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

Usually..

[SisyphusShrugged]

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.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Roger Keith Barrett]

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...

Laptops...

[cuban321]

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

Re:Consumers do have choices

[MouseR]

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.

Re:Who actually pays?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Who actually pays?

[jazman_777]

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine. You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree to it. You should recognize that failure to comply with it is misappropriation of intellectual property.

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.