Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th May 2012 22:49 UTC
Windows For weeks - if not months - I've been trying to come up with a way to succinctly and accurately explain why, exactly, Windows 8 rubs me the wrong way, usability-wise. I think I finally got it.
Thread beginning with comment 518155
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: um
by kaiwai on Tue 15th May 2012 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: um"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

My company did the same, 200k licenses Microsoft will not be collecting for any longer, there are many vendors that sell PC's without an OS so no big deal.


If your organisation purchases 200,000 licences (or is it $200,000? please be precise rather than throwing around meaningless figures) then your organisation is run by morons because almost every enterprise customer:

1) Leases their computers and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.

OR

2) Buy their computers without an operating system and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.

It is clear to me that either the organisation you work for is run by morons or the scenario you gave is a load of crap - I have a hunch that it is the later rather than the former.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: um
by JAlexoid on Tue 15th May 2012 08:42 in reply to "RE[7]: um"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's probably 200k units of money. There are not many companies that actually have that many employees.

That said, IBM only started rolling out Win7 in 2011(skipping Vista entirely) - that's well over 300'000 and as much as 400'000. And I can say with 100% certainty that Win8 will be skipped at at least 1 company that has more than 200k active licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: um
by kaiwai on Tue 15th May 2012 12:09 in reply to "RE[8]: um"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's probably 200k units of money. There are not many companies that actually have that many employees.

That said, IBM only started rolling out Win7 in 2011(skipping Vista entirely) - that's well over 300'000 and as much as 400'000. And I can say with 100% certainty that Win8 will be skipped at at least 1 company that has more than 200k active licenses.


At $200K they would be on a Microsoft licensing scheme - pretty much all the large organisations are on it and it also allows employees to purchase Windows and Office from Microsoft at the cost of the DVD ($10 each) and they can keep using it as long as they're employees of the company (based on my experience with the Microsoft Select Licensing Scheme that the NZ Ministry of Defence used to use).

I wouldn't be surprised in the case of Windows 8 that they focused on Metro touch interface first and then going to work on the traditional desktop next. End of the day Microsoft has priorities and for them the desktop is ok'ish with the more pressing matter being the lack of presence in the tablet market and the lacklustre results so far with Windows Phone sales. Windows 9 will be Metro refinement, WinRT is developed to go beyond Metro so that traditional desktop applications can be based upon it and the desktop itself is further refined.

Development takes time and quite frankly Windows 8 when compared to Vista is a pretty good improvement especially when you take into account the under the hood changes being made such as WWDM improvements, kernel scalability, developer tools improvements etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: um
by TemporalBeing on Tue 15th May 2012 19:21 in reply to "RE[7]: um"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"My company did the same, 200k licenses Microsoft will not be collecting for any longer, there are many vendors that sell PC's without an OS so no big deal.


If your organisation purchases 200,000 licences (or is it $200,000? please be precise rather than throwing around meaningless figures) then your organisation is run by morons because
"

Or they simply manage the whole thing themselves. 200k systems is not hard to manage with Linux/Unix. It is much more difficult to manage with Windows.

$200k worth of systems is only about 100k systems; still a large order, and would still put them on a Volume License with their IT managing it.

almost every enterprise customer:

1) Leases their computers and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.


Few large companies really want the latest software all the time. They tend to favor moving forward with the software versions at their own leisure. Regardless of if they are leasing or buying the computers.

2) Buy their computers without an operating system and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.


Question: Have you read the Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreement? Probably not is my guess.

Why? Because even if you purchase the licenses via the Microsoft Volume License Agreement, it states that you still may not have 100% of the licensing rights you need to run Windows on the computer you are installing it onto, and they recommend that you still buy a license with the computer to ensure you do.

VLA simply makes it easy to do things like cloning disks, and pushing out new images so that IT can manage the systems. It also conveniently lets Microsoft double book each sale and claim yet another blockbuster release that breaks all records.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: um
by kaiwai on Wed 16th May 2012 05:40 in reply to "RE[8]: um"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Or they simply manage the whole thing themselves. 200k systems is not hard to manage with Linux/Unix. It is much more difficult to manage with Windows.

$200k worth of systems is only about 100k systems; still a large order, and would still put them on a Volume License with their IT managing it.


So you're telling this forum, right now, that there is a company selling computers for $2 each?

Few large companies really want the latest software all the time. They tend to favor moving forward with the software versions at their own leisure. Regardless of if they are leasing or buying the computers.


I never said they had to upgrade to the latest version but stating that they had access to the latest version. The original claim by the poster was as follows:

My company did the same, 200k licenses Microsoft will not be collecting for any longer, there are many vendors that sell PC's without an OS so no big deal.


Which implies that he, on behalf of his organisation obtained 200,000 copies of Windows off the shelf rather than being on a volume licensing scheme.

Question: Have you read the Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreement? Probably not is my guess.

Why? Because even if you purchase the licenses via the Microsoft Volume License Agreement, it states that you still may not have 100% of the licensing rights you need to run Windows on the computer you are installing it onto, and they recommend that you still buy a license with the computer to ensure you do.

VLA simply makes it easy to do things like cloning disks, and pushing out new images so that IT can manage the systems. It also conveniently lets Microsoft double book each sale and claim yet another blockbuster release that breaks all records.


I have because I worked in at a school where the ministry of education negotiated a $10million agreement with Microsoft around 1-2 years before I started which gave schools pretty much an open smorgasbord to choose from when it came to software. When my old man was in the Army there was a similar arrangement with the ministry of defence which pretty much stayed static until he retired 2 or so years ago. When it comes to large businesses such as the BNZ and State Insurance - again, their agreement gives them an open portfolio for a fixed price per year and the employees can purchase Windows and Microsoft Office at a discounted price as so long as they remain employees at said organisation.

So please, don't assume that I'm some moron on the internet pulling crap out of my backside - I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Edited 2012-05-16 05:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2