It's not about wanting Vista. No one is expecting people using XP to suddenly go buy Vista and upgrade. But people are actively resisting Vista being preinstalled on their new computers, and many people, perhaps ESPECIALLY IT people, actively and vehemently HATE Vista. It's 99% irrational.
It was intended to be. That's why it took basically two and a half normal cycles to develop. Microsoft was going to rewrite it from the ground up, but decided to jump ship and built on the XP kernel.
The kernel has never been the Vista complaint. It's basically the XP kernel with upgrades. The Vista complaint is everything built on top of the kernel. Windows 7 is an improvement on that stuff.
Yeah. Imagine how different things would be if every venue or restaurant that plays music was a live music venue. Imagine how much more of "an honest living" musicians -- of all different kinds -- would have the opportunity to make.
Relatively about the same, if not poorer. That is to say, the disparity between what wealth can do now vs. what wealth could do then is HUGE.
In other words "luxury" now is something quite more exorbitant than it was then.
I mean, a King usually had a castle or two, that was built long ago and he inherited. Bill Gates could afford to have dozens and dozens of castles built on short order. He could have any type of medical procedure done. He could probably fly to the moon pick up some rocks, and fly them back if he wanted to. Even the kings of old didn't have that kind of wealth.
And I think you overestimate that bottom 50%. It's basically the same story: they have just enough income or resources to work everyday. Beyond that, they have precious little to spend on entertainment or personal enrichment, very little freedom to do anything beyond being tied down to their jobs. Not much different than a modern-day serfdom.
I don't think there was such a concept as GDP back then. The world was significantly less international back then. It was mostly about trying to grow enough food to survive.
Touche. But my point was, if they were giving away money to charities, I think the charities would say something. I guess the Waltons could have entered into some kind of NDA, but it just doesn't seem likely.
And I am sure they do give some to charities, and in total, way more than I ever could. But the B and M Gates Foundation has given an insane amount of money, over half of what they have.
Of course, when you're that rich, you can have any luxury you want. You could probably half your money a number of times and still have any luxury you want.
I think once you get to that "I can have anything I want" stage, trying to accumulate more wealth is greed in the evilest of ways.
It's not a horrible company, they just have one bad product: Norton. Unfortunately, many, maybe people have had bad experiences with Norton. Their business software is pretty good.
I use their business version -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 -- at home, and it works pretty well.
Basically, it consumes resources, but does not create any. It does not provide either a good or a service. Imagine if all the folks employed as telemarketers had jobs that DID produce resources (goods or services). I guess you could call it wealth, too. They don't produce any wealth, they just consume it. Basically making the value of money less.
That's because when you buy Enterprise edition, you don't buy Terminal Services as an application server, only for administration. Of course, the software is already there, so it's not like they need to ship you a CD to install something extra once you buy TS licenses.
Of course, if they never wanted to use TS as an application server, they probably could have saved themselves a lot of development costs. Why would they give it away for free?
It's a little like getting trial version of everything, or have extra software installed that is "locked" until you put in a serial number. Lots of softwares do that. The general idea is, extra features cost more to develop, so they cost more to purchase. It's easier to deploy everything together (especially if some features are allowed limited use), and then just charge extra for licenses.
I mean, I work for a software company, and that's what we do. We have maybe 10 different features. Some of them took a lot of time to develop, so if you want those extra features, you pay extra for them. The serial number controls what features are turned on, so we only have to ever deploy one app or one version to the customer. If the suddenly need a new feature, they send a check, and we give them a new key. It's easy.
You could also consider that, if all Windows should cost the same, they'd have a very high price tag. Microsoft makes almost no money -- maybe even takes a loss -- on desktop OS's. For OEM's, they practically give them away. The subsidize this by charging more for their server OS's. And Windows itself is probably subsidized by Office, because you need one for the other.
Look at Apple. Why don't they just release OSX for generic PC hardware? Because there's no money is making an OS you can sell for $100. They subsidize their OS development with hardware sales. Sun has done the same in the past.
I don't think you really want to get into "getting what you pay for" with an OS. True, linux is free, but it is only because countless people have developed it as volunteers, or companies saw they could contribute to it and end up paying less in the long run and paying a private company to develop it.
Then again, looking at something like RedHat, it doesn't look terribly cheap, even though it's built on completely free software. I think it further goes to show, Operating Systems are expensive, and we should be happy that the true cost of their development is subsidized in various ways, lest we end up paying $1000 for an OS.
You're looking at it wrong. Sure, once Microsoft has developed all the features, and compiled them into "Windows", there is a "cost" associated with making different versions with certain features removed.
But you're ignoring that Microsoft had to develop all these features initially. In other words, if they ONLY wanted to make the "Home" edition, they could have saved a crapload of money not developing all the domain networking stuff. That extra development for the Business/Pro versions cost Microsoft a lot of money, so they, in turn, charge more for the product.
From the standpoint of your argument, we could wonder why Windows isn't free, since all the code has already been developed.
The differences are EXACTLY extra features that cost extra money to develop.
You have Home Basic, which is the "base" OS. This is the same as XP Home. Then you have Home Premium, which adds Media Center. That's the same as XP Media Center. Then you have Business, which is Home Basic, but with domain networking. It's the same as XP Pro. The only new player in the bunch is Ultimate, which basically combines Home Premium and Business -- basically the Home version with domain network AND media center.
As for the server, there is a ton of extra software on there, most of it related to domain networking.
It seems like you think they should make an Ultimate Ultimate Windows, which has every feature of Ultimate and Server all rolled into one, then sell it for $99. That just wouldn't make any sense. It cost a lot more to develop all the extra features, and it makes sense to charge for them.
I'm confused. How can software not run well using bootcamp? My understand is that when you use bootcamp, you are essentially running a Windows box, just as if you'd ordered parts from newegg and built it yourself.
Unless you're talking about Parallels, and then it makes sense.
That's what I was thinking. Sure, in the grand scheme of things it sucks, but this is just the first piece of software. The music is hokey, but it's still impressive from technical point of view.
So you're saying if I'm Jesus Christ, and I turn two fish and five hushpuppies into enough to feed over five thousand people that Captain D's should be able to sue me for it?
Surely an automobile is inefficient, but what is the cost of public transit vs. the cost of food? A lot of energy goes into growing the food that supplies you with energy that you are calling "free". Growing food is a very inefficient process.
That fact that we can blow more energy making food on it than we get back from the food is the only thing that's allowed the population to boom. In other words, if the ERoEI on food dropped below 1, you have a famine (or a Malthusian Catastrophe). Nowadays it's not that way because we can create energy in other ways. We don't rely on manual labour to grow food.
I agree with you. If the government wants to intervene, under the argument that they subsidized power costs, the best approach would be to apply an extra tax to devices that don't meet certain requirements. Banning them outright is stepping on personal freedom in a way that I just don't agree with.
I can understand asking consumers to pay for their power usage. I can't understand just banning the devices outright.
What you call a "government handout" should be thought of as an investment. For every dollar the government subsidizes in transportation costs, how much of that money is recouped indirectly? The more people that are driving, they more they are going places to either work or spend money, both taxed. More driving means more cars and more maintained work, which is taxed. More driving means convenience stores sell more products like soft drinks and snacks. More driving means trucks are hauling more products...
I doubt most people get in their car, drive around for a while, then just go home. Sure, sometimes people do it, but it's probably less than 0.001% of all miles driven.
I'm going to guess the return is more than a dollar. It's the same idea behind public education. Sure it's a big expense, but the return is greater than the cost. It actually generates value. The same is true of a lot of subsidized or "handout" programs. I've even seen studies that show it's cheaper for a city to give housing to homeless folks than to let them just be vagrants.
Thanks for the link. All he's really doing is using Process Explorer to troubleshoot things. Any good Windows administrator ought to be similarly familiar with Process Explorer.
I've been trying to learn more about it myself, and seeing it used in a real-world example like that was interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about wanting Vista. No one is expecting people using XP to suddenly go buy Vista and upgrade. But people are actively resisting Vista being preinstalled on their new computers, and many people, perhaps ESPECIALLY IT people, actively and vehemently HATE Vista. It's 99% irrational.
It was intended to be. That's why it took basically two and a half normal cycles to develop. Microsoft was going to rewrite it from the ground up, but decided to jump ship and built on the XP kernel.
The kernel has never been the Vista complaint. It's basically the XP kernel with upgrades. The Vista complaint is everything built on top of the kernel. Windows 7 is an improvement on that stuff.
I am waiting to be sued for some of the atoms in my body being able to represent data that represents works that are copyrighted by the RIAA.
Junctions have been around for a while. Vista has real symbolic links.
Yeah. Imagine how different things would be if every venue or restaurant that plays music was a live music venue. Imagine how much more of "an honest living" musicians -- of all different kinds -- would have the opportunity to make.
Relatively about the same, if not poorer. That is to say, the disparity between what wealth can do now vs. what wealth could do then is HUGE.
In other words "luxury" now is something quite more exorbitant than it was then.
I mean, a King usually had a castle or two, that was built long ago and he inherited. Bill Gates could afford to have dozens and dozens of castles built on short order. He could have any type of medical procedure done. He could probably fly to the moon pick up some rocks, and fly them back if he wanted to. Even the kings of old didn't have that kind of wealth.
And I think you overestimate that bottom 50%. It's basically the same story: they have just enough income or resources to work everyday. Beyond that, they have precious little to spend on entertainment or personal enrichment, very little freedom to do anything beyond being tied down to their jobs. Not much different than a modern-day serfdom.
I don't think there was such a concept as GDP back then. The world was significantly less international back then. It was mostly about trying to grow enough food to survive.
Touche. But my point was, if they were giving away money to charities, I think the charities would say something. I guess the Waltons could have entered into some kind of NDA, but it just doesn't seem likely.
And I am sure they do give some to charities, and in total, way more than I ever could. But the B and M Gates Foundation has given an insane amount of money, over half of what they have.
Of course, when you're that rich, you can have any luxury you want. You could probably half your money a number of times and still have any luxury you want.
I think once you get to that "I can have anything I want" stage, trying to accumulate more wealth is greed in the evilest of ways.
Why you bring up the bible, I can't being to fathom, but I do know this:
It doesn't say to receive in secret.
Symantec Antivirus products are good.
Norton sucks.
It's not a horrible company, they just have one bad product: Norton. Unfortunately, many, maybe people have had bad experiences with Norton. Their business software is pretty good.
I use their business version -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 -- at home, and it works pretty well.
Basically, it consumes resources, but does not create any. It does not provide either a good or a service. Imagine if all the folks employed as telemarketers had jobs that DID produce resources (goods or services). I guess you could call it wealth, too. They don't produce any wealth, they just consume it. Basically making the value of money less.
How Do I see the Security Tab in XP Home?
That's because when you buy Enterprise edition, you don't buy Terminal Services as an application server, only for administration. Of course, the software is already there, so it's not like they need to ship you a CD to install something extra once you buy TS licenses.
Of course, if they never wanted to use TS as an application server, they probably could have saved themselves a lot of development costs. Why would they give it away for free?
It's a little like getting trial version of everything, or have extra software installed that is "locked" until you put in a serial number. Lots of softwares do that. The general idea is, extra features cost more to develop, so they cost more to purchase. It's easier to deploy everything together (especially if some features are allowed limited use), and then just charge extra for licenses.
I mean, I work for a software company, and that's what we do. We have maybe 10 different features. Some of them took a lot of time to develop, so if you want those extra features, you pay extra for them. The serial number controls what features are turned on, so we only have to ever deploy one app or one version to the customer. If the suddenly need a new feature, they send a check, and we give them a new key. It's easy.
That's basically what Microsoft is doing with TS.
I also want to add to my post.
You could also consider that, if all Windows should cost the same, they'd have a very high price tag. Microsoft makes almost no money -- maybe even takes a loss -- on desktop OS's. For OEM's, they practically give them away. The subsidize this by charging more for their server OS's. And Windows itself is probably subsidized by Office, because you need one for the other.
Look at Apple. Why don't they just release OSX for generic PC hardware? Because there's no money is making an OS you can sell for $100. They subsidize their OS development with hardware sales. Sun has done the same in the past.
I don't think you really want to get into "getting what you pay for" with an OS. True, linux is free, but it is only because countless people have developed it as volunteers, or companies saw they could contribute to it and end up paying less in the long run and paying a private company to develop it.
Then again, looking at something like RedHat, it doesn't look terribly cheap, even though it's built on completely free software. I think it further goes to show, Operating Systems are expensive, and we should be happy that the true cost of their development is subsidized in various ways, lest we end up paying $1000 for an OS.
You're looking at it wrong. Sure, once Microsoft has developed all the features, and compiled them into "Windows", there is a "cost" associated with making different versions with certain features removed.
But you're ignoring that Microsoft had to develop all these features initially. In other words, if they ONLY wanted to make the "Home" edition, they could have saved a crapload of money not developing all the domain networking stuff. That extra development for the Business/Pro versions cost Microsoft a lot of money, so they, in turn, charge more for the product.
From the standpoint of your argument, we could wonder why Windows isn't free, since all the code has already been developed.
The differences are EXACTLY extra features that cost extra money to develop.
You have Home Basic, which is the "base" OS. This is the same as XP Home. Then you have Home Premium, which adds Media Center. That's the same as XP Media Center. Then you have Business, which is Home Basic, but with domain networking. It's the same as XP Pro. The only new player in the bunch is Ultimate, which basically combines Home Premium and Business -- basically the Home version with domain network AND media center.
As for the server, there is a ton of extra software on there, most of it related to domain networking.
It seems like you think they should make an Ultimate Ultimate Windows, which has every feature of Ultimate and Server all rolled into one, then sell it for $99. That just wouldn't make any sense. It cost a lot more to develop all the extra features, and it makes sense to charge for them.
People who mod me down: suck my dick.
Are you attractive? I'm pretty lonely. I do post on Slashdot afterall.
Oh how I wish I had mod points. :(
I'm confused. How can software not run well using bootcamp? My understand is that when you use bootcamp, you are essentially running a Windows box, just as if you'd ordered parts from newegg and built it yourself.
Unless you're talking about Parallels, and then it makes sense.
That's what I was thinking. Sure, in the grand scheme of things it sucks, but this is just the first piece of software. The music is hokey, but it's still impressive from technical point of view.
So you're saying if I'm Jesus Christ, and I turn two fish and five hushpuppies into enough to feed over five thousand people that Captain D's should be able to sue me for it?
Surely an automobile is inefficient, but what is the cost of public transit vs. the cost of food? A lot of energy goes into growing the food that supplies you with energy that you are calling "free". Growing food is a very inefficient process.
That fact that we can blow more energy making food on it than we get back from the food is the only thing that's allowed the population to boom. In other words, if the ERoEI on food dropped below 1, you have a famine (or a Malthusian Catastrophe). Nowadays it's not that way because we can create energy in other ways. We don't rely on manual labour to grow food.
I agree with you. If the government wants to intervene, under the argument that they subsidized power costs, the best approach would be to apply an extra tax to devices that don't meet certain requirements. Banning them outright is stepping on personal freedom in a way that I just don't agree with.
I can understand asking consumers to pay for their power usage. I can't understand just banning the devices outright.
What you call a "government handout" should be thought of as an investment. For every dollar the government subsidizes in transportation costs, how much of that money is recouped indirectly? The more people that are driving, they more they are going places to either work or spend money, both taxed. More driving means more cars and more maintained work, which is taxed. More driving means convenience stores sell more products like soft drinks and snacks. More driving means trucks are hauling more products...
I doubt most people get in their car, drive around for a while, then just go home. Sure, sometimes people do it, but it's probably less than 0.001% of all miles driven.
I'm going to guess the return is more than a dollar. It's the same idea behind public education. Sure it's a big expense, but the return is greater than the cost. It actually generates value. The same is true of a lot of subsidized or "handout" programs. I've even seen studies that show it's cheaper for a city to give housing to homeless folks than to let them just be vagrants.
Is that the sound the mac makes when you move the volume slider down? Because that's how you'd work-around the loud kegens. I hate those.
I know in Vista you can change the volume of individual programs. Can you do that on the mac?
You know, this is how it is in Windows, too, since the advent of the much maligned UAC.
Thanks for the link. All he's really doing is using Process Explorer to troubleshoot things. Any good Windows administrator ought to be similarly familiar with Process Explorer.
I've been trying to learn more about it myself, and seeing it used in a real-world example like that was interesting.