Beware of Upgrading Your Computer

[Frank]

norm wrote:

The masses have not spoken or decided anything, as they probably have no
idea that there are viable options other than maybe knowing about apple.

What, you been living on another planet for the last 10 years.
Get serious, or get lost.
Frank

 

[Frank]

And who's reality are we discussing? Frank's, yours, mine? None of them
define in any way as to whether something is for the masses.

Hey bozo, let the marketing numbers do the talking.
Cause that's all that counts.
BTW, 4-7% linux desktop users at the most!
Read'em and weep.
Got it?
Frank

 

[Justin]

Currently, at NewEgg:

Vista Home Premium = $220
XP Home w/SP2 = $190

Vista Home Premium OEM = $112
XP Home w/SP2 OEM = $90

Wow, that's brilliant! Not only did you compare the wrong versions but you
also compared 3 month old pricing with 6.5 year old pricing.

Let me not assume a normal conversation. I'll be sure to spell out every
single little detail for those that can't get it. Vista costs the same as
XP....when it was released. If you're going to compare a 3 month old price
for Vista then you have to compare a three month old price for XP. Anything
else would be just plain stupid.


Windows XP Home Upgrade - $99
Windows Vista Home Basic Upgrade - $99

Windows XP Home - $199
Windows Vista Home Basic - $199

Windows XP Pro Upgrade - $199
Windows Vista Business Upgrade - $199

Widows XP Pro - $299
Windows Vista Business - $299

Want a little more? Want some media center options? Windows Vista Home
Premium: $239 ($40 more)

 

[norm]

norm wrote:



What, you been living on another planet for the last 10 years.
Get serious, or get lost.
Frank

Sorry I upset you. I expected a cogent argument. I misjudged your
capability to do so.

 

[norm]

Hey bozo, let the marketing numbers do the talking.
Cause that's all that counts.
BTW, 4-7% linux desktop users at the most!
Read'em and weep.
Got it?
Frank

I got it, Frank. Do you feel better now? lol

 

[Justin]

The masses have not spoken or decided anything, as they probably have no
idea that there are viable options other than maybe knowing about apple.
Being available for free is not, in and of itself, of any importance if no
one knows about it in the first place. It is too bad that you gave up on
it so quickly, because doing so does nothing to lend any credence to your
low opinion of it. It is fine that you have no use for it, but don't
pretend that you did any more than kick the tires and then made a decision
on that act only.

If retail doesn't offer anything other then Windows and Apple, then there's
a reason. Not enough money in linux, period. If linux was viable enough to
make money on it then people would. As it stands, you'll only see internet
sales for the most part.

 

[Justin]

And who's reality are we discussing? Frank's, yours, mine? None of them
define in any way as to whether something is for the masses.

I only know one reality. The one everyone on planet Earth is subject to.
Market share is proof of what the masses do and do not want.

 

[Justin]

Sorry, missed the smiley at the end. But I still question your assessment
of what linux usage is and where you came up with your percentage.

The percentage was a quick on the spot assessment of what I've seen and
read.

I use linux server for application servers/appliances. I am an avid linux
desktop hater. Every time I try to give linux desktop an honest go I become
greatly disappointed in it. If fails me every time.

 

[Justin]

If that was an OEM version of Vista, you did an upgrade... you did not
built a new machine.
An OEM version is ONLY good for the original box, it may NEVER be
transferred to a new computer.

That was cleared up. He said Full Retail.

 

[norm]

If retail doesn't offer anything other then Windows and Apple, then
there's a reason. Not enough money in linux, period. If linux was
viable enough to make money on it then people would. As it stands,
you'll only see internet sales for the most part.

Maybe not all success can or should be defined by how much money is
made. It seems surprising that linux seems to pose such a threat to such
a juggernaut as ms, since open source is not a money making (which you
define as the benchmark of success) machine. On the other hand, it might
be reasonable to call linux a success (under your criteria) in the
server market (for instance). And that market certainly isn't "internet
sales for the most part".

 

[norm]

I only know one reality. The one everyone on planet Earth is subject
to. Market share is proof of what the masses do and do not want.

Market share is not necessarily proof of what the masses do or do not
want. If all competitors have access to the same distribution network
and the playing field is level, and the products offered can be judged
by the masses on their merits or lack of them, then the masses truly can
choose what they do or do not want. Until that comes to fruition, your
reality (market share) is skewed.

 

[Frank]

Sorry I upset you. I expected a cogent argument. I misjudged your
capability to do so.

A cogent argument. Is that what you're offering? Excuse me but you seem
to talk allot yet say nothing. You're suffering from diatribitis as
evidenced by your excessive verbiage. Words have weight whereas volume
simply fills space.
Frank

 

[Frank]

norm wrote:

Market share is not necessarily proof of what the masses do or do not
want. If all competitors have access to the same distribution network
and the playing field is level, and the products offered can be judged
by the masses on their merits or lack of them, then the masses truly can
choose what they do or do not want. Until that comes to fruition, your
reality (market share) is skewed.

Wrong!
Market share defines reality.
Frank

 

[norm]

The percentage was a quick on the spot assessment of what I've seen and
read.

I use linux server for application servers/appliances. I am an avid
linux desktop hater. Every time I try to give linux desktop an honest
go I become greatly disappointed in it. If fails me every time.

Fair enough. People should use what they find most to their liking or
needs. That shouldn't be an issue of contention, but it seems to be the
only issue of contention in some of these threads, with them devolving
into much sound and fury and little substance. Sometimes, a bit more
substance goes a long way in presenting a position one holds.

 

[norm]

A cogent argument. Is that what you're offering? Excuse me but you seem
to talk allot yet say nothing. You're suffering from diatribitis as
evidenced by your excessive verbiage. Words have weight whereas volume
simply fills space.
Frank

And "get serious, or get lost" is a weighty statement? Look in a mirror.

 

[Frank]

And "get serious, or get lost" is a weighty statement? Look in a mirror.

Pray for clear vision.
Frank

 

[Justin]

Maybe not all success can or should be defined by how much money is made.

That is not the discussion.

It seems surprising that linux seems to pose such a threat

Who says it's a threat?

(which you define as the benchmark of success)

I've done no such thing. Money was only part of it.

On the other hand, it might be reasonable to call linux a success (under
your criteria) in the server market (for instance).

Nope. Still a very small market share.

And that market certainly isn't "internet sales for the most part".

Yup, it's mostly phone sales.

 

[Justin]

Market share is not necessarily proof of what the masses do or do not
want.

Because people buy what they do not want? Or do they not buy what they
need?

If all competitors have access to the same distribution network and the
playing field is level, and the products offered can be judged by the
masses on their merits or lack of them, then the masses truly can choose
what they do or do not want. Until that comes to fruition, your reality
(market share) is skewed.

Bull. If there's a channel that is not offering linux then it's for good
reason. Linux has every bit of a chance as windows but it falls short for
most needs.

Why is HP in business? To make money. This is where you try to spin that
and claim money shouldn't measure success. Spins don't work on me.
Regardless of your personal beliefs these companies drive on making money.
If there was more money to be made in linux then windows then they would be
doing it. They are not. 2+2=4.

I also will not fall for the notion that people don't know what's best for
them.

 

[Alias]

If retail doesn't offer anything other then Windows and Apple, then
there's a reason. Not enough money in linux, period. If linux was
viable enough to make money on it then people would. As it stands,
you'll only see internet sales for the most part.

I guess MS, Dell and Novell made their little deal for charitable
reasons, right?

Linux will spread by word of mouth, no stinking and lying marketing
campaigns necessary.

You won't see any "sales", Internet or otherwise, because Linux is free.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Why is HP in business? To make money.

Gosh, and I thought they were in business to make good computers.
Course, we all know they don't make good computers and load them up with
trial crap and, like MS, Dell, et al, care nothing about their paying
customers.

Alias