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?"

Comments

Who actually pays?

[LlamaRama]

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.

Re:Who actually pays?

[drsmithy]

That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate?

Same reason people who download an MP3 of a song that plays on the radio every other hour get called "pirates".

Not that I agree with it, that's just how it is...

Re:Who actually pays?

[Ianoo]

Their differential pricing model in general hints at monopoly abuse - by this I mean the fact they can charge different prices for 7 different versions of Windows (XP Home, XP Pro, the various Server 2003's), which ultimately aren't very different under the hood, combined with the fact that they'll practically give software to anyone with a good enough excuse (governments, universities, the third world...). Clearly their mark-up on Windows is pretty huge, given that they don't need to be making lots of money on every single copy.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the copyright owners they stipulate how it can be distributed or whether it can be copied to multiple copy's. People get pissed when large companies break the GPL why shouldn't microsoft get the same people being irate for them? Don't give me that whole microsoft is monopoly deal, morals are morals. If you think its wrong to break the gpl don't go doing the same for windows.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Deusy]

I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.

Not at all. Most OEMs get it massively discounted, for something like $1 per machine. It's one of the major leverages Microsoft have had over the OEMs.

Basically if an OEM is pissing MS off by, say, negotiating with another OS inventor, then they pull on the leash and threaten with making the OEM pay the normal $45 price. $45 is a lot to OEMs who are constantly trying to undercut competitors in order to maintain market share.

Just ask Be Inc who couldn't get a single major OEM to even consider BeOS. Even IBM suffered from this as they struggled to get OS/2 onto the consumer/coporate desktop. Hell, Linux is free yet no major OEMs properly push a machine pre-setup with Linux. Or are you going to tell me there never was a desktop market for any of those (or other) OSes?

Only recently have OEMs started to flaunt a little disregard for the desires of Redmond because of all the Antitrust hoo-haa. But now that all the states have been bought... I mean, have reached settlements, things will soon return to normal.

Re:Who actually pays?

[jproudfo]

That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Practically every hardware/software vendor in the world does the same thing.

Sun and IBM, for example, price their hardware and software all over the map depending on what type of customer you are. Everyone gets a different level of "discounts" or slightly different SKUs, depending on the audience/purchaser, even though it's all the same under the hood.

Re:Who actually pays?

[lee7guy]

Because it runs Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Microsoft Exchange/Outlook, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Miranda IM, Microsoft Internet explorer (yes, it is still neeeded sometimes, good as FF is), Opera, Steinberg Cubase, drivers for any hardware available and most games you would like to play.

Not saying these are reasons not to use linux, just mentioning some of the stuff I miss when I choose the "alternative" option when I boot my box.

Re:Who actually pays?

[texas neuron]

OK you convinced me. Mac OS X answers all the needs. Runs the mainstream stuff and has the *Nix underpinnings.

Re:Who actually pays?

[drsmithy]

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Why shouldn't one be allowed to use that license on different PCs in their home?

Because the license stipulates one machine only.

Why should dowloading a song freely available to anyone with a tape recorder (or a good memory) be illegal ?

After all...one is not restricted to listening to music on any one particular device.

Heh. Yet.

The difference is that OSs typically require an install and therefore cannot be easily moved from system to system like music can (Knoppix is an exception but perhaps should be the norm).

There is no difference. The law stipulates what is protected by copyright and how. Break that law and you will be labelled a "pirate".

Re:Who actually pays?

[kfg]

Indeed, and I have long publicly held that $45 is right about the fair price for the retail version of the "greatest" version of Windows. Rather less for the "lower orders" and OEM versions.

Particularly over the past few years when the legal street price for a functional OS has been $0. All Microsoft is really selling these days is value added above that which is available for free, and that added value shrinks daily.

The same goes for pirated versions as well, were XP Pro $45 retail and XP Home $25 I dare say you'd see 90% of the pirate market dry up over night and Microsoft revenues either hardly dip at all, or perhaps even rise slighttly.

Those who would still pirate it at those prices are those that will pirate it anyway, notwithstanding price.

Any company that can, at those prices, cry that they're only making about 90% clear profit on their wares had best not cry to me. I shall likely be entirely deaf to their entreaties, knowing, as I do from personal experience, that squeezing 20% overall profit from commercial trade is doing rather well, both by one's self and by reference to the profit margins of others.

Take GM, for instance, who must deliver to you a car for the same profit margin that MS makes on Windows+Office, and who must invest billions of dollars in research, regulation compliance, manufacturing facilities, distribution channels, liablility etc, in order to deliver that car to you.

Microsoft's vauted "R&D" costs are peanuts compared to what it takes to make a simple change to an existing auto design, let alone the cost of designing and certifying a wholely new model. Their manufacturing costs are virtually nil, as are their distribution costs.

This is why they have been able to gather their unparalleled vast fortune in only a couple of handfuls of years, and why they must now resort to extraordinary actions to maintain their sales, even though their vast fortune would allow the company to live quite securely ad infinitum without conducting any overt commercial trade whatsoever.

Yes, for Windows XP Pro $45 seems fair, to a bit less than fair, as a retail price.

Let's say $19.95 for Office.

KFG

Re:Who actually pays?

[bluekanoodle]

Sorry, not to be a Microsoft apologist, but if you bought that license with your machine, you didn't buy a full license, you bought the OEM license, which is intended to be used on that machine and that machine only. Because of this restriction, you did not pay the full retail price of Windows.

Many people pay much more then $45 dollars for their OS, hell, even Mandrake and Suse cost more then that if you buy it.

Nobody forces you to buy a computer with Windows on it, yet. If you don't like Microsoft's practices, buy a computer with no OS, or build your own. The vast majority of people would rather pay extra and not have to worry about loading the OS manually. And those who know how to load an OS also usually know where and how to build or buy a system without an OS.

Re:Who actually pays?

[mgv]

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

The point being is that he (presumably) doesn't ever use more than three computers at once.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free. Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need? Remember that windows NT4.0 came with a 4 cpu licence, but a hyperthreaded P4 uses up all of XP's (2) processor licences, and if you want to run even a dual processor motherboard its deemed a server. Even if it was on the same hardware. Can you install a copy of office on your laptop as well as your office machine (Sometimes you can). Oh, and yes, lets not forget the debacle of licensing 6.0 for business users, or how open source software is making microsoft drop its prices for no apparent reason.

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright. Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac. If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

My 2c

Michael

Re:Who actually pays?

[the_mad_poster]

What I am saying is why can't he purchase one license and use it on all the PCs in his home?

We're not talking music, we're talking software. The difference is in the terms. If the license says "buy one license per CPU", then you can either agree to it and do just that, or you can return it on the grounds that you disagree with the license. If everyone would simply decline the licensing scheme that systems like Windows / Oracle / etc. use, they'd go away. But, people apparently keep buying multiple licenses for multiple machines and so they stay because they're obviously making money (I'm not counting the one-license people who get OEM copies).

And, if you "pirate" the software, all you do is silently add another Windows box to the statistics without making it known that you've declined the license, which just helps Microsoft and the licensing scheme.

Unfortunately I fear this may be the case. I refuse to use any paid music download service if it restricts my right to play the music on any device that I deem appropriate.

Same here, mate. Good policy. I use MMJB to play the radio at CD quality and commercial free and that's it. Vote with your dollars. If they can't sell crappy licensing schemes and "protected" (broken) content, they won't try (or, they'll die off and get replaced by less assinine companies.

Re:Who actually pays?

[jedidiah]

Bullshit.

With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today. Microsoft is a sandbagger that adopts technology and sound engineering practices only when they face threat of imminent mass end user revolt. Otherwise they just abuse their captive audience.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Dashing Leech]

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for

Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.

Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.

1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?

2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.

3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.

Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.

But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Fermier de Pomme de]

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap

The biggest hint that windows is priced much higher than production cost would be MS's cash reserves and the number trailing zeros in Gates' net worth.

That being said, what you pay for a product only has something to do with production cost when there is real competition.

Re:Who actually pays?

[drsmithy]

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

That's a different situation. The software is licensed to be installed and used - roughly speaking - on one PC at a time. I'm pretty sure the fine print allows for the movable install you described initially and may even allow for multiple installs (as long as only one is ever active at once).

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free.

IE has always been available for free.

Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need?

Licensing applies to physical CPUs. The problem is that earlier versions of Windows can't tell the difference between logical and physical CPUs. It's a technical issue, not a licensing one. You are licensed to use XP Pro on a dual HT CPU machine, even if it appears to the OS as four logical CPUs.

Microsoft's licensing is really no more arbitrary than any similar company in the industry.

But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

*Re*production costs (ie: banging out CDs) are very cheap. *Production* costs (ie: developing the software) are very high.

Again, Microsoft "changing the price" arbitrarily is really no different to anyone else in the software industry - pretty much everyone charges per CPU, by usage type, by support details, etc. Indeed, pretty much *any* industry that derives money from "intellectual property" does this, as it's the best way for them to milk as much money as possible out of the consumer.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

It's the *copyright system* that leaves the average user in that position. Microsoft (like everyone else) are merely taking advantage of the system.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright.

Copyright causes the problem. Not Microsoft.

Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac.

How is trading Microsoft for Apple going to make the situation any different ? They behave in exactly the same way.

OSS operating systems are, of course, different as their development generally doesn't need to be paid for by money.

If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

This particular issue has zero to do with whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. Pretty much everyone licenses software like Microsoft.

Re:Who actually pays?

[drsmithy]

Is he using all 4 PCs simultaneously?

That's how I read it (note that for an OS, "using" = booted up).

If he isn't, and the licenses aren't OEM licenses (which are tied to specific machines) then I believe he is allowed to use the same copy on more than one machine as long as no two copies are active at the same time.

He doesn't say, but I rather doubt so. Unless he's running a data centre out of his basement, I think he's morally, if not legally, justified to think he's paid for what he's using.

No argument there. Personally I think just about any non-profit oriented "copyright violation" is moral.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Minna Kirai]

I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs.

Because the GPL is not an EULA. It is totally different from an EULA.The GPL is targeted not at the End User, but at the "Intermediate Developer".

The GPL gives you new rights that you didn't have before (thus it can be considered a valid contract, because you get something out of it).

Some EULAs claim they take away rights that you already had. There is no reason for a customer to agree to that license, because he gets nothing out of it (and he already had a legal right to run one copy of the software as soon as Microsoft handed him a cdrom)

Re:Who actually pays?

[ScrewMaster]

No, but Microsoft's terms with hardware vendors have, for years, assumed that all machines sold by said vendors would have a Microsoft OS on them. Consequently, even machines which did not ship with Windows already had a Microsoft license paid for. That was one of the big deals at the antitrust trial, as a matter of fact, given that it discourages hardware makers from supplying alternative OSes (why pay twice?) So, in effect, Microsoft DID force users to buy computers with Windows on them, even if they didn't have Windows on them. Those agreements may still be in effect, I don't know.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Montreal Geek]

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

Ooo! Ooo! You opened the Can of Worms!

What exactly are "the machine they were sold with"? If I change my mouse, does it invalidate the licence? What about the harddrive or the video card? The motherboard (or maybe just the CPU)?

EULAs are nothing but attempts to indimidate and control. They have managed to twist the meaning of "copy" so that the use of the software is a "copy" (from medium to ram) claiming then that their right to limit copy is in force.

Let's hope someone does bring an EULA to court someday in front of a judge that can understand that a "copy" necessary in order to use something is not the kind of copy meant to be limited by copyright law.

After all, when I read a book, I make several intangible copies. Light reflected off the pages create a copy on my retina. My brain processing that image certainly makes many symbolic copies. I might even retain a long term copy for future reference (it's called, you know, memory).

Obviously, the copyright holders shouldn't be able to sue me. Those copies were necessary and unavoidable to even use the book to begin with. Why should software be any different?

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Some time in the past, some evil business-type paid some lawer-type to go and confuse a non-tech savvy judge that being able to use what you buy is making a copy because of some technical detail. That judge got swindeled and we are paying the price.

Let's hope nobody goes to a judge explaining the evil copy that we make optically every time we read (or indeed look) at something.

-- MG

Re:Who actually pays?

[AmigaBen]

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Maybe this is precisely what needs to happen to highlight the stupidity of it all. Write a book that has a EULA on the front cover, and take someone to court over it. It puts the law into the realm of the understood, instead of allowing lawyers to 'abstract' it convincing a judge it's something other than what it is.

$45?

[BenSpinSpace]

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.

perhaps...

[Chuck Bucket]

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

The alternative is MacOS or Linux

[ObviousGuy]

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...

$45? Yes.

[de Selby]

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?

[cgranade]

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)?

Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling

[Lane.exe]

One thing you can't label Apple as is anti-innovation. Look at iTunes -- got the new technology of the year award from 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.

Not Microsoft

[gid13]

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.

Re:In a word...

[ErikTheRed]

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).

Re:Consumers do have choices

[AKAImBatman]

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.

The Microsoft Monopoly

[Bryan Ischo]

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.

Re:The Microsoft Monopoly

[DarkSarin]

This is important--and it is why wine is such an important program. I know many people don't like it, but as long as MS continues to restrict other companies' ability to run a fully compatible OS, this is a valid concern.

As an interesting aside, how long do you think it would take to get COMPLETE compatibility with Windows under linux if MS opened the source code? Three days? Five maybe.

This is the exact reason that MS will never do that. Because as long as Adobe, Macromedia, and most of the big game shops don't release native versions of their software on linux, MS will continue to have a powerful monopoly.

IF OpenOffice EVER is as good as MS Office in the ways it counts (usability, userfriendly), then we will another step toward lessening MS monopoly power.

My big concern is that people like norton, TurboTax, and the gazillion and one other 'useful' commercial app makers will never jump off the MS bandwagon. As long as this is the case, then there will be big issues.

As a note, Pampered Chef uses some type of VB app for their consultants. It's windows only, and is one of the BIG reasons I can't ditch windows.

Another reason is companies like SPSS and SAS. If you can show me a stats app that is as easy to use and as powerful as either that runs natively under linux, I will be shocked.

These are just a few examples of apps that need replacing before Linux is ready for primetime.

Perhaps a repository is in order to list all the apps that need replacing, and possible alternatives--if one exists, PLEASE let me know.

Re:Consumers do have choices

[The Snowman]

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...

PenguinComputing.com

[Ars-Fartsica]

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.

Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling

[drsmithy]

One thing you can't label Apple as is anti-innovation. Look at iTunes -- got the new technology of the year award from Time.

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.

no manufacturing costs for windows?

[rcamera]

"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...

Re:no manufacturing costs for windows?

[Coryoth]

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 think you'll find he'll be considering development costs as R&D costs, not manufacturing costs. The comparison was hardware manufacturers - Intel spends vast amounts of time and effort designing their chip; comparable to development time for a new version of windows. The difference is, once Intel is done, they still have a manufacturing cost on every chip they sell. Fabricating chips costs serious cash. In comparison, once the design work is done for Microsoft, they have a new version of windows - the only manufacturing cost is stamping CDs.

In other news, Microsoft most likely doesn't write those 4.5 million lines of code from scratch for each new version of windows. One would hope that the bulk of that code is fairly stable and not undergoing constant rewrites and changes. Which is to say, you are grossly overstating the development work involved in producing a new version of Windows.

So, in summary: You are overstating the amount of development work required to create a new version of windows, and the author of the article is already factoring that cost in anyway.

Jedidiah.

Re:$45?

[ad0gg]

If that was the case, Apple system 8.5 would have been priceless. I remember many times browsing the web with netscape 1.1 while writing a paper and having netscape crash, sometimes I was lucky and could type "G F" in the debug window but the most time it trashed the systems memeory requiring a reboot. Those were the days.

Today nothing ever crashes, my work box has uptime of two weeks(win2k), our servers(solaris and red hat linux) never go down along with our sql servers(win2k server). If you getting crashes, i'd point fingers at hardware. I've had problems in the past with bad hardware(VIA Chipset + Creative Labs SB Live) or bad hardware drivers(VIA chipset before 4 in 1 drivers).

Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling

[ALpaca2500]

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)

no.

[pair-a-noyd]

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..

Re:Usually..

[Coryoth]

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

Re:In a word...

[BigDumbSpaceApe]

I think this shows how much of Microsoft's success depends on being preloaded onto computers. The home version of XP is $200. And thats with no Office. With Office, the combined price is $600US, more than the cost of some full computers.

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.

Think of it as marketing...

[Justice8096]

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.

How many times must we pay for windows?

[ryanw]

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?

Re:Consumers do have choices

[KingOfBLASH]

Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc.

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/>

Stability determined by drivers and hardware

[RoundSparrow]

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...

Mac OS is a prime example

[PCM2]

Actually, you just raised a prime non-Linux example of what the parent was talking about. I work in the publishing industry, and despite the fact that most of the graphic designers in this industry use Macs, many, if not the majority, have still not switched fully over to Mac OS X because of a single application: QuarkXPress. It took Quark years after the release of Mac OS X to come out with a compatible version, and even though one is available now, that doesn't mean all the associated plug-ins, add-ons etc. have been ported yet (since they couldn't start until Quark got off its ass).

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.

Re:Consumers do have choices

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Instead of using my mod points...

[Virtex]

You like XP, and that's perfectly fine. But suppose you went to your local computer store to buy a new machine and found that every machine there came pre-installed with Redhat Linux. Also suppose you found out that $45 of the cost of each computer is going to the cost of Redhat. So you grudgingly buy one of these machines, remove Linux and install XP. In this scenario, was Linux worth $45 to you? Keep in mind this is what people like me are forced to accept. I had to pay some undisclosed amount for XP on my laptop, yet I have never used it (and never will). To me, that copy of XP was not worth $45. To me, it's not worth anything, yet I was forced to pay it to get the laptop.

The cost of Windows is simple

[4minus0]

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.

I'm sorry to say...

[JayLEB]

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.

If it saves me about 1 hour, it is worth it

[maxm]

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.

dilema

[hany]

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. :)