Alternate operating systems

[MICHAEL]

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

Charlie;
"Vista costs more than previous versions"
I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows
XP.

Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
versions of Windows.

Practically everything technology based has seen extraordinary
price drops over the last 15 years, while steadily increasing value
and performance. Hard drives, CPUs, monitors, peripheral devices,
routers, internet connections, CD prices, DVD prices, DVD burners,
DVD players, cell phones, flash drives, and really the whole computer
is cheaper and better. Everything but Windows has fallen in price.


-Michael

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

How about other operating systems and software?
How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
versions of a few years ago?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[Charlie Tame]

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

Practically everything technology based has seen extraordinary
price drops over the last 15 years, while steadily increasing value
and performance. Hard drives, CPUs, monitors, peripheral devices,
routers, internet connections, CD prices, DVD prices, DVD burners,
DVD players, cell phones, flash drives, and really the whole computer
is cheaper and better. Everything but Windows has fallen in price.


-Michael

Well I was thinking along the lines of price of a Windows DVD Vs the
cost of making it more than anything else, so would think that over the
last release of the XP OS Microsoft would expect to see more "Profit" in
simplistic terms. In the case of OEM installs there's no cost at all
except paperwork.

 

[HeyBub]

Isn't it strange as how the wackos that advocate for alternate
operating systems are strangly quiet since the release of Microsoft's
latest financial report!

It is now a fact that everything they have been spouting for the past
year is rubbish.

For those that haven't seen:

3rd Quarter
Revenue, $13 billion, up 37% from same period last year
Profit, $4 billion, up 23% from same period last year

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/336881_msftearns26.html

Apple did well in the last quarter also. But of course, they're insane.

 

[Charlie Tame]

How about other operating systems and software?
How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
versions of a few years ago?

Linux is still the same

I think there's some ambiguity here however, we are talking "Microsoft"
which supplies all manner of things to a vast market Vs. "Other
Operating Systems" so comparisons are not direct.

I mean for example MS sell all manner of things that are not software or
even remotely OS related, Apple less so but still varied and one could
argue even less related, so there's no clear way for anyone to win this
debate, in fact it's largely a pointless debate.

My point was 1. Naturally MS make more profit than a non profit... and
profit / turnover can be misleading for many reasons, even without the
differences mentioned above. 2. That just because people are buying
something now does not mean it is any good. People "Buy" all kinds of
software, a lot of which is no good.

That is not to suggest I am claiming Vista or anything else is no good,
only that figures such as those quoted in the current debate don't
really mean a lot, one way or the other.

 

[MICHAEL]

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

How about other operating systems and software?
How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
versions of a few years ago?

Well, there really isn't anything to compare the scale/install base
of Windows to... is there? Typically, high volume businesses find
a way to produce more/cut costs, increase value and lower prices-
unless there's some type of shortage or production supplies spike.
Of course, that assumes there's competition in the marketplace.
Even smaller companies that don't produce products in volume
will compete on price if there is competition... they generally have
to in order to survive. Microsoft may have to spend large amounts
on R&D and employees, but they have practically no other overhead
when it comes to their software products. Their actual manufacturing
costs for putting bits on a disk have more than likely plummeted over the years.
That's why they have one of the best profit margins of any company
in the world. As I have said before, they make more money than Wal-Mart
with a fraction of the sales that Wal-Mart has.


-Michael

 

[Adam Albright]

For those that haven't seen:

3rd Quarter
Revenue, $13 billion, up 37% from same period last year
Profit, $4 billion, up 23% from same period last year

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/336881_msftearns26.html

Apple did well in the last quarter also. But of course, they're insane.

I'm having a hard time trying to decide if people that pretend to know
something about computers or those pretending to know something about
investing are the bigger fools. Tough call.

I keep wondering why anyone is suppose to give a crap how well
Microsoft or any company does if they don't benefit from it.

Well I DO happen to own Microsoft stock.

Over the last year the stock price went from $28.53 on 10/30/06 to
close yesterday at $35.03. Microsoft pays only a .11 cents quarterly
dividend.

So that $13 billion in quarterly revenue and $4 billion in profits is
mostly reinvested in the company and investors hardly get more than
bread crumbs. It all depends HOW you look at the numbers. Since
Microsoft has over 9 billion shares outstanding that means in a
quarter it returns roughly a billion dollars as dividends. While the
ratio is on a par with other publicly traded software companies the
dividend yield is only 1.25%. Microsoft's gross margins are impressive
with it's profitability 82% higher than other companies in the
industry. So they could easily afford to return a higher dividend, but
they don't.

If you care, old Billy Gates owns over 1 billion shares of Microsoft.
How much is now in trusts for charity I don't know. Still in just
yesterday's move that holding increased over 3 billion dollars. Which
to look at it another way Gates could have easily afforded to give
every computer owner on the planet a free copy of Vista just on the
profits he made yesterday in the increased value of Microsoft stock
and still have raked in a bundle.

 

[Richard in AZ]

I can agree to some extent in terms of "Value for money" if you take "Inflation" into account,
however I strongly suspect that the costs of producing things like DVDs have actually come down in
the sort of quantities MS would be dealing with, so in terms of (say) $200 for a physical item
(DVD) I think we would see an increase in profit, though you are correct that this can be
argued...

It is not the cost of the DVD, it is the cost of the development, the cost of doing business, the
product support, future research, etc. (including profit for the share holders.)

 

[Charlie Tame]

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

Well, there really isn't anything to compare the scale/install base
of Windows to... is there? Typically, high volume businesses find
a way to produce more/cut costs, increase value and lower prices-
unless there's some type of shortage or production supplies spike.
Of course, that assumes there's competition in the marketplace.
Even smaller companies that don't produce products in volume
will compete on price if there is competition... they generally have
to in order to survive. Microsoft may have to spend large amounts
on R&D and employees, but they have practically no other overhead
when it comes to their software products. Their actual manufacturing
costs for putting bits on a disk have more than likely plummeted over the years.
That's why they have one of the best profit margins of any company
in the world. As I have said before, they make more money than Wal-Mart
with a fraction of the sales that Wal-Mart has.


-Michael

Right, I guess that was my point. There really is no fair comparison to
be had and so quoting figures is rather like comparing the DoD budget to
Wendy's.

One illusory factor may be that people had held off on buying a new
system (64 bit for example) waiting to see what would be available for
it. Could be that now that rush is over the market falls flat on it's
ass, who knows?

 

[Charlie Tame]

It is not the cost of the DVD, it is the cost of the development, the cost of doing business, the
product support, future research, etc. (including profit for the share holders.)

But those costs remain the same however many copies are sold, within
limits anyway. As you suggest "Doing Business", which includes many
things other than operating systems as fas as MS is concerned, so I thin
a comparison as is being attempted by some here is completely invalid.
As MICHAEL just said you cannot reasonable compare Microsoft to anyone
else, which is itself both good and bad.

Certainly neither he nor I would wish to see MS damaged, that includes
self inflicted damage which certain of their senior management seem
determined to inflict, either by their personal arrogance or some form
of corporate lunacy, with the exception perhaps of Ballmer who appears
to bring his own form of lunacy as many people bring their lunch

I assume with his earning though he doesn't care much what I think and
probably won't bother to explain his reasoning here.

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:

I'm having a hard time trying to decide if people that pretend to know
something about computers or those pretending to know something about
investing are the bigger fools. Tough call.

Nah...based on your imbecilic postings it's quite easy...you're both an
ignorant computer user and a fool of an investor.
That was easy now wasn't it mr prius pig.
Frank

 

[caver1]

No competition.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

No competition.
caver1

This is one of the problems, because there is no visible financial
competition it may appear that there is none at all, however that is not
strictly true.

 

[forty-nine]

I'm having a hard time trying to decide if people that pretend to know
something about computers or those pretending to know something about
investing are the bigger fools. Tough call.

I keep wondering why anyone is suppose to give a crap how well
Microsoft or any company does if they don't benefit from it.

Well I DO happen to own Microsoft stock.

Over the last year the stock price went from $28.53 on 10/30/06 to
close yesterday at $35.03. Microsoft pays only a .11 cents quarterly
dividend.

So that $13 billion in quarterly revenue and $4 billion in profits is
mostly reinvested in the company and investors hardly get more than
bread crumbs. It all depends HOW you look at the numbers. Since
Microsoft has over 9 billion shares outstanding that means in a
quarter it returns roughly a billion dollars as dividends. While the
ratio is on a par with other publicly traded software companies the
dividend yield is only 1.25%. Microsoft's gross margins are impressive
with it's profitability 82% higher than other companies in the
industry. So they could easily afford to return a higher dividend, but
they don't.

If you care, old Billy Gates owns over 1 billion shares of Microsoft.
How much is now in trusts for charity I don't know. Still in just
yesterday's move that holding increased over 3 billion dollars. Which
to look at it another way Gates could have easily afforded to give
every computer owner on the planet a free copy of Vista just on the
profits he made yesterday in the increased value of Microsoft stock
and still have raked in a bundle.

Its either 0.11 dollar or 11 cents.
Also $0.11.
..11 cents is what a coupon is worth, maybe.
Just so you know ; )

 

[caver1]

This is one of the problems, because there is no visible financial
competition it may appear that there is none at all, however that is not
strictly true.

It is true as far as business and home users are
concerned. MS policies over
the last decade or two made sure that Windows was
what most everyone used.
So to get them to change OS's there is a lerning
curve. Which most people are too lazy for, and
most business's can't afford.
MS knows there is competition from Linux or they
wouldn't worry about it.
There was just on the news how some BP execs tried
to corner the market. They are
going to court because it is illegal. The Hunt
bros. got into legal trouble for
trying to corner the silver market.
MS has cornered the OS market and are trying to do
the same with the software
market and are getting away with it.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

It is true as far as business and home users are concerned. MS policies
over
the last decade or two made sure that Windows was what most everyone used.
So to get them to change OS's there is a lerning curve. Which most
people are too lazy for, and most business's can't afford.
MS knows there is competition from Linux or they wouldn't worry about it.
There was just on the news how some BP execs tried to corner the market.
They are
going to court because it is illegal. The Hunt bros. got into legal
trouble for
trying to corner the silver market.
MS has cornered the OS market and are trying to do the same with the
software
market and are getting away with it.
caver1

At present yes, but the fuel and silver markets had a rival supplier so
folk wanted choice, until now MS had no rivals with an equal product to
offer. Folks might have thought a choice would be good but there wasn't
anything they wanted instead, that is not going to last forever.

 

[caver1]

At present yes, but the fuel and silver markets had a rival supplier so
folk wanted choice, until now MS had no rivals with an equal product to
offer. Folks might have thought a choice would be good but there wasn't
anything they wanted instead, that is not going to last forever.

Hopefully
caver1

 

[NT Canuck]

If you care, old Billy Gates owns over 1 billion shares of Microsoft.
How much is now in trusts for charity I don't know. Still in just
yesterday's move that holding increased over 3 billion dollars. Which
to look at it another way Gates could have easily afforded to give
every computer owner on the planet a free copy of Vista just on the
profits he made yesterday in the increased value of Microsoft stock
and still have raked in a bundle.

3buck deal for Asia and parts, mini Office and mini XP,
expectations for expansion of additional 2-4 billion 'new users'
within next decade (or less). Essentially a give away if you
loock at minimimal distribution and support costs.

As far as that goes..the WinXPsp2 entailed so much
reworking of the OS internal plumbing and updating
code that it was essentially a new and free OS upgrade.
A rather serious shift in most of the legacy system
structures Windows was following to that point.

I'm not sure what percentage Windows and products
occupy in current Microsoft Empire which has diversified
into many other electronic areas, but certainly the
reduced cost of support and electronic vs hard copy
retail played a large part in any profit pictures.
Anyways...the Windows end users (client) occupy
the caboose not the driving engine of corporate policy.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[MICHAEL]

* Charlie Tame:

But those costs remain the same however many copies are sold, within
limits anyway. As you suggest "Doing Business", which includes many
things other than operating systems as fas as MS is concerned, so I thin
a comparison as is being attempted by some here is completely invalid.
As MICHAEL just said you cannot reasonable compare Microsoft to anyone
else, which is itself both good and bad.

Certainly neither he nor I would wish to see MS damaged, that includes
self inflicted damage which certain of their senior management seem
determined to inflict, either by their personal arrogance or some form
of corporate lunacy, with the exception perhaps of Ballmer who appears
to bring his own form of lunacy as many people bring their lunch

I assume with his earning though he doesn't care much what I think and
probably won't bother to explain his reasoning here.

You're right, Charlie. When I complain about something I feel Microsoft
has done wrong, it's not because I hate the company... far from it.

There is a part of me that pulls for the company to do well, and I certainly
don't want to see the company collapse, and it's hard not to admire the
profit machine that they are and the fortunes they have generated.

However, there is a direction I feel Microsoft is has gone and continues
traveling that is not good for paying customers, and will eventually cause
themselves harm.... I just hope they figure that out before it's too late.

You can't exact change through silence.


-Michael

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Charlie;
"Vista costs more than previous versions"
I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows XP.

Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
versions of Windows.

Sure it costs more, JJ. MS is a business and needs to deal with
inflation just like the rest of us. Besides, they haven't fed this cash
cow (desktop Oses) in 5 to 6 yrs. They want to make up for time not
bringing in money.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett