that’s by choice.
You also forgot to mention the magic chicken. You gotta wave the chicken over it while reading off random voodoo curses so it’ll work properly.
So if I choose to buy the ultimate version at ‘non-upgrade’ pricing I get to spend $400 and then be treated as a criminal after I re-install my $400 OS a few too many times and am told to ‘call MS’
At those prices the last thing the OS should do is activate online and lock you down to your hardware.
Word around the campfire is that vista will extend ‘genuine advantage’
I think its time everyone reminds this great company just who they serve.
Don’t buy into this garbage and don’t buy vista.
Haven’t paid the MS tax since 1997. Haven’t paid one red cent for any software since 1999. Haven’t had a virus since 1997. Add it up and I think I can afford some really cool hardware.
i’ve never paid the MS tax and haven’t seen any viruses on my computers
Sorry for the OT, I like to think it is a good reason.
I had hoped that *spire would come around to see they were unreasonable but since they won’t I simply ask that you take a look at my final posts in that thread and decide my true intentions for yourself.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15726&comment_id=159562
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15726&comment_id=159555
If Microsoft wasn’t enjoying a monopoly, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead, we would be saying “LOL, with those prices, they’ll be out of business soon!”
I guess if you’re big enough, you can make people believe that if you’re that expensive, you must be awfully good.
In the Soviet Union, there was only one model bread toaster.
It cost a fortune.
And people were waiting in line to get their hands on one.
But hey, what am I talking? Vista has lots of versions to choose from!
Yeah, good ol’ Choice, and the blessings of our free market economy.
😉
ROTFL. Right on.
downloading proprietary software……..
its for evaluations purpose….scouts honor!
I could spend twice that ($799) and get myself a mac mini, with OS and all. One OS for desktops even, not 57 varieties…
Home XP version was $100, but now the cheapest Vista (which one can buy separately) is $200.
I don’t think this will be very well received from laptop manufacturers, unless OEM’s will still get it for an old price tag (I wonder if they’ll get a Vista ready certificate if they sell a laptop WITHOUT Vista. If so, MS should certainly be reported to EU:)). Maybe laptops will still come with XPHome/Pro bundled, though, unless MS withdraws those from market very soon.
But OTOH price of new software could drive some companies to (finally) preload free linux distros, like ubuntu or opensuse – and sell as a cheaper versions of same laptop (will need improved pre-release support-and-bugfix cooperation between distros and manufacturers). This is especially attractive in markets where piracy is high, as people will install pirate Vista/XP versions on top of it manually.
Problems, as I outlined, is a need for guaranteed support in distros. It’s hard for e.g. Lenovo to consistently offer preloaded distros if they don’t know whether their new hardware will work with to-be-released Ubuntu version (od any other).
For that to begin manufacturers and distribution(s) should create a test program where distro hackers/employees they will get ability to test shipped “beta” (pre-release) laptop hardware before a final distrorelease and commit fixes to distribution, or even commit(backport) them to already released version (and also submit fixes to upstream, hopefully), with some guarantees to companies that it will work, so that they can start preloading.
//It’s hard for e.g. Lenovo to consistently offer preloaded distros if they don’t know whether their new hardware will work with to-be-released Ubuntu version (od any other). //
That is very, very backwards.
(1) Linux works with more hardware than any current version of Windows does*, and considerably more hardware than Vista does.
*example: I recently have installed on the same hardware Windows XP, Ubuntu, SuSe 10.1 and PCLinuxOS. The only one of those where I had to put in a disk that wasn’t from the distributor of the OS to get a piece of hardware to work was Windows XP. I had to put in several extra disks for Windows XP before the printer&scanner (HP PSC model) or the motherboard audio (AC97) or the DVD burner (an LG model) or the video card (nvidia) would work. On all three Linux distributions, all of these worked immediately.
**another example: on one occasion recently when setting up Windows, I put in a driver disk for the wrong motherboard (the owner assured me this was the CD that came with the machine, but it was not so). All hell broke loose, and I had to start over again from scratch. A Linux liveCD on the same machine booted up flawlessly with all hardware recognised and working without asking me a single question about the hardware.
(2) If Lenovo want their laptop hardware to work with a particular distribution of Linux, all that Lenovo need to do is give the Linux developers the specifications for how their hardware can be driven.
Edited 2006-09-06 11:25
//I recently have installed on the same hardware Windows XP, Ubuntu, SuSe 10.1 and PCLinuxOS. The only one of those where I had to put in a disk that wasn’t from the distributor of the OS to get a piece of hardware to work was Windows XP. I had to put in several extra disks for Windows XP before the printer&scanner (HP PSC model) or the motherboard audio (AC97) or the DVD burner (an LG model) or the video card (nvidia) would work. On all three Linux distributions, all of these worked immediately. //
Oh, and incidentally – Windows XP install was the only one that didn’t “play nice”. Windows XP overwrote the MBR and absolutely refused to recognise the data on any other partition of the drive. Windows XP made it impossible to dual-boot any previously installed OS. I had to either: (1) install windows first, then install a Linux distribution to set up a dual boot, or (2) Install Windows second, then use a Linux liveCD to repair the destruction of the MBR caused by the Windows install and hence regain the ability to dual-boot.
Once I had Windows installed, I was able to search the net and find the way to move user’s data (“home directories”, if you will) to another partition, but I was unable to move “Shared folders” to a separate data partition. If I ever have to re-install Windows, that’s it … say bye bye to any shared data files that aren’t backed up.
Finally – the only way to share a networked printer (such as the HP PSC I mentioned before) was to boot Linux and use CUPs on the Linux machine to drive the printer and Samba on the Linux machine to share the printer, and then install on any Windows client a third-party generic Postscript printer driver from Adobe.
Windows by far and away was the most troublesome OS to get hardware working for, and the least able OS to interoperate with other hardware and network resources.
Edited 2006-09-06 11:51
I recently have installed on the same hardware Windows XP, Ubuntu, SuSe 10.1 and PCLinuxOS. The only one of those where I had to put in a disk that wasn’t from the distributor of the OS to get a piece of hardware to work was Windows XP. I had to put in several extra disks for Windows XP before the printer&scanner (HP PSC model) or the motherboard audio (AC97) or the DVD burner (an LG model) or the video card (nvidia) would work. On all three Linux distributions, all of these worked immediately.
IMHO, that’s actually a strength of Windows in that if you throw a piece of hardware at it that it doesn’t recognize out of the box, you’ve actually got a CD from the manufacturer with drivers on it
In Linux, when the same situation occurs, you’re probably left resorting to voodoo and some sacrificial bloodletting.
//IMHO, that’s actually a strength of Windows in that if you throw a piece of hardware at it that it doesn’t recognize out of the box, you’ve actually got a CD from the manufacturer with drivers on it
//
You have if you have just bought the hardware item in question.
If you are re-installing Windows for a friend some years after purchase of hardware, on many occasions the correct CD is nowhere to be found. Every single re-install of Windows on older hardware that I have ever done has required a lengthy search for drivers on the net – often needing to be done on a different machine because the “patient” machine’s net connection is what doesn’t work out of the box.
Windows is far, far more difficult to get up and running than Linux is, every time without fail.
Edited 2006-09-06 13:22
If you are re-installing Windows for a friend some years after purchase of hardware, on many occasions the correct CD is nowhere to be found. Every single re-install of Windows on older hardware that I have ever done has required a lengthy search for drivers on the net
Well, let’s see here … with Windows, if the device isn’t recognized on installation:
1. Use the driver CD if you have one
2. Find the driver on the Internet if you don’t have a CD
With Linux, if the OS doesn’t recognize the device on install, then what? 9 times out of 10, there will be no drivers from the manufacturer. I’m not arguing that Linux won’t recognize more devices out of the box … it has to. In Windows, even if it only recognizes 10% of the hardware, odds are that you can find drivers for the other 90%. In Linux, if it recognizes 90% of your hardware, then what do you do about the other 10%? This is not a rhetorical question, as I am genuinely curious. For example, if I were to replace Windows with Linux, would it know about the XM Radio I have connected to the USB port?
often needing to be done on a different machine because the “patient” machine’s net connection is what doesn’t work out of the box.
That’s when you fire up a Knoppix Live CD. Remember, everything is a tool
Of course, if Knoppix doesn’t recognize your network card/modem, then you’re pretty much in the same boat anyway.
//With Linux, if the OS doesn’t recognize the device on install, then what? 9 times out of 10, there will be no drivers from the manufacturer. I’m not arguing that Linux won’t recognize more devices out of the box … it has to. In Windows, even if it only recognizes 10% of the hardware, odds are that you can find drivers for the other 90%. In Linux, if it recognizes 90% of your hardware, then what do you do about the other 10%? This is not a rhetorical question, as I am genuinely curious. For example, if I were to replace Windows with Linux, would it know about the XM Radio I have connected to the USB port? //
I can only comment here on what I have encountered. The only hardware I have had trouble with on Linux is the odd Winmodem and some wireless cards. In each case (amounting to a handful of devices amongst hundreds), I have eventually been able to get it working.
For Windows, unless I am extremely lucky, there will be at least two or three components of every system I encounter that do not work with the standard distribution Windows CD. Either I have a full set of additional driver CDs (rare) or I have to find at least two or three drivers off the net every time I try to install Windows. Windows also gives next-to-no information or tools to help you find the correct driver. About one in four or five systems where driver CDs are not to hand – it ends up that a driver cannot be found on the net and the machine doesn’t fully work.
I repeat, Windows is a lot harder to get up and running than Linux is.
I recently have installed on the same hardware Windows XP, Ubuntu, SuSe 10.1 and PCLinuxOS. The only one of those where I had to put in a disk that wasn’t from the distributor of the OS to get a piece of hardware to work was Windows XP. I had to put in several extra disks for Windows XP before the printer&scanner (HP PSC model) or the motherboard audio (AC97) or the DVD burner (an LG model) or the video card (nvidia) would work. On all three Linux distributions, all of these worked immediately.
IMHO, that’s actually a strength of Windows in that if you throw a piece of hardware at it that it doesn’t recognize out of the box, you’ve actually got a CD from the manufacturer with drivers on it
In Linux, when the same situation occurs, you’re probably left resorting to voodoo and some sacrificial bloodletting.
And here we have a strength of FOSS. FOSS supporters tell it like it is, Windows supporters resort to hyperbole and scaremongering.
Attention should be put on
>(1) Linux works with more hardware than any current version of Windows does*, and considerably more hardware than Vista does.
True if you don’t count in how old it is, but Linux doesn’t stable have driver ABI, so drivers must be incorporated(accepted!) INTO kernel on time, or distrubitions must use patches not in mainline kernel tree to have support when device is released. So vendor early help in producing that code is crucial.
No misunderstanding – maturely supported hardware works great on linux “out-of-box”. It is that vey new piece of silicon that often doesn’t work well on (even) a very recent distro (example: latest sound cards, latest wi-fi cards etc.). Here is the difference – vendors promptly release hardware for Windows, but not so fast for Linux, so new hardware is problematic. We need a program to lure them into commiting to linux. A distro based approach is a good start – and I was only talking about laptop manufacturers.
>(2) If Lenovo want their laptop hardware to work with a particular distribution of Linux, all that Lenovo need to do is give the Linux developers the specifications for how their hardware can be driven.
How can you develop a driver without real hardware to test? because of that only some time after a release hardware can be supported in kernel. This of course prevents manufacturers to sell that model with Linux preloaded, except fi they waith for a 6 months or so.
Fact is that some hardware companies are actively participating in development of open source drivers for their hardware. Latest example is Intels i965 graphic card, which average kernel/DRI developer doesn’t yet have for testing, but driver is already there, submitted to mainline. Smaller manufacturers probably don’t care so much and someone needs to lower the entry barrier for them.
How can you develop a driver without real hardware to test? because of that only some time after a release hardware can be supported in kernel. This of course prevents manufacturers to sell that model with Linux preloaded, except fi they waith for a 6 months or so.
I think the bigger question is, how can you give the specifications when you don’t even own the specifications – in the case of Lenovo, all they are is a computer assembler, they have no ‘rights’ to the in’s and out’s of the said hardware, and they don’t have the rights, if they did orginally, to spread information about how these said devices operate.
There is this assumpttion in the Linux community, unfortunately, who think because a vendor assembles a computer, they also have intricut details on how the said hardware operates, the simple fact is, they don’t, and what they do know is so limited, so heavily restricted under NDA’s, they can’t share it with anyone.
For $200 more than Vistra Pro Ultimate Gold Enterprise or whatever, you could keep your existing XP box, and buy a Mac Mini.
Since my wife’s machine isn’t likely to run Vista very well (it’s my old Dual P2 350MHz from the BeOS days), this is the route I’ll be taking. Gaming’s the only thing keeping me on XP right now, and for the past year or so, 100% of my gaming time, outside of City of Heroes/City of Villains, has been on consoles, handhelds, and Mac OS X.
Let me off of this crazy thing!
– chrish
I find if fascinating that so many here argue so passionately about software, and yet those same people don’t think that software is worth paying for. Many here think that a Happy Meal that you’ll wolf down in 5 minutes is worth paying for but software that you’ll use for years is not.
All software should be free!!
As for the topic, these prices are inline with those of XP, so I don’t know what the big deal is. I don’t see many buying “Ultimate”, nor is Microsoft targetting “Ultimate” as their mainstream OS. I think $99 for a home upgrade is just fine; Mac OSX “upgrades” are $130.
//I find if fascinating that so many here argue so passionately about software, and yet those same people don’t think that software is worth paying for. Many here think that a Happy Meal that you’ll wolf down in 5 minutes is worth paying for but software that you’ll use for years is not. //
Misconception.
It is not paying for software that is the problem.
Rather, it is paying for software that (1) you are not allowed to vet what is in it, and (2) some of the stuff that is plainly in it is visibly not in your best interest, even though you are the one expected to pay for it.
“It is not paying for software that is the problem.
Rather, it is paying for software that (1) you are not allowed to vet what is in it, and (2) some of the stuff that is plainly in it is visibly not in your best interest, even though you are the one expected to pay for it.”
Whatever…
I see many posts above saying “I use Linux because it costs $0.00”, which implies that paying is the problem. And you can’t deny that many OSS advocates (I frequent slashdot, so I know of which I speak) maintain that software has no intrinsic value because it consists of bits rather than atoms, and is therefore not worth paying for (these people take the same attitude regarding all digital media). And sorry, after spending many man-hours creating software, I take exception to some 12-21 year old saying that a Happy Meal is worth $4 but an OS is worth nothing (in dollars) simply because the former consists of atoms and the latter of bits.
BTW, 99% of people don’t care to “vet” what is in software. For those that do, go ahead and use your freebie.
Lastly, you guys don’t use Windows anyway (or certainly don’t pay for it; maybe your employer does), so why exactly are you rasing a fuss over these prices?
(And I repeat, the prices are inline with XP’s and are inline with OSX’s (the upgrade price is in fact cheaper than OSX’s upgrade price, and Windows doesn’t require OSX’s $130 every 12-18 month tax to stay up to date).)
//BTW, 99% of people don’t care to “vet” what is in software. For those that do, go ahead and use your freebie. //
You still don’t get it, do you?
It is not that most people actually do vet the code, it is just that the code CAN BE VETTED (even by others) that makes it trustworthy. And Open Source code IS vetted, all over the globe every day by many hundreds of eyes.
//Lastly, you guys don’t use Windows anyway (or certainly don’t pay for it; maybe your employer does), so why exactly are you rasing a fuss over these prices? //
Again, you don’t get it. If I buy a car, I can look under the hood and see the engine. Once I decide to buy the car, it is my car.
If I buy Windows, not only am I not allowed to look under the hood, but what I can see on the outside alone doesn’t look good for me but rather appears to be designed to benefit the car-maker, and if I do buy this expensive and not-in-my-interest car, it is not actually my car according to the purchase agreement, I am not allowed to drive it in certain ways, and I am now liable to be investigated and audited and threatened with lawsuits just because there is that type of a car in my garage.
It also appears to be a car that I must forever replace every few years with another expensive model from the same car-maker.
Edited 2006-09-06 14:50
That’s fine for you. Look at each and every line of code before you buy or deploy any software. (Give me a break.) Oh, and be sure to do that with all of the Google ware that you use. Oh, that’s right, Google’s source is just as closed as Microsoft’s. Hmmm. What’s the difference? That Google is free as in beer, that’s what. You guys are so transparent, wrapping your “I want everything for no money” into some grand ideology.
Oh, and if OSS code is “vetted every day all over the globe by many hundreds of eyes” to verify its trustworthiness, why is it that Mozilla keeps releasing security updates for Firefox? That “hundreds of eyes” crap is pure bull. The fact is, nobody vetts the code but the creators themselves. And you know what? Almost nobody else is qualified to vett the code in the first place. Would you really trust some third party to audit code that they have no clue how it works? Come on, now. “Hundreds of eyes” is pure sophistry at its finest (ESR’s stock and trade).
Regarding your car analogy, do you really have access to the design docs? No, you have access to the actual materials that make the parts of the car. Well, you have access to the actual bits that make up the parts of a piece of binary software too. Let me know when Ford shares its internal design info with Chrysler. And let me know when Ford gives away its cars for free and gets money on “support”. Cars have nothing to do with software.
You still haven’t answered why you’re raising such a fuss over the price of an OS that you don’t use.
//You still haven’t answered why you’re raising such a fuss over the price of an OS that you don’t use.//
Where did I say any such a thing?
I have to put up with Windows a great deal in my day-to-day work.
It costs an arm and a leg, it is a b**ch to keep running properly, no-one knows how it works, no-one can say they can trust it because they are not allowed to find out how it works, it forever tries to constrain you to be tied to that one product … and there is a marvellous alternative that has absolutely none of the same perennial attendant problems associated with it.
Why would I support the world’s richest man getting richer just to put myself through all that un-necessary pain and risk in order to get him more money?
So, you pay for the Windows that you use at work out of your own pocket? If not, why do you care about the price again?
BTW, it’s not true that *nobody* knows how Windows works, many universities have access to the source code:
http://research.microsoft.com/university/ntsrclicensees.asp
“Why would I support the world’s richest man getting richer just to put myself through all that un-necessary pain and risk in order to get him more money?”
So it’s resentment/jealousy that’s the issue?
Anyway, you’re an IT guy, so you have your issues. Programming is my trade, and I ask why a programmer would work for free just to make the rich RedHat execs all the more richer. 😉
Now, I really *am* done here. 🙂
Edited 2006-09-06 15:58
Now, I really *am* done here. 🙂
TFFT, downmodding be damned.
//Oh, and if OSS code is “vetted every day all over the globe by many hundreds of eyes” to verify its trustworthiness, why is it that Mozilla keeps releasing security updates for Firefox?//
You confuse “there is a hard to spot bug here” and “this code is a rootkit, backdoor, keylogger, spyware or virus”.
The first is unintentional and obscure, but even then many eyes reduce the bug frequency.
The second is intentional malware. This can exist ONLY in closed-source code.
The first is still trustworthy, just not yet fully polished.
The second is untrustworthy … and does not exist amongst Open Source code.
//And sorry, after spending many man-hours creating software,//
So you are a Microsoftie I take it? For shame.
I run projects that create software as well. The difference is the software is for a one-of customer, and they get the final version of the source code once it has been tested to their satisfaction not mine.
“So you are a Microsoftie I take it? For shame.”
Nope. Not that I’d find shame in that.
“I run projects that create software as well. The difference is the software is for a one-of customer, and they get the final version of the source code once it has been tested to their satisfaction not mine.”
I’ve worked on projects like that too, and that’s all well and good, but I still think that commercial software for the masses has a place, and I don’t think much of anyone whose goal it is to kill off the ability to make money in that (particularly when so much of the OSS offerings pale compared to their commercial counterparts (GIMP vs Photoshop? Please…).
And even when working for one-off customers, yes they get the code, but it’s their choice whether to release it. It’s nothing to do with OSS or even whether software is worth money, which is my main beef. I think software is worth money, and you do too.
Now, here’s a problem I have with using GPL for making software for one-off customers. Imagine that such a company paid a development house for a custom solution. That development house decides to incorporate GPL code into the software, thus GPL’izing the entire project. The development house delivers the software and the code to the one-off customer. Now, if the one-off customer keeps the software internal, then it’s fine, he doesn’t have to release the code. Buet let’s say that the one-off customer releases the binary externally for his clients to use. At that point he must release the source code, and therefore his competitors can use for free the code that he paid big bucks for. Am I wrong here, if so please correct me.
//Now, here’s a problem I have with using GPL for making software for one-off customers. Imagine that such a company paid a development house for a custom solution. That development house decides to incorporate GPL code into the software, thus GPL’izing the entire project. The development house delivers the software and the code to the one-off customer. Now, if the one-off customer keeps the software internal, then it’s fine, he doesn’t have to release the code. Buet let’s say that the one-off customer releases the binary externally for his clients to use. At that point he must release the source code, and therefore his competitors can use for free the code that he paid big bucks for. Am I wrong here, if so please correct me.//
When I deliver software to my customer, I give that customer the source of applications that I have written to his specifications on the understanding that he does not re-distribute my IP. Like an NDA. If I go out of buisness, he is not screwed but can then get another party to maintain the code. If I am still in buisness, he can’t reveal my code to other parties.
I also use GPL code as part of the solution I give to him. I don’t modify the GPL code, I just use the GPL code (editors, compilers, whatnot) and write applications to run under the GPL code. I don’t incorporate any GPL code in my actual application. My customer gets the GPL code under the same terms I get it. I re-distribute it to him unmodified.
Everyone wins. No licenses disturbed. No trusts broken. No problemo.
Edited 2006-09-06 15:52
That’s cool. Thanks for the response.
But you don’t incorporate GPL code in the actual app, so your app isn’t covered by GPL. If you did incorporate GPL code in the actual app and the customer released the app externally for use by his clients, would he not then have to release the app’s code that he paid for (for the benefit of the “community” and his competitors)?
I never worked on GPL *code* (yeah, I’ve used the compilers and editors in the past). I’ve seen different arguments on slashdot regarding scenarios like the above so it seems there’s disagreement about the ramifications of the above scenario in the slashdot “community” (seems that most on slashdot aren’t really sure what GPL does either, though most of them *think* they know (they think they know everything about everything)).
//If you did incorporate GPL code in the actual app //
If I did incorporate GPL code in the actual app, then it isn’t my app. Someone else before me has written the app.
I can’t charge a customer for that, it isn’t right or ethical for a start, and the original author has every right to sue me.
What I can do however is take the original GPL code, modify it to a different purpose, and release the modified version back to GPL. I still don’t charge my customer for that part of the code, but I do have a solution to that part of the overall system, and not only do I benefit, my customer benefits by getting a solution and everyone else on the planet potentially benefits as well.
//If you did incorporate GPL code in the actual app and the customer released the app externally for use by his clients, would he not then have to release the app’s code that he paid for (for the benefit of the “community” and his competitors)? //
I really don’t understand this comment.
If you have a GPL application that largely-but-not-quite does what you need, then just submit your changes to the GPL application back, and you are good to go. It was a GPL application before, and it stays a GPL application after your modifications have been submitted.
If the maintainers of the GPL application do not want to include your modifications, you may still be able to use their code as a basis for your stuff if you negotiate a separate license with them for your use of their application.
If you are talking about a small bit of GPL code that would “complete” your own large application, then just shun the GPL code and write your own code to finish your own application. Don’t bring in a small piece of GPL code into your application – that is a stunningly brain-dead thing to do.
I really can’t see a problem here. If something isn’t largely your code, and your only license to use that code is the GPL, then keep it GPL (even if you add a bit of customisation to it) and don’t charge your end customer for it.
If it is your code, then keep it your code and don’t corrupt it by bringing in some other GPL code snippit. Write your own snippit, and finish your application that way.
It is really very simple. There is just one Golden Rule. Do not take someone else’s code and charge your customer as if you had written that code.
Or, stated even more simply: Don’t steal code.
Edited 2006-09-07 02:53
Rather, it is paying for software that (1) you are not allowed to vet what is in it, and (2) some of the stuff that is plainly in it is visibly not in your best interest, even though you are the one expected to pay for it.”
Whatever…
…is no argument, and makes you look like a twit.
I see many posts above saying “I use Linux because it costs $0.00”, which implies that paying is the problem. And you can’t deny that many OSS advocates (I frequent slashdot, so I know of which I speak) maintain that software has no intrinsic value because it consists of bits rather than atoms, and is therefore not worth paying for (these people take the same attitude regarding all digital media).
A broad generalisation. Let’s shoot it down, OOPS i mean “subject it to a detailed analysis”
“many posts sayng I use Linux because it costs $0”.
Do people not also pirate Windows? Linux costs $0 LEGALLY as long as you are not contravening a licence agreement from a vendor.
“I frequent slashdot”
…the website for the discerning reader.
“many OSS advocates maintain that software has no intrinsinc value because it consists of bits rather than atoms”.
No, they maintain that the effort involved copying digital media is in no way comparable to the manpower to build, say, one house, then another, then another.
(these people take the same attitude regarding all digital media)
by which I suppose you mean “[all] these people pirate music and dvds”. Unproven, and missing the point that Windows users do it too.
And sorry, after spending many man-hours creating software, I take exception to some 12-21 year old saying that a Happy Meal is worth $4 but an OS is worth nothing (in dollars) simply because the former consists of atoms and the latter of bits.
That’s not what I’m saying. Nor am I saying it’s worth nothing in pounds, euros, dinars or rupees. And I’m not saying it’s worth nothing because it’s bits. I’m saying Windows is worth nothing because imao it’s crap. I am not going to pay one red cent for crap, never mind the prices MS demand.
And I’m 28.
BTW, 99% of people don’t care to “vet” what is in software.
Their loss, and their laissez-faire (or to be more accurate, just lazy) attitude is what is responsible for the rampant propagation of spyware and viruses. And no, spyware and virus writers shouldn’t be writing it either. But saying that people should not indulge in criminal activity is no argument for expecting them to stop if you dismantle the FBI.
For those that do, go ahead and use your freebie.
Gee, thanks for giving us your permission.
Lastly, you guys don’t use Windows anyway (or certainly don’t pay for it; maybe your employer does), so why exactly are you rasing a fuss over these prices?
Daylight robbery is still daylight robbery, whether you fall for it or not.
(And I repeat, the prices are inline with XP’s and are inline with OSX’s (the upgrade price is in fact cheaper than OSX’s upgrade price, and Windows doesn’t require OSX’s $130 every 12-18 month tax to stay up to date).)
In line with XP’s? Not sure about that, in fact I think someone said the basic version of Vista was double that of the basic version of XP.
And perhaps since they are not likely to be infested with viruses anytime soon (for whatever reason) and have a high degree of satisfaction with their system, OS X users think it’s worth paying more for than Windows? Linux certainly is. Not only that, but the only reason why Windows hasn’t had as many upgrades as OS X is because Microsoft have taken so long to get Vista out the door.
I find if fascinating that so many here argue so passionately about software, and yet those same people don’t think that software is worth paying for.
Untrue. I certainly think that Linux, and yes MS Office, is worth paying for; but Windows is not – or at least not at those prices. Indeed I’ve ended up paying for every Linux/BSD I’ve ever used other than as part of a “try before you buy” experiment (and I’ve even paid for some of those). OTOH, Try getting Windows for free even on that basis. And no, with a new computer doesn’t count. EDIT: And nor does a ripped-off illegal version.
Many here think that a Happy Meal that you’ll wolf down in 5 minutes is worth paying for but software that you’ll use for years is not.
I don’t use Windows unless *I GET PAID* for it. Or I’m helping out a friend. I’ve used Linux since ’98 and I get all gooey when I think of where it might be by the time the ten-year anniversary comes out; by contrast, I break out in a sweat when I think of how much space I’ll need to install Vista + 1 by that time, assuming it’s out by then.
All software should be free!!
As in freedom, yes. As in price, see above. Or a Red Hat price list.
Edited 2006-09-06 13:36
I for one would go for one month of Happy Meals and get a free copy of Ubuntu than pay $399 for handcuffing software.
That’s cute. But why do you guys keep focusing on the price of Vista Ultimate (non-upgrade version) when you know that is not the mainstream OS? The mainstream OS in the home will be Vista Home Basic/Premium, which is the same price as XP Home (Vista Premium is a little more because it corresponds with XP MCE (which is actually XP Pro + MC)? The upgrade price for Vista Home Basic/Premium is less than the upgrade price for OSX. (I don’t know about the price of the “business” versions, as I don’t care.)
Whatever, I’m done here. I’m burning up karma. 😉
MS won’t get rid of massive piracy of their OS while it’s so expensive. It’s not like everyone that runs pirated software are “Arrr, Piratez!”, a good deal of them just don’t think it’s worth what it costs… and sometimes there’s no viable alternative, so they’re forced to wear the eyepatch.