How Much Does a Vista Upgrade Cost?

dptalia writes "Microsoft has rolled out its Vista upgrade program, where people can buy a qualifying PC with XP today and upgrade to Vista later for free. This article talks about what free really means. Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home. And then comes the question of actually trying to upgrade your computer... Is "free" really worth it?"

Comments

Cue standard slashdot responses:

[dada21]

1. Does it run Linux?
2. It'll cost me nothing because you can't upgrade *nix to Win*
3. Profit!
4. I already read this on digg.
5. ...as in beer.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are Slashdot folks, and why is IT in general, so negative and pessimistic?

Answer: because of Management

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[aussie_a]

What happened to the great American "can do" attitude

Don't worry. I have a very can do attitude when it comes to Vista. As in, I can do without Vista.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[bangenge]

You forgot the chairs and the exploding laptops. ;)

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[saridder]

research.microsoft.com for internal innovations. I watched "RingCam" become RoundeTable, a commercially viable, innovative video conferencing. I am a competitor and will crush them in this arena, but we don't complain and then copy what they do 5 years later.

As for a lesson in how the world works, most innovations in big companies are acquired. It's cheaper to watch 10 startups and follow what the market wants, realize which approach will work then buy them, as opposed to gambling/putting a stake in the ground and hope yours wins. Sometimes the latter is the correct approach, but that's the exception, not the rule. So why complain that Microsoft buys companies? Why not instead get a good idea, start your own company and get bought? Or do you just want to copy what others are doing and give it away for free?

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[cuantar]

Or do you just want to copy what others are doing and give it away for free?

Yes.

More to the point: The free software/open source software community is not a market, and I really don't like the business-speak that comes to the surface every time free software comes up. The goal of everything is not profit or some idea of "winning." Sometimes people just like to share things that they've written to be useful, in the hope that it will help someone else.

I don't write code for a living; instead, it's a hobby to me. I would argue that much of the free software community began like that: they write code because they enjoy it as something to do on the side, not because it makes them money. I don't really feel any compusion to try to charge people for the things I produce for fun.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Neil Hodges]

How exactly is it "10 years behind what the market demands"? If the marked demands an operating system for those who can't even figure out how to use a word processor, or can barely write an e-mail without asking for help, maybe we don't want to fill that need. For those who are willing to put some effort into thought, and probably an extra five minutes every week or so, there's the Ubuntu series, and there's the series derived from Red Hat Linux.

If the market continues to fill demands for those who put in no effort, then fewer will put in effort, and soon the operating system will do the thinking for the average consumer.

If the market demands hardware support, community operating systems can't be blamed, since the vendors rarely provide any sort of support, while they write complete drivers for the ubiquitous operating systems. Have they ever thought that if they fixed the compatibility issue, that more people would flock to operating systems of less previous popularity? If the market demands fancy eye-candy, there are implementations of such "features" that have been around for years, as certain operating systems' features stagnated. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, people haven't really seen the superfluous features that have been added to the alternatives.

Most vendors don't support 'community' operating systems due to a lack of money for software provided. One could argue that since these operating systems are free, no money could ever come in to spur interest. This isn't the case; any consumer, regardless of computer background, is willing to pay for good, or ubiquitous, software. This just hasn't been realized by most. However, due to the money with the most ubiquitous operating systems, people will continue to feed this trend, and the market will continue to serve such people.

The situation is pretty hopeless, isn't it?

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Technician]

I have a very can do attitude when it comes to Vista. As in, I can do without Vista.

I have learned from my past mistakes what the upgrade treadmill problems are.

I was running DOS. On top of that I installed Windows 3.1. On top of that I installed the Windows 95 Upgrade (the one without IE included) and installed IE as a seprate program. This process took several years and went through several hardware upgrades such as memory, hard drive, and later motherboard and CPU. Each re-instalation was a major pain. I learned quickly never to do upgrade upon upgrade again. It just takes too long. Windows 98 was a replacement, not an upgrade on top.

What I learned is the upgrade is nice IF the upgrade is a replacement, not an upgrade that requires a prior qualifying product to be already installed.

In a nutshell. If the upgrade is a stand alone fresh install, that if fine. Doing an install and then doing an install, and then doing an install... Forget it. You will regret it on your first hard drive replacement.

So.. To properly answer the question.. I need to know what kind of upgrade we are talking about. Does it do a fresh install, or does it require the prior qualified (auth per WGA perhaps) version installed? I would hate to do the recovery from a dead hard drive to include install, configure networking for phone home, patch, WGA auth, install service packs, upgrade, re auth with WGA, install applications such as MS office, re auth with WGA, etc.

To repeat the question, Will the upgrade install on a bare new hare drive or does it need a pre-qualified install of the prior version? Using the Genuine Windows sticker number is not a problem. Doing an endless install on install is a problem.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[plopez]

Why are Slashdot folks, and why is IT in general, so negative and pessimistic?

Experience, mostly. After having been lied to, screwed, blued and tatooed you get cynical. You get handed crap and are expected to make it work. You are seen as a cost center, when your contributions can be very useful to an organization. Managers insist on treating IT as a factory assembly line 'reach for the lowest common denominator' type job when it is a knowledge based skill based job.

When POS vendor hardware or software fail, the vendor blames the IT department. When the IT department is incompetent, they blame the vendor.

You give everything, weekends, relationships, holidays, mental and physical health and then get laid off anyway. See also http://www.adminspotting.org/

And MS is one of the worst. They promise it is easy. And it is easy, if you don't actually want to solve any serious problems. It's OK for for a few minmal classes of problems (web shopping cart, hierarchial accounting system) but not so great for actual business problems. The reason so much COBOL is still out there is that most programmers still haven't progressed far from COBOL.

ERPs are great, if you can change your business practices to fit the ERP. Which is totaly backwards, the software is developed to fit the business, not vice versa. Consultants for the ERP de jour swoop in, pick up fat pay checks and then leave the IT departments to hold the bag.

There is no good reason for Vista. Windows server 2003 and XP could serve for another 20 years under a nice incremental improvement process. But no, MS is going to once again pull the rug out from under us. A whole new class of security holes, new libraries, new incompatibilies and if you were dumb enough to pay for certs, a whole new set of certs. SQL Server 2000 was around for about 7 years, that gives you a reasonsable ROI. Changing every 2-3 years leaves you no ROI as by the time things stabilise, you have to change again.

I'm done. 9 months from now I will be in another field. Have fun, suckers....

(Damn, 3 glasses of wine and I am ranting and raving. I am getting cranky in my old age...)

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Broken scope]

Or maybe he struck a nerve.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[10Ghz]

In fact it's a large industry that fuels GDP, productivity and growth, and will raise living standards for the next century

Here's the thing: There's a lot more companies that use software, as opposed to companies that make and sell software. If a company buys a piece of software from another company for $1000 it increases the GDP by $1000. If they get similar piece of software for free, then GDP does not increase. But in both cases the user receives the benefits of the software. So is GDP accurate measure here? Why is it considered a good thing when money moves from one pocket to another pocket?

Why is it a good thing that large number of companies are spending huge amounts of money of software-licenses? Wouldn't it be better if those companies could get the software for free, and they could then use the money they saved on something else instead? You stare at the amount of sales that are related to software. But the money involved in those sales is taken from someone, and given to someone else. I see no inherint value in that if you could just keep the money and still get the software. Software-companies might be harmed to some extent, but the USERS of software would benefit trendemously.

As to your analogy on photographs... Well, in software we have this thing called "patents". You can't patent a picture of a sunset and then sue everyone else taking and sharing pictures of sunsets. In software, you could do just that. Also, you could look at pictures from several different photographers, you can't do that in software. We have handful of companies that control their stuff with iron fist, and give you EULA's that are 20 pages long, telling you what rights they reserve to themselves (usually all of them), and what you are denied to do. There really is a world of difference between photography and software, and your analogy is lame. What would you think if you had to sign a long and complicated agreement before you could see a photograph? What if you took a picture of a sunset, knowing that some other photographer could sue you because of that?

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[lord_rob the only on]

I have learned from my past mistakes what the upgrade treadmill problems are.

I would agree with you if I hadn't tried Debian GNU/Linux. The big problem of Windows is that it doesn't use a database managed installation system. When you remove a program under Windows (add/remove program in control pannel), what Windows does is simply calling the uninstaller of said program. Then it's up to the uninstaller to handle the uninstallation properly. When the uninstaller asks you something like "This is a shared library, are you sure you really want to remove it ?", you'd better say no unless you are really really sure. This is because Windows doesn't use a database managed installer, and hence cannot determine whether a given shared library can be safely removed or is used by another program. For the very same reason, when Windows is upgraded, it cannot be determined if the components that are removed/upgraded will be incompatible with installed programs or not. I have been running Debian Sid for more than four years now, upgrading the packages every days. Still no major problem for me.

Anyway for the case of Windows, I would tend to agree with you anyway ...

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[MojoStan]

To repeat the question, Will the upgrade install on a bare new hare drive or does it need a pre-qualified install of the prior version? Using the Genuine Windows sticker number is not a problem.

From my experience (upgrade versions of Windows 2000 and XP), qualifying prior versions have never needed to be "installed" to perform a "replace/fresh/clean/start-from-scratch" install using an upgrade version. When installig on a bare hard drive, the upgrade version might ask you to pop in the previous version's CD for proof. I didn't use the upgrade version of Windows 95 like you did, but didn't it ask if you wanted to wipe the hard drive and start from scratch (instead of upgrading "on top" of the old installation)?

Just like previous versions of Windows, Windows Vista upgrade versions will still allow clean installations and in-place upgrades (that's what Microsoft calls them). MS describes these options on this page: Upgrade Planning for Windows Vista.

Heck, I'll just cut-and-paste the relevant info from that page:

The options

You can upgrade from your current edition of Microsoft Windows XP or Windows 2000 to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista by purchasing and installing an upgrade copy of Windows Vista. Depending on which edition of Windows you are running and the edition of Windows Vista you would like to install, you have two options for the installation process:

In-place upgrade
You can upgrade in-place, which means you can install Windows Vista and retain your applications, files, and settings as they were in your previous edition of Windows.

Clean install
Upgrading to Windows Vista with a clean install means that you should use Windows Easy Transfer to automatically copy all your files and settings to an extra hard drive or other storage device, and then install Windows Vista. After the installation is complete, Windows Easy Transfer will reload your files and settings on your upgraded PC. You will then need to reinstall your applications.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[drsquare]

If the market continues to fill demands for those who put in no effort, then fewer will put in effort, and soon the operating system will do the thinking for the average consumer.

Why should an operating system require effort? Computers are supposed to do work for us, not the other way round.

You can say what you want about microsoft but at least they don't tell you to upgrade the kernel or compile modules when you want to install some hardware.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[orasio]

I think the whole point of Consumer IT is to make life easier, more productive, enjoyable and entertaining. I'd rather have an OS that enables me to process, edit and share photos and videos of my last vacation with my friends and family then one that enables me to "pwn" my HW or compile a new version of vi. We shouldn't be slaves to our computer or barred from using IT just because we're not smart enough.


That problem has been solved. The software is there.
The issue right now is marketing and distribution.

Ubuntu with Automatix does everything you want, easily.
Installing Ubuntu from the live CDs is too easy.
And they send you the CDs for free, if you don't want to download them, or don't get them from a friend (at least 5 friends of mine converted with my CDs, successfuly, and with Ubuntu 7.04 I'm planning on all my familiy as they need new OSes).

Microsoft beats them, because you get Windows readily installed on new computers.

It's not feature of the software per se, but a distribution issue.
I think that the focus should be there, right now. Not about the software itself, but improving the way it gets distributed, and marketed.

Once it is installed, there is another issue, Automatix, that takes care of codecs, and proprietary software(there you get the ability to share pics with your friends with Picasa, just like your friends do it).

After that, using and administering Ubuntu is a walk in the park. A consistent interface, very easy. Installing new stuff is done in two ways. Most stuff is either preinstalled, like OpenOffice, or comes through the Package Manager.
Proprietary stuff comes from Autmatix. No hunting for the downloads.

There, the distribution problem is solved much more easily in Ubuntu.
I think that with better distribution, and more publicity, Ubuntu is ready for the desktop, when ease of use is our target. Or at least it's a lot more ready than XP.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Technician]

Windows upgrades have always worked on bare hard drives by inserting a CD (or floppy) for the product you are upgrading from, no need to have it actually installed.

I can tell you never did the Windows 95 upgrade. It does not boot. It does not install from DOS. It does require Windows 3.X which requires DOS. After that to get on the web, required installing a browser such as IE seprately. After my 3rd system rebuild, I swore off upgrades on upgrades and opted for fresh installs only.

a recent "install" experience

[yagu]

I recently built my own machine... 2G memory, .5TB (2 SATA drives), 3.06Ghz dual core... all very cool. I spent almost 2 weeks getting my XP Professional installed and working properly (for what reason would an OS not come with PS/2 generic mouse drivers?). The sound was a nightmare to get running, the video was a joke. Fortunately (I guess), a lot of the drivers came with the motherboard (as one might expect), but the installation and configuration was amazingly tedious, and error prone.

I'm convinced one part of the horrible nature is that even today it seems that EVERY driver, EVERY re-configuration demanded a reboot though in my wildest imagination, I couldn't think of a rationale -- this continuity interruptus makes for a tedious, drawn out, error-sprinkled, bad-taste-in-the-mouth experience.

I finally shook out all of the bugs (oh, yeah, about 100+ XP updates -- the CD was pre-SP1, go figure), got a SCREAMING machine, absolutely delighted with the configuration and performance.

Now, to be on-topic, I can't begin to imagine these upgrades will be problem free, I can't even think they'd be problem-sparse. It's non-trivial work installing from scratch, much less considering layering something as big as Vista over an existing XP. I wouldn't want to do it. I've read enough reviews from people with bollixed machines (granted, they were working with release candidates) -- there will be a LOT of people out there who've committed too much data and personal work (blood, sweat and tears) on their new XP machines -- and they're going to lose data.

It's interesting to note the article recommends upgrading to Vista by doing a clean install. That's not really upgrading XP, that's installing Vista. How many people will not have had their data backed up properly ahead of this? How many will be left with applications that ran on XP that won't run on Vista?

The article is probably right, this is MS' olive branch to vendors who had hoped to roll out the new machines with brand spanking new Vista already installed. It's a PR debacle and nightmare in the making. Fortunately for MS, that would be mostly irrelevant.

(To contrast, on same machine described above, I took the new Mandriva, booted up, installed and got completely running, all sound and video working perfectly -- in less than 2 hours!

Funny, for my life I could not find a satisfactory solution (or even find a google solution) to get the XP dual boot file configured properly to reference the Mandriva... Finally gave up, and let lilo handle it, the configuration was painless and flawless. Go figure.)

Re:a recent "install" experience

[Above]

I use FreeBSD at work, because it's the best OS for servers.

I deal with Windows, Exchange, Office, because my employer will bear the costs.

When I shell out my own money for a new machine, I buy an Apple. I pay money to never have to write this story. I am fortunate to have the money to do that (not that it's a huge premium), but I love being able to buy a new machine and well, start using it immediately to do useful work. It even helps me migrate from my old machine in a useful way. In minutes.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[CastrTroy]

The article is probably right, this is MS' olive branch to vendors who had hoped to roll out the new machines with brand spanking new Vista already installed. It's a PR debacle and nightmare in the making. Fortunately for MS, that would be mostly irrelevant.

I read another article on Google News earlier stating the same thing. A bunch of computer makers are pissed because they think nobody will buy new PCs this holiday season because they're all waiting for Vista. They have certain quotas to meet for the holiday season. Never mind that they'll have higher sales than they've had in 4 years the day Vista is released, they can't wait that long. So they're going to offer free or cheap upgrades to Vista, to everyone who buys a machine with XP now. I think they're banking on the fact that 75% of the people won't bother to updgrade, or will lose their golden ticket, and won't be able to upgrade, and that this will cost MS very little.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[Jason Earl]

The problem with that line of thinking is that the Christmas season presents sales opportunities that simply don't come around again later in the year. No one wants to get a coupon for a Vista computer in their stocking, and a computer with XP pre-installed simply isn't as competitive an offering as a computer with Vista installed would be. That means that a significant amount of money that would have gone towards PCs this Christmas will probably go towards something else. OEMs are pissed, and rightly so. Missing the Christmas season is the unpardonable sin in the retail business.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[HermMunster]

Windows XP support USB keyboards and mice in the base install. The XP installer fully supports a PS2 keyboard and mouse.

Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro. You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors. Same for sound. Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.

If you didn't have support for your USB keyboard or mouse you had non-standard components. Albeit rare, some are out there. My customers are always told to buy for something other than price. In other words, never buy that el-cheapo mouse that is not a recognizable name or you'll pay in time and gas trying to get it to work and then driving back to the store to return it.

The issues described in his posting are demonstrative of a lack of experience and/or prioritization.

After 5 years of distribution with a large number of new products released over that half decade it would be no wonder that some people have problems with some new components and their drivers.

XP HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH PS2 DRIVERS, EVER.

If you have a problem it is your problem not XP.

I do not in any way support Microsoft and I do not care to protect their name or business. It isn't my job to police for them and I don't care what anyone I encounter does with XP legal or otherwise. It just isn't my problem.

I do dislike the fact that Microsoft has stolen, deceived, and broken so many laws to get and maintain their monopoly. I hate monopoly companies. But I can honestly say that those comparative stories about XP vs. Linux are not giving the fully story to the readers, so I am commenting.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[guruevi]

I find it so weird that Wintendo-fanboys always have the following attitude:

Of course your Linux boots up and everything works dandy but then you have to install the proprietary drivers from the hardware vendors because they don't want to release some information about what fits where in the register and how to call certain functions so you can play your favorite games with faster 3D acceleration. Since that is not painless, it's an inherent problem with Linux, not the proprietary hardware you bought.

Of course Windows doesn't come with all those drivers pre-loaded, you have to install them yourself. That your keyboard or mouse or network card (and there's a bunch out there that don't work vanilla) isn't working on startup isn't relevant, you don't need to use those to ... oh wait, you DO need those to download your patches and drivers... Since that is not painless either, well, it's your hardware, not a problem with Windows.

My idea: buy an open source supportive or supported video card, they're out there. Run any vanilla linux and it will work right-out-of-the-box. Or buy a Mac, all your proprietary stuff that works right out of the box. Or buy a combination of proprietary hardware and linux and get the hassle of typing 2 lines on command line to get NVidia drivers working or buy a proprietary operating system with a half-ass Dell and spend the next 3 days setting up your system or buy an utterly old system from the year 2001 where XP should have all drivers for and spend only 1 day installing patches, upgrades, virusses and reboots.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[ydrol]

Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro.

Some non-free Linux distros (eg Mandriva Powerpack) do come with official nvidia drivers. Does XP?

You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors.

just like XP, IF you needed it. For office work and simple games the Linux GPL drivers are just fine.

Same for sound.

Er no actually. Most of the GPL drivers for most sound chips are perfectly adequate.

Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.

Apparently so. You do know most Linux distros will also install drivers for printers, scanners, analogue TV cards and now Digital TV cards during installation. Seen that on XP too? I haven't. And heck people even forget, even XP didnt have a basic DVD player ready after installation. You had to get the vendor video card drivers or very recent media player. Mandriva now has LinDVD.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[aaronl]

I can't speak for the odd problems that the GP had with keyboard/mouse, but Windows XP *DOES NOT* come with drivers for most modern hardware. Most Linux distributions come with drivers for nearly anything out there.

To finish installing XP, you need to go download video drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, motherboard drivers, etc. Hell, you can't even install on many SATA systems without having a floppy drive and teaching XP how to talk to a SATA controller.

To make Vista have accelerated 3D, I still needed to go download and install a driver. The MS driver for my network chipset won't do gigabit, but Linux and XP don't have trouble with it. It also wasn't too fond of my 802.11g USB dongle, and doesn't (and probably never will) support some of my older hardware, like a scanner and a few printers.

As for Linux, I've never had to install a non-distribution supplied driver for my system for anything other than video. In that case, I clicked "Add/Remove..." from my "Applications" menu, selected "NVIDIA binary X.Org driver", and hit OK. The one place I see Linux having bad support is for 802.11g chipsets, and that is 100% a problem created by the manufacturers and not one with Linux.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[jesterzog]

That means that a significant amount of money that would have gone towards PCs this Christmas will probably go towards something else. OEMs are pissed, and rightly so. Missing the Christmas season is the unpardonable sin in the retail business.

In all honesty, though, what would retailers do about it? Ditch Microsoft and start shipping PC's with Linspire?

Re:a recent "install" experience

[jesterzog]

After the pain of the XP install was over it worked just fine. He loves it... it's faster than any PC he has ever owned.

This is one of the reasons that I get a little skeptical about how so many people like to judge a linux distribution by its installer. A lot of reviews I've read over time of linux distributions have focussed almost entirely on the installer. It's true that most people who use Linux (unlike Windows) will need to install it at some point, and installation is quite important because of that. But surely the entire enduring experience after the installation, including things like system maintenance to keep it running nicely, is at least as important.

What free really means

[biocute]

Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home.

So it's similar to some open source service providers charging for installation and support, even the software itself is free.

This deal is not meant for bargin-hunters, but for people who really need a new machine right now, and the only thing holding them off is the operating system.

Depends on how nerfed you want your OS to be...

[Loopy]

The Ultimate version will run around $400 from what I've heard (yes, it's rumor). While the home/basic version will run a LOT cheaper, you'll be unable to do a lot of the stuff "tweakers" like to do to customize and manage things. Think: XP Pro had Remote Desktop, where XP Home did not. That kinda stuff.

Well..

[Arthur B.]

My dell came with windows XP and a free upgrade to linux !

How about a downgrade coupon ....

[tomhudson]

... for those who buy a box with Vista and want XP instead because their favorite game/app/whatever doesn't work?

Buy your PC now and get the upgrade cheap

[davidwr]

Just don't install it until XP support expires.

Not a matter of importance.

[Lethyos]

This is just a little fan on the flames to convince hold-outs (as others have correctly indicated in this thread). Once Vista begins shipping, it will be installed ubiquitously on nearly all comodity machines and the influence on the bottom line of the cost will be, for the most part, unaffected.

Need a new term

[dbIII]

"Free" as in Vista.

The pleasures of NOT upgrading

[codefrog]

It's a total toss up for me on which I'll have more fun not buying; Vista or a PS3.
On the one hand, not buying Vista is a Genuine Advantage in many ways...
but by not buying a PS3, I save more money and also get the bonus of not upgrading to newer DRM.

Thank goodness I can afford to do both!

Cue standard slashdot responses:

[aussie_a]

1. Making lists of what the standard slashdot responses are.

In other words...

[joe_cot]

Dear OEM distributors:

We screwed up. Please don't go selling Linux PCs this Christmas.

Regards,

Bill

You got the wrong idea

[suv4x4]

As always. The point isn't to go out and start buying WinXP PC-s so to get free Vista.
The point is if you need to buy a PC, you don't need to wait for Vista, but buy it now with XP, and get Vista later for free.

As you probably imagine, quite a lot of people are holding hardware purchases, waiting for Vista pre-installed machines. What Microsoft does is keep the market going versus stifle sales right during the Holiday season.

In fact, it's a very sweet deal if you ask me, since Vista is gonna be crap until SP1, and you get to enjoy worry free XP experience until Vista is stable: then upgrade for $0. Best of both worlds.

The Beginning of The End

[Jane Q. Public]

I really do think that Vista will be the beginning of the end for Microsoft as a major player in the OS wars. There are subtle signs that they are starting to lose. Not commmercially -- not yet -- but their pricing and licensing models no longer work. I would have thought that even they were finally coming to realize this, but their pricing, licensing, and marketing (4 major versions) of Vista says otherwise.

I expect Windows to hang around for a long while yet, but I expect that this is where it will begin to actually decline. Their business and marketing models have been pushed past the point at which their products will continue to carry them: they have no technology advantages anymore (most of those they had before, they bought or stole), they are pricing themselves out of the market, and they have been making both installation and use of their products more difficult rather than easier. The only advantage they have had has been a stranglehold on market share and thus hardware vendors, but they have begun to lose that leverage as well. Given their heavy-handed (and monopolistic according to the courts) business practices, I doubt many people will really suffer very much from their passing. After all... their major competition is actually free.

Re:The Beginning of The End

[hazah]

I love how your entire post tries to scare the non 'tech saavy' into thinking that what you're actually saying is worth anything. Fine... you ended up at your command line, and you have an ignorant family (and you can play HL2 on linux). See, the problem is the assumption you are making, and that is: Windows is easier. Excuse me? 'Easier' is a relative term, and in this context, you are using it a bit too loosely. I would love to see what happens to your 'oh so easy to use' system after about 6 months, a year maybe... what kind of state would it be in? Format often? Defrag? Reboot? Of course it's easy and not time consuming. How could I have missed the logic behind this argument when I heard it so many times... I just don't know how. Bah, you piss me off.

Re:The Beginning of The End

[pandrijeczko]

I do fully agree with your point that Linux (at least as it stands today) will not displace Windows from the desktops of Joe Average users. To be perfectly honest, if Joe's computer usage consists purely of playing games, working with a few household documents, maybe printing and editing a few family photos and all that kind of stuff, then he's probably no need to ever run Linux - and if, when Joe buys his next PC, he's still able to do all of those things, then it won't matter to him whether or not he's running XP or Vista.

Additionally, although a confirmed Gentoo-only user myself, Linux distros are getting friendlier and easier to install, plus the process of installing updates is pretty straightforward. Where the real issue comes is with brand-spanking new hardware where the Linux kernel drivers have possibly not caught up with their Windows equivalents - in other words, if you're going to run Linux on a PC, you probably need to do some research first to make sure that all of the hardware in that PC is supported by a kernel or external driver. Again, this is a process Joe Average wants nothing to do with - he just wants to buy his PC and off he goes.

However, there are also a few of your points I disagree with. Assuming that we're again talking about Joe Average and that Joe has a fully working XP PC and a fully working Ubuntu PC in front of him, I would argue that to maintain and use the Ubuntu PC takes a lot less time than the XP PC *if you do it properly*.

For starters, on the XP machine, there are Microsoft updates to apply fairly frequently (although I admit Microsoft Update is pretty automatic) but then there's the weekly virus scans, adware scanners, maybe some kind of disk cleaning and registry cleaning tool to run, and possibly a disk defragmenter on top of that. With the Ubuntu PC, it's maybe a few RPMs to install pretty much automatically because none of the other XP tools have any relevance to Linux.

Then if Joe Average writes a few letters or documents, maybe keeps a spreadsheet for home finances, these are all perfectly doable on OpenOffice at the level (and far beyond) he needs to do things. Just because Joe hears everyone else talking about MS Office, it does not mean he uses anything more than about 10% of its features.

Another of your points I object to is Microsoft "allowing" competitors. Linux exists "despite" Microsoft, the whole free UNIX and GNU thing has been there long before Microsoft ever thought of Windows and Linux is used because, for certain applications and for certain people, it does things *better* than what Windows does. For example, if you're prepared to learn how to script a little (Perl, Python, shell-scripting, whatever), you can have hugely powerful automated tools that will have finished doing their job before the equivalent tool in Windows has even started its GUI. So please don't believe that MS has any power over Linux, or the other free UNIX-like OSes, because it doesn't - the GPL and similar licenses ensure that.

If you and other people in this world want to do something constructive for all computer users globally, then encourage Joe Average to use open alternatives to Microsoft's (and others) closed source tools. Don't forbid them to use those tools, just get them to try Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, GAIM, OpenOffice, etc. on Windows and explain to them why it's important not to be locked into one vendor and why issues like DRM are important.

The other advantage of this approach is that if Joe Average gets to like these free tools, then if he does one day decide to give Linux a try, he'll have those same tools on his Linux desktop meaning that the shock to his system will be lessened considerably.

You forgot the ponies

[leamanc]

What about OMG Ponies!!!!?

Huh? 64-bit XP exists.

[gvc]

The reason your machine has 32-bit XP is because Microsoft made the (misguided, in my opinion) to make XP-64 require 64 bit drivers, and your favorite dollar-store device doesn't come with one. Had they implemented some facility for for XP64 to use 32-bit drivers, we'd all be using it by now.

How does Vista change this?

Re:'Vista' happily overwrites MBR to stop Linux bo

[Achromatic1978]

This is the share that adds a dollar sign to every partition and file on any windows system that windows can reach and the result is its undeletable and unmodifiable share name.

Yeah, unmodifiable.

My Computer > C Drive > Sharing and Security > C$ > "Do Not Share This Folder"

Fuck me, that was hard.

(Now, an argument about it being enabled by default, that would have a lot more merit.)

Then, however, I read this:

New hardware is assumed to be contaminated with windows' hardware spy routines in the firmware and in the BIOSes, so where possible we reflash all the bioses with open source BIOSes. This includes vidcards, harddrives, etc. where possible. Also new hardware never sees the internet until it is 'trusted' by US! That basically means that only linux machines ever see the net. Windows machines only see the back wall of offices never to be connected to the net inasmuch as we have to use windows at all.

Where's my tinfoil hat? Not to mention those open source BIOSes for my Asus laptop. And the open source BIOS for its ATI Mobility Radeon X1600. And the open source BIOS for it's Samsung 120GB HDD. Oh, man. Ye gods. What do you when you get home from work, write missives about the black helicopters and how John Lennon is working as a CIA agent?

But of course, you wouldn't be writing that on MS Office, of course:

We put in Win98 if it has to be a windows machine and use pre97 Office products that do not report all your letters, fone numbers, credit card numbers, etc to Redmond for exploitation and resale to shady characters around the world.

Congrats, AC, I sprayed Mountain Dew with laughter.

Re:Huh? 64-bit XP exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I Vista 64 they require that drivers are 64bit and signed. So wait for better times. :P

One glaring one you missed:

[The Wooden Badger]

6. Imagine a Beowulf clus- Oh, crap. Nevermind.

FUD

[daniel_howell]

If it's free you don't want it. It'll be buggy, it'll lack focus, customer support will be lacking and you'll end up having to pay far more to get someone to sort it out than if you had paid for software in the first place. Free software is a false economy. Free software is UnAmerican. Free software destroys decent hardworking mom-and-pop all-american companies. Free software causes acne. Don't buy free software, pay through the nose for our good old, secure, reliable microsoft products. Errr, hang on...

I am going to wait till vista comes installed

[majortom1981]

I am going to wait till vista comes installed on the machine until I buy a new computer. That way I know the machine can handle it. Also upgrading my current pc to vista is not worth it.