Microsoft Charging Businesses $4K for DST Fix

eldavojohn writes "Microsoft has slashed the price it's going to charge users on the daylight saving time fixes. As you know, the federal law that moves the date for DST goes into effect this month. Although the price of $4000 is 1/10 of the original estimate Microsoft made, it seems a bit pricey for a patch to a product you've already paid for. From the article: 'Among the titles in that extended support category are Windows 2000, Exchange Server 2000 and Outlook 2000, the e-mail and calendar client included with Office 2000. For users running that software, Microsoft charges $4,000 per product for DST fixes. For that amount, customers can apply the patches to all systems in their organizations, including branch offices and affiliate.' The only thing they can't do, said a Microsoft rep, is redistribute them."

Comments

things that make you go hmmm...

[TheSHAD0W]

I wonder what would happen if you looked up which congresscritters Microsoft has given money to and correlated it with the ones who voted for the DST change?

Re:things that make you go hmmm...

[Original Replica]

I would be rather suprised if MicroSoft didn't give to every senator's campaign. I wonder what would happen if this was extended to other things. "Dell charging only $300 for non-exploding batteries." "Nintendo Deluxe wrist strap for only $45"

Re:Whoa

[MyLongNickName]

Because IT staffs across the U.S. and Canada (imagine the rest of the world that does business here also) have to certify millions of servers and workstations for a feel good piece of legislation. Instead of real efforts to wean us off foreign oil, we settle for this joke. And a significant percentage of my coworkers think it is great -- keeps them employed.

Re:Big argument for using libraries

[pe1chl]

It *is* how Microsoft did it, however they goofed at writing the conversion routines and made them much more primitive than posix timezone handling like in Linux.
That is what you are paying for now.

Re:Hang on a second..

[iPaul]

I think this illustrates the myth of "software support." How often have you openend a ticket with a vendor only to see it drag on for weeks, exchanging log files for untested patches, only to find the work-around yourself? Having worked with well respected (Gartner approved, but not Microsoft) "enterprise" products from a major "enterprise" software and hardware vendor, I was stunned by how often I was essentially left holding my ... er... pencil in my hand. For the most part they were closed source. Nothing beats having competant administrators and some degree of source code access. Yet I see clients demanding that someone offer paid support for anything - even if we all know the support is worthless.

Re:Wow, thieves

[iPaul]

The slickest scam ever was reproducing a lot of VMS with additional bugs, tied to a buggy Gui, with everything shipped late and with reduced features. Convincing the business community that you're an innovative technology company when you can barely reproduce the features/stability of systems based on Unix or OS/360. On top of that convincing customers that you comply with standards, except changing them in subtle ways to make it work with only your products. Convincing the US government that having 95% of all desktops is not a monopoly. The whole thing has been one long, continuous scam.