Slashdot Mirror
Vista To XP Upgrade Triples In Price, Now $150
ozmanjusri writes "Dell has tripled the charge to upgrade Vista PCs to XP. Under current licensing 'downgrade' agreements, system builders can install XP Pro instead of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate; however, Dell has opted for a surcharge of $150 over the price of Vista for the older but more popular XP Professional operating system. Rob Enderle says the downgrade fees could potentially be disastrous for Microsoft: 'The fix for this should be to focus like lasers on demand generation for Vista but instead Microsoft is focusing aggressively on financial penalties," says Enderle. 'Forcing customers to go someplace they don't want to go by raising prices is a Christmas present for Apple and those that are positioning Linux on the desktop.'"
No, it's not. Period.
I was going to write a long drawn out essay on it, but then I realised that you wont listen and you'll just post some crap like "it's an upgrade lawlz!!!11!!1one"
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Vista is to Microsoft as dBase 4 was to Ashton-Tate, a stinking turd. dBase had competition from alternative database vendors and paid the price for producing a turd. Microsoft has almost no competition and can effectively extort money from users for a downgrade as they try to escape this turd.
Microsoft can spray all the marketing turd polish they want on Vista but it will still stink. Hopefully, enough people will migrate to Linux or Apple that Microsoft will go the way of Ashton-Tate (I'm hoping but I'm not holding my breath).
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Guess what, Microsoft is a business. Are you seriously that fucking stupid?
Yes, because wireless networking under XP is indistinguishable from that under Vista.
Because a bulletproof media center isn't an improvment over a cantakerous one.
Because fine grained and extremely easy to use performance and reliablity monitoring isn't and improvement over course and more cumbersum version.
Look, you've never used Vista outside of a Circuit City. I get it. You have NO idea what you're writing about. If slashdot wasn't cramed full of 80% fail it'd be something else.
It's not a myth. Vista changed the way memory usage is reported so that the 1GB reported is physical, in-use memory. Memory that's been paged out is not counted in that figure. It's just a count of physical memory that's in use by applications. The actual size of allocated memory is enormous.
Launch anything and Vista starts paging like mad as it madly tries to eek out enough memory for the crap Vista insists on running and the applications the user wants to use.
You can get these figures by hunting down and finding the resource monitor, NOT the Task Manager. The Task Manager has been altered to underreport the amount of used memory.
I'm glad that Geek Squad gig is working out for you, Timmy.