Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jul 2005 19:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 11021
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: are these computers cheaper?
by Al2001 on Fri 29th Jul 2005 23:28
in reply to "are these computers cheaper?"
How is it a publicity stunt? The only reason MS are selling this is because they were forced into it.
I'm sure they have their fingers crossed that it isn't a success.
It was never about price it was about stopping MS anti competitive practices, hence the removal of media player.
As we all know this was too little too late. The only force that might become powerful enough to topple them now is open source but that isn't going to happen until the leadership/influence comes from someone who understands people not computers. Remember computers are sold to people not the other way around.
RE[2]: are these computers cheaper?
by on Sat 30th Jul 2005 00:10
in reply to "RE: are these computers cheaper?"




Member since:
2005-07-08
I don't understand how MS could be successful with this. Let's forget the fact that only 3 programs can run at a time, or that the resolution is capped at 800x600 or whatever else they impose. The cost of the Windows license tacked onto a large OEM computer (Dell, for example) is $20-30. Note this is the result of volume license agreements. So, how much cheaper are the Windows Starter licenses when priced for volume licensing, and how does that help people in developing countries?
Remember this is the same company that sells retail versions of its OS without Media Player for MORE money that the version that includes it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a publicity stunt.