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?"
...does that mean I should pay less money each year for a QT license if they don't release a bunch of new features? ;)
Loading...
Not sure about the math, but last I checked, Windows cost a lot more than $45.00. Then again, if it only cost $45... as in I could go to the computer store and buy it for $45.00... then perhaps it would be worth it. Then I could take the money I normally have to spend on Windows and use it to buy VMWare instead (vs finding keys for it on astalavista.com) and then I could still have my Linux system with my Windows via VMware config all for a more *reasonable* price.
This post is a sarcastic attempt at irony and humor and not meant to be an admission of guilt for software piracy that would lead to the BSA knocking on my door.
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Usually I would be the first in line to bash Microsoft, as would the vast majority of the slashdot group.
However, I do have to give them credit for Microsoft XP, being the best thing they have done in a long time, and for allowing me to use a form of Windows that can actually have a nice interface if you tweak with it a bit.
And for making a Windows that is easier to install, and doesnt crash quite so often, as Win98, WinMe, Win95, ad nauseum did.
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 and Bill Gates will just have to wait before becoming a quadro-gonzo-bobillionaire.
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
What do you mean by "pirate"?
Is this the Microsoft definition that says that since I don't have a license for each and every CPU that I am "casually pirating" their software?
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? Once it gets through my door I should be able to use it as I please just as any other form of "Intelectual Property."
Wow.. fair use really must be dead as the corp guys said...
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
I recently was on the hunt to purchase a laptop. I had no use for Windows as Linux suits all my needs. I went immidetly to the pro-Linux shops: HP, IBM, Dell.
I was very disapointed to find out that not ONE of the vendors would sell me a laptop without an operating system. ESPECIALLY IBM! I eventually gave up and went with my first choice which was IBM.
I guess my point is, sometimes you don't have a choice. You're stuck paying the MS tax.
Daniel
To everyone who's saying that the 45$ price is way out of touch with reality... READ CAREFULLY... The 45$ is what the WSJ is guessing that the computer manufacturers (eg: HP/Dell/Gateway) pay microsoft due to custom liscencing agreements. We may not be able to buy windows for 45$, but the computer makers wouldnt stand being charged full retail price when they use so much in terms of volume. Read carefully the article and the subtleties you will soon understand.
Not a chance its that high since their preinstallation members can get it for $70 in quantities of 10. An OEM is probably paying around $40, I think that 45 is a very reasonable guess
This is the most on-target article on the subject I've seen in a long time. The only thing he didn't emphasize enough is that there is a deference between software research and hardware research. The sort of research that Intel does CAN'T be done by small companies or people working at home (for the most part). Intel, IBM, AMD and a very few other companies have the capital to do these kind of hardware innovations, and they may be helped a bit by government funded universities etc.
Software research can be done at all levels, by individuals, small companies, groups of individual working together. There is, and always will be Open Source software. I can't forsee there ever being an "Open" architecture CPU, that could be manufactured on a small scale (it would be a great thing if there was though!).
Microsoft's day are numbered unless they find a new business model. I don't hate them, love them, or feel sorry for them, thats just the way it is. A free economy will eventually favor value. It moves at a snails pace sometimes, particularly when impeded by monopoly practices and governmental indifference. But one way or another things will change, and anyone or anything who blocks that change will find themselves bypassed or submerged.
The article "does the math" that I'm sure even Bill Gates is capable of following. I just don't' think Microsoft has figured out how to respond yet. The stock market will punish them until they offer a response, and this article wouldn't be appearing in the WSJ if that were not the case.
Regardless if you like them or not, weither they need your money or not and weither you have pity or not for MicroSoft, no software developer should be punished by pirating their work.
If you dont support MS, then fine. Don't buy their product. But using their product (pirated or otherwise rented where legal), you're just indirectly supporting them by telling your friends and relations that it's OK to send you MS -formated documents (Word, XCell etc). You're not accomplishing much, in a show of disapproving their products or business model, by using their products.
The best protest you can make is categorically not using their stuff, and returning send documents to the sender and asking them to save it as an open format (RTF or PDF to name just two).
I don't use any MS product--even those that came with my Macs (including but not limited to Explorer) for this precise reason. For those very rare occasion where I simply can't escape it, I resort to an open source product that can read or convert said documents.
Act, on your beliefs.
I can afford Windows, but I still choose Linux. Why would I want to pay for an inferior, insecure product when I can get Linux for free?
Yes, to me, it is worth it.
/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.
I'll admit that I'm a bit biased and didn't pay $45, or even $75 or $275 for my licenses of Windows -- I got them through Microsoft for Partners professional discounts, which gets me them for approximately $30/license (Professional) but there's so much more stuff in there that it's closer to about $6/license.
I'm not a new computer user. I've been using PCs, and the Windows architecture, for 14 years now -- since right around 1990, and Windows 3.1. I still, at this point, find Linux too difficult for me.
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
Then, fed up, I went on AIM (gAIM) to ask a friend who'd had similar experience. When signing back on with a Windows client later in the day -- my buddy lists were completely rearranged, groups were created with copies of people, and a handful of names were missing, for no apparent reason whatsoever. gAIM messed it up.
I'd love to use Linux, but I'm afraid to honestly, becuase of the fact that I don't know a thing about how to use it, and it doesn't seem to want to be used itself. I'll just stick to administrating Windows networks. Anything I've wanted to do so far, I've been able to do under Windows. That includes running Unix-only scientific tools - thank god for Cygwin.
I would rather pay to purchase a copy of a linux distro and support an open source cooperative than pay to purchase a liscence for a microsoft product and put another gold toilet in the Gates' House.
If more people felt the same way then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have to put up with another IE popup asking us if we want to enhance some random body part......
That really is my homepage, no kidding.
Actually, if windows xp home was available for a mere $45, it'd be a steal. the $45, i guess, represents what the OEM pays for it, not the price that consumers pay for a boxed copy. nonetheless, even $100 ain't bad. let's review;
red hat enterprise liunx workstation starts @ $179.00.
mac os x is $129.00.
i know there are free (beer) variations of linux and bsd, but you don't get much support. i know everyone rags on MS for the extent of their support, but let's face it, they do still support their software. MS just recently ended support for windows 98. windows 98, people. six years of downloadable updates.
when you grab the cheapie pc @ best buy for $400 that comes pre-loaded w/ win xp home, i don't care if emachines is paying $4, $40, or $400 to microsoft. i know i'm getting a pc w/ a legal os, and i'll get support for several years.
is MS evil?
sure.
is $45 too much to pay for an OS?
no way.
IBM, too, is famous for its research, and it has five Nobel Prizes to show for its work.
:-)
Just wait until the government in Sweden gets a nice deal on Windows and Bill Gates will have his Nobel Price too!
(If you don't believe, compare it with the deal the government in the UK got and that he immediatly after it got knighted
bash$
It's also morally wrong to use your "Intellectual Property" as a sword and not a shield... and it's also morally wrong to use your "I.P." to fleese every nickel out of someone for a product that has already legally paid for. If YOU are in favor of the GPL you will already know that the reason it even exists.
The GPL has neither one of these problem, thank you. I have paid for windows, and, for your information, I have a legal association with a university with an extended site license so EVERY copy I have is legal and I can run it where I want... LEGALLY.
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
That's how it works with everyone. I needed to buy a Dell server once. They only one they had that they would spec with the hardware I wanted was a job that had lots of unnecessary shit, like support for 4 processors. So I faxed the quote to Gateway along with what I wanted. Gateway was happy to design me one with the same specs, but not all the extra shit for a grand less. This then went back to Dell with a note that I'd buy it if they didn't do better. Turns out Dell COULD actually accomadate my needs with a lesser server and get everything I wanted in it, and at about $300 less than Gateway.
It's also interesting how nice Microsoft is to us where I now work. It's a university engineering department and as such has lots of UNIX in additon to Windows. MS gives us excellent terms on all their software, with compilers and the like being free provided they are used for research only.
Likewise Sun is very competitve price wise as both IBM and Dell have been frequent to point out how they could not only meet our Windows needs, but our Solaris needs too, and one system can run both OSes.
It is simply the way of a capatalism.
Take copyright and turn it around...
Right to copy.
Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify. This is why we get all into talking about fair use etc. What constitutes copying? Partial copying, quoting with attribution, backup copy for personal use?
Anyone know what the default copyright's are? Are all rights reserved by default? What rights are granted by not explicitely stating what the right to copy is.
And in closing, I think copying a slashdot comment will more likely get you bitch-slapped than sued... but that's just my two cents.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
A better example is the middle scroll button. I saw them working in Taiwan mice about 3-4yrs before MS made them. Special drivers so you could scroll in ALL apps. When MS came out with theirs, the scroll only worked in its NEW office and IE programs. They couldn't even retrofit the functionality into its basic windows widgets despite owning the OS.
I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs. Just imagine people saying, "I have the code, I can do what I want with it, even distribute binary only!" and the uproar begins.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today.
I'm not supporting the current state of Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft DOS had a critical role in the development of the modern PCs. We all owe it a lot.
Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.
MS DOS allowed Compaq to clone the IBM PC, which introduced real price competetion into the world of PC hardware, and eventually gave us the fast cheap machines we all use.
If IBM hadn't sub-contracted out their OS work to another company, computer technology wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast. (That company didn't necessarily have to be Microsoft, anyone could've done it, but Bill Gates lucked out)
With CP/M, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.
CP/M was a product of DEC, IIRC, and ran on several of the early 8086 and Z80-based computers.
MSDOS would only run on in IBM-compatable PC, so portability of the applications under it is a fairly shallow point.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm prefixing this strongly, because it's important that people understand my position. I abhor Microsoft's practices, and detest their muscling around of other companies. Heck, Microsoft became a success due to what could be construed as Corporate Theft.
Now, that being said, I believe in the importance of stating valid arguments against Microsoft. There are many, MANY valid arguments that can be made against them, but the argument above is (sadly) not one of them.
When it comes to Operating Systems, especially ones that end users count on, innovation is detracting. A typical end user wants something predicatble, and above all, something that they don't have to reinstall, upgrade, or pay for in often occurring intervals.
The hardware industry gets away with innovation because they can appeal to 2 select groups of users that doesn't mind having to pay at closer intervals than the mainstream: gamers and high-end businesses. And through them, it filters down to the masses who are convinced by their zealousness that buying a new computer is good (when, most of the time, it's not needed).
Operating Systems don't have that luxury. How many things can one add to an operating system before A) You run out of things or B) You run out of things that won't put you into the realm of Monopolizing (for example, take the integrated Web Browser debate). Add those up, and it's hard to come up with reasons to innovate in the OS world.
Now some OSes are inclined to be more innovative. By design (and cost, if you consider that distributions can be downloaded for free), Linux can position themselves to be innovative, and often is. More reason to use them. But for Operating Systems that cost money, and already run the risk of Monopolization, it's just not a good idea.
-Vendal Thornheart