Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows Worth $45?
bgelb writes "This article from the Wall Street Journal questions whether Microsoft really innovates enough to justify the enormous amount of money (nearly 10% of the cost of every PC!) it takes from consumers each year. Hard drive and chip makers innovate constantly, but what about Microsoft?"
I'm not a Windows user, but all of my friends in my networking class pirate, even the ones who are Windows enthusiasts. Of course, they all build their PCs, I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.
Where can you find it for $45. Every place I see it for sale, an UPGRADE is in the $80s to $90s for the home version. More for the Pro version. WTF
Windows may take $45 dollars per year, but trust me... it certainly takes a lot more, when you factor in all of those lost papers, doomed databases, and the dozen hours each of us loses from meddling with its problems.
if you had an option to either pay it, or buy a PC without an OS. that it's forced upon you when you buy a PC (via OEM agreements) isn't fair regardless of the cost. I bought and iBook just because I wouldn't pay for Windows, since I would never use it. Yes, I pay a little for OS X, but it's something I may actually use (via MOL in Linux).
CBV
free ipod and free gmail!
So either you get users pissed off that they have to spend MORE to get similar functionality, or you get them bitching about how user-unfriendly Linux is (though free).
Not much of a choice between all three, really. What there ought to be is a free OS that is as comfortable an environment as MacOS and supports as much software as Windows.
They say I'm a dreamer, but my heart's of gold...
I have been pwned because my
I'd pay $45 for Windows. I'd pay $60 if they let me not install most of what I don't want.
Does it matter if MS is innovating or not? They still get the 10% in the form of the "Microsoft Tax" whether they innovate or not. When I bought my Dell (which I won't do again, now that I've learned how to build my own from scratch), it came with Windows XP. I then upgraded to Red Hat Linux 9 (OK, technically I changed...), but MS had already got their bucks out of me for WinXPH. Mayhaps FTC should get involved in this (again)?
#define DRM chmod 000
And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.
IAALS.
It seems to me that essentially what Microsoft does is wait for someone else to come up with a cool new idea and take the risks of making sure it works, and then implement the same concept themselves in an integrated fashion so that the lazy and/or uninformed will just use theirs. I think a prime example of this is ICQ, which of course was followed by MSN.
And even the $45 amount thrown out in the article was a guess (by the author's own admission). It's probably closer to ~$70 (my guess).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I have always wondered what the world would be like if a company with
...
better technical leadership had been handed the PC operating system
monopoly by IBM oh so many years ago. Perhaps it would not have been
possible for that company, whoever they might have been, to achieve the
level of domination that Microsoft achieved because such a company might
have put too many resources to the task of technical innovation and left
the business (i.e. monopolization) side of things to falter. It is quite
possible that the only company which could achieve the kind of dominance
that Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot
innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources
away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.
I guess this would mean that the companies which achieve monopoly status
are by definition technically inferior? This would certainly seem to be
the case
Some people would argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly because it does
not in fact have 100% complete control over the operating system market.
But Microsoft does have a monopoly in one *very* important market -
operating systems capable of running Microsoft Windows software. You
see, I think that the fact Microsoft's operating system's are the only
ones which literally trillions of dollars worth of software can run
on means that Microsoft is by definition monopolizing an absolutely
enormous market. While it may sound flippant to say that Microsoft
has a monopoly on Microsoft operating systems, I think there is something
really important behind this. No one company should be the producers
of a commodity which so many other companies depend upon to sell their
product. It's not healthy for the market and it's certainly not to the
benefit of consumers.
Windows may not be worth $45, but Linux is certainly not even worth $0.00.
Linux is worth $0? Tell that to Linus, a millionaire. Anyway, I think GNU/Linux (damn you RMS!) and its associated software is well worth a price similar to what Microsoft charges for Windows. In fact when Mandrake 10.0 comes out I plan on purchasing it, after being a freeloader for the last six years. Right now I can justify being a freeloader because I am broke, but I am about to get a promotion and finish my truck loan, so I cannot justify freeloading with an extra $550 a month ;-)
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
People are paying for a product that just works out of the box. They're not paying for innovation. Most people don't give two shits about innovation, and change is scary. Is Windows worth $45 to me? Nope. Is Windows worth $45 to someone who is buying their first computer, or in an office which requires it run? Yep.
I know lots of people who hate their Windows machines, but are probably never going to switch to anything else. I know one guy who looks longingly at my mac all the time. Whenever we discuss it he says, basically, "I'd love a mac, but I just can't afford to buy new versions of all my software, I can't afford the time to transfer all my files, and I can't spend the time tweaking the system to get it working right."
He can't justify losing the investment in Windows. And frankly, Macs aren't exactly cheap, and Windows mostly meets his needs.
Same thing with Linux. Everytime Microsoft "improves" their license structure or otherwise finds a new way to extract cash from people, IT folks everywhere start whining. Web sites and magazine letters are full of people saying "this is it, I'm switching to Linux". But of course, most of them don't. They can't just rip out and re-implement all those poorly documented servers, retrain employees, or spend time trying to see if ooo can open all their existing files. For now, Windows works, so stick with it.
You get the picture.
Microsoft has a huge lock-in advantage. Sometimes this is mentioned in interviews and the microsoft official laughs it off and claims they are fighting for every sale. Yeah RIGHT. I see differently around me.
Windows is "good" enough. It's priced just low enough. They aren't stupid over there in Redmond.
The moral of the story? If you're just starting a business, don't get locked into proprietary solutions. Even if you are using Windows, always think about your "escape plan". Vote with your wallets.
Not much you can do about it really. I can't think of many other products that are like this. You don't have your life's work locked up in your refrigerator or stereo the way you do your computer.
If consumers don't like paying for Windows they can buy a Mac, use Linux, or pirate it.
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc. As soon as the big OEMs with retail distribution stop giving in to Microsoft exclusion deals (I forget the economics term, when a monopolist refuses to sell its product to a middleman if he sells competitors' products too). Dell employees came out of the closet and told the world about these deals, we know it goes on. Do you really think any OEM will stand up to Microsoft and risk losing Windows? Only WalMart has been able to do this, one juggernaut battling another...
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
I have purchased three PCs in the last four years with Linux preinstalled (one a laptop). I have purchased PCs with FreeBSD preinstalled. Don't tell me you can't find these on the web, numerous vendors are in this market.
True, I don't think it's worth it's retail costs... but how did this situation get this way? Because OEM's refuse to offer all their configurations with options for alternatives. By doing this consistently, they ensure generations of users are familiar with only one desktop solution, and then only that one is in demand.
Now I know some do or have, but you can't tell me there's a true choice -- I can't go to Dell.com and get what I want with Linux... heck, I can't get hardly anything with Linux.
Windows isn't overpriced just because MS is greedy. It's also overpriced because the OEM's have painted themselves in a corner.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Which is somewhat ironic when you consider it's just Yet Another MP3 Player App bundled/tied to an online store and a portable MP3 player - none of which were particularly "new technology" at the time.
And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.
Windows 2000 and XP (which are roughly analagous to OS X 10.2 and 10.3) are just as fundamentally different to Windows 95, 98 and Me as MacOS Classic and OS X are to each other.
As the article says that Microsoft is not innovating with all the money they are getting.
As you so helpfully pointed out, they are still fixing the short-comings in all their current products not generating Nobel prizing winning advances in computers.
"It's easy when you collect nearly 10% of the cost of every PC that's shipped, while having no manufacturing costs of your own."
this guy is a total asshat. how can he say that windows has no manufacturing costs? 3-4 weeks ago on slashdot after the windows source code leak, folks were saying "holy shit guys - look at the 4.5 million lines of code that becomes windows! what a crappy, bloated OS!". now this dumbass claims that it costs nothing to manufacture. how many man-hours did it take to write windows 2000? windows xp? the media it is shipped on costs very little, but one-time cost of writing is also counted in the total-cost. so unless it was written by non-paid interns (which we know is not the case), this guy is grossly underestimating the profit.
i bet he's just another disgruntled mac user...
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.
Mac OS X is based heavily on NeXTStep. Really, it isn't *that* much more innovative than NeXTStep. Considering how long ago the NeXT was introduced, shouldn't we have much better operating systems?
Personally, I think the NeXT is proof that Microsoft has set us back at least a decade. Although there are differences in application, and the underlying hardware has improved immensely, both Apple and Microsoft are only now approaching the abilities of the old NeXTs.
Oh, well. I guess youth and exuberant ignorance will re-write history; OS X is "groundbreaking," and Microsoft paved the way for commodity computing. (Never mind the revolution was already well underway.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Apple didn't innovate iTunes. They bought the SoundJam MP software from Cassidy&Greene and dumbed it down quite a bit. perhaps they've innovated from version 1.0 to 4.x, but the first release was hardly innovative or a new technology...
or are we talking about the iTunes Music Store? I seem to remeber a company called GoodNoise (aka eMusic.com) doing the same thing in 1999. they didnt have the slick interface, or the major label support, (or the DRM) but they were selling digital music...
(note i use and enjoy using the iTunes app and Music Store. but they're hardly innovative. just new versions of old products...)
and there may not be as big a difference between win2000 and win98 as between Mac OS X and OS 9, but it's a lot bigger than the difference between 98 and 95 (or Mac OS 9 and OS 8 for that matter...)
(also note i use Mac OS X and windows 2000 regularly as time goes on i have less and less preference for one over the other)
Indeed. When I buy an operating system, its value is determined by how useful it is - not how innovative it is.
I recently bought a chair for about $45 which is not innovative in the least. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with it.
Microsoft may not have originally developed many features of computing that we take for granted today, but it is responsible for bringing them to the masses and making them popular.
Thats not innovation thats marketing, a completely different subject altogether.
As for the grandmother quote, I think the old girl might surpise you, considering the desktop distros out there.
1. I build my own stuff from scratch.
2. I do not use MS products. Period.
3. I use and sell Linux. More bang for your buck.
Windows, out of the box, does nothing but get you online so you can get infected and download warez and pr0n. Oh yeah, and mp3z...
No word processor, no spreadsheet, no much of anything.
Linux comes with too many things to list.
Yeah, Linux has it's shortcomings but it's benefits FAR outweigh it's shortcomings.
I just can not justify paying for trouble.
I had a guy today ask me to sell him a system and install a pirated copy of windows on it.
I told him I don't do that, I don't have any copies of windows, and I wouldn't do that to someone that I like anyway.. I offered him Linux instead. He declined, I lost the sale. Life's tough..
The "Microsoft is not innovating" line is something I hear alot on Slashdot, and it's one of a few lines which really illustrates ignorance more than anything else. Anyone who has eye on emerging technologies would realize that Microsoft has a lot of stuff in the works - I don't know if I'd call it 8 billion dollars worth of innovation but then I don't know about all the internal products, research groups and projects that are going on inside the Deathstar. But innovation it is. Microsoft is pushing a vision of standardized programming models, development tools and APIs for all its products.
Just because you don't see tabbed browsing and "save as pdf" in Microsoft's current generation of projects, doesn't mean Microsoft aren't innovating.
So basically Microsoft needs to just wait, work on Longhorn, make it stable and release it once it is completely finished, with much much more stability
That's a bit of problem though, because a lot of the timelines are now starting to place Longhorn at around 2008. That's an awfully long time for Microsoft to be sitting on their hands really.
Yes, there are plenty of promises of wonderful new features in Longhorn, but then MS was promising a OO filesystem in "Cairo" the update to WinNT that was perpetually delayed and never quite arrived. As long as Longhorn is several years away they can promise all the amazing innovations they like - we have to wait to see what they actually deliver
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
So SCO is trying to steal Linux, and /. is up in arms.
But advocate stealing any other OS, like Windows, and it's Informative?
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Thats a pretty good indicator of how important OEMS are to Windows. I haven't ever got 80% off for buying in bulk, much less 93%. If it wasn't for OEMs choosing peoples OSes for them, Windows would be losing a lot of market share fast.
WWJD? JWRTFM.
Don't think about the cost of the Microsoft OS - think about how it drives hardware obsolescence - the average user only buys a new machine because they need a new version of Microsoft Office, which needs a new version of the latest Microsoft OS, which needs a faster CPU, and more memory. (Or, more recently, getting the latest Microsoft OS because they can't keep up with the patches).
This drives computer sales - versus what would happen with Linux - users would still buy better peripherals, but Intel wouldn't be where it is now - because the peripherals would use embedded processors, and Intel doesn't rule there. Memory wouldn't sell as much, because without OS bloat, we wouldn't need as much memory. So in summary, I'd say that Microsoft does serve a purpose - marketing of new computers.
"what are they supposed to do- release feature patches every month the same way that hardware makers release revised editions and incremental models? Would you trust a microsoft patch which upgrades the filesystem? I'm not talking about a new media player or email client but some patch to the actual OS."
Have you been paying attention?
MS has been releasing patches to the OS on an almost daily basis for years. They _only recently_ went to a monthly process because network admins were screaming bloody murder trying to keep up with all the changes. Any operating system that has a serious flaw, whether security flaw or just plain old bug, should be fixed ASAP, if the existence of the bug can endanger user data.
Yes, fixes to the media player can wait. Better yet, Microsoft could get out of the media business, the income tax business, and the magazine publishing business for that matter, if it will help them focus on their core business, which is, the OS.
On the other hand, I think it is fairly inevitable that they transition to something else. No company in history has lasted this long just doing an OS (I count Office as little more than an extension of the OS as it is sold by MS). IBM, Novell, Sun, and many others were either hardware companies first, or diversified into services (Novell) rather quickly. Making and OS is a viable _part_ of a business, but it is not a viable _only_ business. People want to buy total _solutions_. Buying Windows is closer to buying a set of problems.
The question I think should be asked isn't whether it's worth it, but rather, "How many times do I have to pay for windows?".
Several people purchase computers to replace the computer they already have. The old computer gets junked. Lets forget about the possibility of people switching from windows to linux. Lets just ask an even more clear issue. Why can't the user use his old copy of windows on the new dell? Can't resellers ask for proof of previous windows version to not get billed for the software?
[Windows 95] did one thing that the Mac OS hadn't (and still doesn't, being icon-centric in navigation of apps)--allow a quick way to launch an application.
Ummm, ever hear of a little thing called the Apple menu?
And if the Start menu is so great for launching apps, how come there are still a million or so commonly-used apps that throw a shortcut on the desktop when you install them? Is it because over time the Start menu gets wildly out of control and it's too much of a hassle to navigate through all the accumulated shit to find the one item you want to launch? I think so.
Point of information: CompUSA stocks macs and mac products. And, many malls are starting to see an Apple store pop up. Go into your local University store and you'll see Apples all over the place and Linux. Go into best buy and you'll see Linux. Order a PC from walmart.com and you can get Linux based PCs. The future is coming, and it is wonderfull M$ free. <grins/>
And in the case of an operating system, the context is tool. For instance, my job is not installing and configuring the latest OS. My job is, however, writing memos and TPS reports. Now, forty years ago, memos were typed on an IBM Selectric 2. Nobody had one at home - they were prohibitively expensive. And no one expected the TPS report to be completed outside business hours. Then, twenty years ago, DOS and WordStar replaced the Selectric. But since then, the memo-generating tools and TPS report tools haven't really changed. They certainly haven't even gotten any faster, as my brain and hands tend to be the limiting factor.
The innovation in hardware, however, has changed the tool context. Now my boss wants the TPS report on his desk in Tokyo on Sunday. So I complete it on a PDA connected through the Dupont Circle Starbucks wi-fi. Very little software innovation - it's still Word and TCP/IP. The change in context is hardware (and firmware). Hardware innovation has made the specialized tool an ubiquitous tool.
Where can a software company add value in the 'ubiquitous tool' context now? Security. Microsoft recognizes this; they are rushing to try to show value in that context. They have failed so far, some would say miserably. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I agree what what you say! And Microsoft by far as to support the largest combination of drivers and hardware... so of course they have the most problems.
I think everyone wants but does not realize that modern OS is not 'hardware proof'. They don't test drivers and hardware, they just assume they work... and fail badly when they don't. FreeBSD 4.9, Redhat Linux 9, Windows XP -- all the same. In some respects, Windows XP is actually doing more to adress the problem - the crash reporting component helps Microsoft narrow down which 'real world combinations' are problem. I wish they were more in sharing the results... but that is more a 'corporate America' problem than anything...
Given that Windows is a mature product that has not seen innovation for some time, $45 would be fair if it trickled down to retail price.
Microsoft's retail pricing is unreasonable. In Canada, a retail full install copy of XP Pro at Staples or Business Depot is almost $499.00, while the retail upgrade is $299. An OEM version of XP Pro at typical independant parts shops range around $229-279.
Any other company would have withered away by now, but that monopoly power keeps that loan-shark pricing justified.
You forgot one:
3. They get to use it as a tax writeoff.
I happily paid $128 or so for Win2K Professional at a store that was going out of business.
I have 98,ME,2K and XP. The only one that wasn't worth what I paid for it was ME and that was $50. Although it useful as it bridges the upgrade path. The upgrade version of ME will install with an upgrade version of 98 and then I can install 2K on top of that.
XP I got free from the university.
I wouldn't pay for it since I have 2K. If I didn't have 2K then I'd be willing to pay for it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Is Windows XP worth $45? Microsoft obviously doesn't think so.
I'd buy it in an instant if it were that inexpensive, but they seem to be insitant on selling it to me for $250. (That's XP Pro, OEM, Canadian price.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
You keep buying/copying/using WIndows because it is the least "thinking effort" path.
And you don't really mind being called "pirate", an obviously wrong label. In fact, you even don't mind when news are heard about someone or a company being harassed by "pirate hunters".
Would it be difficult to use Linux? Yes, it would.
Like it was difficult to adapt to Windows in the beginning. Remember how Windows was utterly useless, even as of version 3.0? But someone led the way (maybe you yourself) and others followed.
Linux is just the same. Other programs, other shortcuts, other people, other ways... but the same results, or at least close enough for a productive day.
Don't be a conformist, nor a masochist. Stop, think, and use what works without breaking, costs zero or it's cheap to acquire, keeps your freedoms to share with others in need and, mainly, doesn't call you a pirate.
Ever.
I decided that I have to comment here. Sure, Linux is free, and XP has all sorts of problems that I read about on /. every day of the week. But I use XP. Why? Because it works. Sorry, folks, but XP isn't buggy, and it works well on any machine with enough RAM, and it's easy to use. Sure, there are worms, and the occasional security vulnerabilty that I hear about from Windows Update even before I read about it on /. But, dammit, I LIKE XP. It works well for me, and it's very reliable in everything I've used it for.
/. groupthink, but it's good enough for me, and no, I haven't been ripped off, and I haven't had my computers at home and at work riddled with viruses.
So enough with the Windows bashing already. Is it worth $45? Hell, yes. It is worth $99.
Maybe XP isn't good enough to pass the muster of
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
If it was impossible to pirate Windows, would the people who previously pirated it buy it? Probably not...
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
I thought I'd read on the web somewhere that Intel no longer had the lead, but that AMD was the technological leader nowadays. I totally think that the Windows tax is unjustified whatsoever, but the Intel tax also seems unfair to me. What do other people think?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Case study: Booting a *LIVE CD* distribution of Linux, it was impossible for me to make it detect my USB Mass Storage device. Then the autoconf script to place a /home folder on that device, and check for its presence at boot, never worked. I never did get that working -- and that's not even kernel hacking.
Since you seem to have multiple machines in order to make the most out of your MS pro license you could surely have done a proper install, and put some time into learning the new system. Live CD's are great for home users who want to get an idea of what Linux looks like, or for experts to perform tasks where no Linux machine is avaliable. However anyone who would judge an OS solely on their experience of trying to administer a machine from such a disk has no business representing themselves as a computer professional/expert. You must be one of these clueless MSCP's.
If you can't learn the basics of a new OS within a month you don't have the aptitude, if you're not prepared to devote the time and effort you don't have the vocation. In either case you're in the wrong business.
Yeah, that's a damn good point.
... but $200? I could buy a brand new machine for four or five hundred, so why bother? However, I would be willing to plop down $45 for the OS, hell, that's the price of any other piece of software, like a new video-game.
I want to upgrade one of my machines from ME to XP
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
The limit of their profit margin tends to infinite, that's the easiest money in the world. There's no other market like this.
If you can read this, thank an english teacher.
Let it be known that I don't agree with some of MS's business practices... but, I think they have innovated over the years: ODBC, OLEDB, DirectX and a pile of other API's, driver development kits that enable countless hardware firms to support Windows. They worked with a number of companies to do Winsock (maybe not perfect, but much better than the tower of Babel of TCP/IP stacks that were produced for Win 3.1). I can't afford one, but I think Pocket PC's are pretty cool. Even if you find it a repulsive language, Visual Basic has spawned a huge 3rd party component industry and is responsible for millions of custom Windows apps. Dot Net seems to be gaining steam. We shall see. There are a few interesting projects at research.microsoft.com. I once read that MS employs more Phd's and publishes more computer science journal articles than any single university (don't know if that is still true).
;-)
The fact is, the same people you laugh about "blue screens of death" (something I have not seen since since early Windows NT days) will think nothing of spending a day or a weekend tracking down obscure X problems or other Linux-related driver issues). MS is not the only purveyor of FUD
So yup -- I think Windows is worth $99.
Is this sig nificant?
The first windows version I used was NT4. It gave me a lot of functionality and it was certainly worth $45.
Then came along win2k. It gave me nothing new that I couldn't do with NT4. Well, perhaps there was some small innovation but it was absolutely nothing I could make use of to make any extra money.
Win2k did the same old things that was possible in NT4 only slightly different. That meant there was education costs involved. New boxes also had to be integrated into existing networks applications needed to be tested etc. Sometime there even was some loss of productivity until people got used to the new system. All this was far more expensive than $45. Yet there was no benefits to my business.
The same story goes for windows XP. It does the same thing for me as NT4, but it creates a lot of hazzle and costs in the upgrade process.
Of course I have the option of not upgrading, but in the case of NT4 we have a end of life situation where the OS is no longer supported with security patches etc.Installing NT4 on new boxes would also create costs as they normally already would have windows XP preinstalled. There would also be problems with new applications needed to conduct my business.
All in all, I very much doubt that it is possible to get any return of investment on upgrades of windows NT4 to win2k or XP in most companies.
It is just a tax we have to pay because of the end of life thing.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
> which is intended to be used on that machine
> and that machine only
Ok, I have a computer with windows on it, I then upgrade the video card, and sound card and since Im already there, I get a dvd burner instead of hte CR-Rom I had there.
Two months later, my board dies and I buy a new one, this one has built in ethernet, usb, DV, and so on... problem is, my old tower is too small so I change the case too.
At what point in this process did this become another machine?
If I changed every component in the computer one by one over lets say, a year, , when do I become a 'pirate'?
The overall result it that I have a brand new computer but I never 'changed' for a new one?
A friend at work said that once you change the CPU/chip, you are dealing with a different beast but I disagree. If i have a mb that went kaput, I sure as hell aint paying for another license. ANd that goes for any piece.
Reminds he how california vw fanatics get around (unless they changed it) Cali smog laws to get a new 'old' beetle.
They bring in an old run down one to a mexican shop, its stripped down to the bone and as long as the little registration tag is still by the front dash frame, you cahnge absolutely everything on it , and when you come back across the border, you are driving the same car (with %99.99 new parts).
Okay Troll, I'll bite.
1) Buy a Macintosh laptop. While Mac desktops are more than PC desktops, Mac laptops aren't that much more. And the price is irrelevant anyway. If you don't like Kia, buy a more expensive Ford and stop complaining.
Who said I was whining? I'm making a point. My point is even though these companies supposedly "back" Linux heavily, I can't even buy a laptop wihtout Windows on it...
2) Buy a PC laptop with Windows, then return the unopened packet of CDs for a refund. You'll get the runaround, but it can be done. It's not as fun as whining though.
Not possible, I can obviously only try this after buying the laptop, and with IBM it was to no avail. It's included with the laptop and there are no refunds on it. I'm not buying a persario at CompUSA. I'm buying a decent machine direct. The vendor won't take it back, the vendor has the final say.
3) Don't buy a laptop at all. There's no law that says you have to have one. The only thing a laptop gives you that a desktop doesn't is convenience. If you're so bent out of shape over that Microsoft "tax", then grow a backbone and do without. It's good for the soul.
Actually, yes I do need one for the work I do. I don't really remember whining about it, just making a statement.
I can't stand posters like you. Why respond with such a negative attitude? You make the OSS community look like a bunch of arrogant assholes who's only goal is brag and take down Microsoft.
I'm not responding anymore...
My main desktop machine at home is a Mac, and I haven't so much as fired up Classic in months, if not over a year. Every page layout designer I know sure does, though. Even though most of them agree that Mac OS X is "better" in every way (at least on current hardware), they're going to keep using the crappy old OS too, because it's the only way they're going to have access to the applications they need to get their work done.
P.S. Macs don't run Visio; they don't run Access; they have Entourage instead of a proper, modern Outlook; and if you're into such things, they can barely run more games than Linux can.
Breakfast served all day!
This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending.
The real assessment is much more sobering to those of us in the software industry -- this is just another bit of proof that the general perception nowadays is that software should be free, or damn close to free. No one groans about $600 for an LCD monitor, $200 for a hard drive, or $250 for a new video card every two years, but $45 for tens of millions of lines of code that is the single most important element of the PC (how great is that PC minus software)? Whoa, that's just unacceptable!
Consider this a win if you're blinded by your anti-Microsoft rage, but the reality is that this is yet another step towards the caveman mentality that only physical objects that you can hold in your hands have value. Of course I realize that's the going philisophical argument in these parts, so I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.
I'm scratching my head over this one. I'm a Mac user, but Apple charges $129 for the upgrade version of OS X, making $45 seem like a bargain.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Is $45 too much to ask for Windows? No, you do get a decent operating system. Does Microsoft overcharge for its product knowing that they could charge a fraction of that and still make an excellent product? Yes, Microsoft will make a profit anyway.
People are always bashing Microsoft and its Windows line of operating systems due to the old blue screens of death every 5 minutes and security flaws up the ying-yang. When you finally pull your head out of your ass, you will realize that Windows doesn't crash anywhere near as much as it used to. Windows 95, 98, and ME were originally built on 16-bit DOS technology but times changed and Windows XP shows how much better things can be. I remember back when I couldn't even use a decent (keyword) webbrowser on my Macintosh without the common "Error Type -11". As for the security flaws, yes, there are a lot but when you are on top, everybody attacks you from the bottom. There are a lot of Windows computers out there and most of the losers that exploit the flaws in Windows are Windows users themselves (why else would they know how to exploit some minute memory buffer or something like that) so it makes sense that there are a lot more Windows viruses. Besides, I paid $99 for a Windows XP Home upgrade in 2001 and so far, it looks like I won't have to pay it again until 2006 when Longhorn comes out. Why did I even bother upgrading, cause Best Buy gave $200 of free stuff when you bought Windows but it was still worth the cost.
Apple on the other hand charges people $129 a year (10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3) for 129 patches to their operating system that should have been there in the first place. Yes a few new features have come out that I love (expose for one), but $129 dollars is a rip off, let alone having to pay it once a year. Don't argue that you don't HAVE to upgrade cause you do. Shortly after Panther came out, they released a Panther only upgrade for Safari which includes several SECURITY fixes. So yeah they were quick about releasing a patch but require that you upgrade your computer to get it.
Linux finally is yes, free, but costs more time than anything else. As a desktop platform it is maturing but still lags behind in funtionalty from comercial operation systems. I hate having to recompile the kernel for a simple update, driver, or to change little things. Yes, it is nice that you have that power but for a single desktop computer user whose time is money, you are better off forking over those $45 to Microsoft and letting the Windows Update run it's course, which if more people did, most would rarely get attacked. As a server or in a beowulf cluster, Linux is excellent. Why pay thousands of dollars for copies of the same operating system when you can download Linux, get one system setup how you like it and then image the rest which is great for a cluster or even a computer lab of web browsers or word processors. As for a server, install Linux without the GUI, choose the servers you need, install, configure, and almost forget. My Linux server has been on for over 100 days and I haven't even seen it since I installed RedHat 9 over 200 days ago. Check out the proof at http://www.eyesorerock.com/phpSysInfo Why the downtime at all? Linux's fatal flaw common to all computers, power failure and the UPS was about 2 minutes short of the power being restored.
In the end, each operating system has it's advantages. Is $45 too much to ask for a fairly stable OS that is being very much actively developed? I say no. Now yes $299 is a complete ripoff for XP Pro New User and Microsoft should burn for the price of Office and the frequency of new versions of it too. MacOSX is a great operating system but no, $129 is just too much to spend a year for what really amounts to a patch. Linux is great for a server, cluster, routers, and specialty boxes but until drivers are easy to compile and install and there aren't a billion different, oldly named packages (emacs, LaTex, pine, pico, libc, gcc, g++, top, squid, to name the well known ones that all Linux users should know by heart their first d
court case on Linux via sco ?
gravity is a myth, earth sucks
It's Office that you lose on. Microsoft makes most of their money on Office. Arguably, Microsoft is a company that sells Office; everything else exists to sell Office.
I have the box for Suse Linux Professional still sitting around (because I'm a slob) and the sticker on the front says $79.99 (USD). I'm lazy, so let's call it 90 bucks.
What did I get for that 90 bucks? An OS that I have been able to successfully install on two computers. I'm so giddy with the installation success, I'm thinking about raising three more computers "from the dead" to install the OS on them...
And, by the way, did I really need to pay the money for SuSe Linux Pro? Probably not... I'm too lazy to get cable modem, where I could have gotten a Linux distro for free.
For me, the important thing is that the OS works (damn well, thank you very much...) Even at the price I paid (for a "free" product), it was well worth replacing Windows with.
If one looks at just the two computers I have installed SuSe Linux Pro on, where looking at 45 bucks per installation (which matches the supposed MS price).... Not to mention Open Office, etc. The fact that I can throw this distro on as many computers as I choose? Hell.... where's the cost?
To me, the $45 for an MS OS is like getting a quarter-pounder from McDonald's for five bucks. For the same price, you can get a Filet Mignon.
And, oh yeah, did I mention it's "all-you-can-eat" Filet Mignon night?
....is that Bill Gates gets his wish. I really do. I home that Bill gets to see his DRM dream come true. Total and complete inability to pirate any software or OS at all, I really really do. For it is at that moment that a penguin shall crow signaling the true Dawn of Linux, as people across the world realize that all thier cracked/hacked copies of Windows and Office are the last ones they shall ever see again without paying cash out to Bill. Bill made Office the latin of the business world, and the home world as well, but it was done on pirated software as Joe Business took home the "work" copy of office for the night. Yup, I hope Bill's dream comes true, the sooner the better in my book.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
The cost of anything is simple. What the market will bear. In the case of Windows, the market has to bear the current pricing structure of Microsoft's operating systems. It's this very market that is to blame for the price, the market decided long ago to pay what Microsoft asked. The market itself has locked in to this supplier and is just now beginning to see that it made a very stupid and short-sighted move.
None of the OEMs are in a position to bargain with Microsoft. Look at IBM. They've invested millions(billions?) into Linux and you can't even buy a laptop from them sans Windows. When the supplier of the base ingredient to your product has a ~90% marketshare on that ingredient you have very little to no bargaining power. Limiting yourself to just one supplier of anything is going to come back and bite you in your collective asses.
Since the OEMs are in no position to bargain, that leaves a government to step in. My government attempted to straighten Microsoft out but failed miserably. Time will tell how others fare. Regardless of the outcome, it will have no effect how Microsoft operates on its home turf. Microsoft will continue to strong arm clients and dictate the price of their products until they are stopped by the U.S. government or the market refuses to bear the cost.You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
Microsoft will always, always have a monopoly on the PC Operating System market. The simple reason for this is that VERY, VERY few people or companies would ever take the risk of installing an O.S that doesn't run the vast majority of software products already available and demanded on the market. After all, when it comes down to it, isn't a free economy all about choice? This gives consumers two initial choices A: Install and use Linux (forget for a second that for many people this is going to have quite a steep learning curve compared to Windows). What does the consumer get? More money in his/her pocket, but FAR less choice in software applications. B: Cough up a wad of cash and use Windows XP. Rest assured you can go online, or go to your local "software supermarket" and have millions of choices concerning software, compared to a much smaller number for Linux et al. Given the fact that a huge number of people choose "B", software developers aren't really encouraged to support Linux, but instead keep churning out new programs for Windows machines, thus repeating the cycle. I don't think any of us will ever live to see Microsoft as anything other than a monopoly. Sad, but true.
I run a bussines. And anything that can save me 1 hour of work is worth $45 to me. Simple as that.
Switching to Linux for the desktop would cost me a lot more time than that, as I would have to re-learn my habbits.
I can even afford to pay it every second year without breaking a sweat.
And windows isn't that insecure. Shure if you only use MS products it is. But Apache, Mozilla etc. runs nicely on Windows too.
I prefer Linux as a server, but desktop Linux is still to bothersome for me.
Max M - IT's Mad Science
There is something in what ergo98 wrote but also there is something in what you wrote.
I'm also the one who considers $150 for Microsoft Windows an unreasonably high price (even more if it means half of average monthly income in our country). But I'm also programmer so I also do not like the idea of putting hard work into something and then geting nothing back because of others copying my work without my permission.
But we live in physical universe so physical laws rules: if we live on our own, sitting on chair thinking about something does not bring us food.
So we (mentaly working) have to consider it a very lucky coincidence that there are some people who are willing to give us some amout of physical goods (results of physical work: food, clothing, housing, ...) for just thinking. We should be gratefull for that - if we are lucky enought, we do not have to touch dipper or hammer our whole life thinking all the time and still we will have food (and clothing, and house, ...).
If we start to ask too much (for just thinking), well those kind (physicaly working) people will let us starve and we will have to stop thinking and start really working - with our hands. :)
hany
I mean yes, for the stuff the end user use most there isn't much innovation. However from a developer standpoint they are all about innovation. Did everyone just forget .Net. I mean thats a pretty big deal for developers. Also .Net 2.0 is supposed to have drag and drop web interfaces. There is definately innovation, just maybe not in the area end users would see very often.
Just my opinion though.