Windows Vista World Price Rip Off (was UK)

R

Roscoe

What's MS's excuse?

Jupiter Jones said:
Thieves already steal regardless the price because it is their nature.
Piracy may be cut a little, but there would always be those that would
steal regardless the price.
Even if it were free as long as downloaded from a specific server, some
would still distribute copies and others would download from the
illegitimate sources.

To a thief, anything they disagree is not a "reasonable price".Price is
little more than an excuse the thieves use to justify their activities.
Some buy into this flimsy excuse, I do not.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Why ask me?
You are the one that believes it.
Ask whoever you think is the thief.
 
D

Dale

Define overcharge.

I agree with most arguments that Microsoft charges too much for their
software and that they can do so because of a (at least near) virtual
monopoly. That, in no way, gives me an excuse to steal from Microsoft or
anyone else.

And, typing "or anyone else" brings to mind another point. While all those
who justify or rationalize piracy because Microsoft makes too much money,
there are also many third-party components in Windows and other Microsoft
products. Every time someone uses a pirated copy of Windows, they also
deprive those third-party companies, who are not nearly as big or profitable
as Microsoft is, of their earned income as well.

Dale
 
R

Robert Moir

Roscoe wrote:

If you over charge people it's dishonest too.
Click to expand...

Define "overcharge".

If you order burger and fries from Mc Donalds and the cashier tells you
"$10.00 please" and pockets the difference that is dishonest.

If Mc Donalds increases the price of burger and fries to $10,00 and you
still choose to go there, they aren't actually being dishonest. And even if
they were, that wouldn't excuse stealing from them.

Microsoft's pricing model is more like the latter than the former - but we
don't have a software burger king to buy from.
 
D

Dale

Very well said.

Dale

Robert Moir said:
Roscoe wrote:



Define "overcharge".

If you order burger and fries from Mc Donalds and the cashier tells you
"$10.00 please" and pockets the difference that is dishonest.

If Mc Donalds increases the price of burger and fries to $10,00 and you
still choose to go there, they aren't actually being dishonest. And even
if they were, that wouldn't excuse stealing from them.

Microsoft's pricing model is more like the latter than the former - but we
don't have a software burger king to buy from.
Click to expand...
 
R

Ray

Does anyone have comparisons between prior versions of Windows and average
wages at that time. Has the cost kept pace with inflation or has it risen
more?

Ray
 
J

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Ray;
A full version of retail Windows 95 sold for about $200 US as did Windows
98, 98SE, ME and XP Home.
Vista Home Premium will sell for about $239 US which makes for about a 20%
increase in the home versions.

Windows XP Pro sold for about $300 US as will Vista Business.
IIRC, Windows NT had a comparable price.

Vista Home Basic and Ultimate really have no comparisons so are more
difficult to compare.

Versions intended for home users have risen in cost about 20% since Windows
95 was first released about 12 years ago.
The business versions have stayed about the same over the last 5 years.

Compare those prices to other products you have purchased over the last 12
years and decide for yourself if costs have risen to much, not enough or
about right.
You should also be able to easily check the history of wages in your
locality.
 
D

Dale

Jupiter,

I paid $299 for my full retail Windows 95. Now, 11 and a half years later,
only a 33% increase in price and a 1000% increase in features and
functionality.

Thanks for raising this point. Now I feel even better about Vista than I
did before!

Dale
 
A

arachnid

Jupiter,

I paid $299 for my full retail Windows 95. Now, 11 and a half years
later, only a 33% increase in price and a 1000% increase in features and
functionality.
Click to expand...

I paid $0 for Linux and 15,000 applications. Comes on a handy-dandy
live-filesystem CD with lots of diagnostic and office tools but no
DRM, WPA, WGA(N), or virtual-machine restrictions. Linux is so secure I
don't have to bother with virus/trojan/spyware scanners/removers. In
fact, I can even read email from unknown parties and surf "dangerous"
websites with impunity. And get this - I can install it on as many
partitions, hard drives, systems, and virtual machines as I want at no
charge, or even pass around copies to my friends without the BSA goons
kicking in the door.
Thanks for raising this point. Now I feel even better about Vista than
I did before!
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd feel terrible about paying $399 for an OS that I can only
install on one of my computers.
 
A

Arrowcatcher

Personally, I'd feel terrible about paying $399 for an OS that I can only
install on one of my computers.
Click to expand...

I had that feeling too and make myself feel better by having several
SuSE machines and one Ubuntu box here in my home network. Once upon a
time before I concentrated on being a Windows sysadmin, I was an
intermediate UNIX SystemV junkie. Those skills are rusted out now,
but they're coming back fast with practice. I adore UNIX/Linux, but
everyone in my environment has been using Windows up to now in
paycheck country. I have Vista Ultimate on one machine here, but I
have trouble imagining people buying it for anywhere near full list
price.
 
R

Robert Moir

Arrowcatcher said:
I have Vista Ultimate on one machine here, but I
have trouble imagining people buying it for anywhere near full list
price.
Click to expand...

There is no way in hell Vista Ultimate is worth the full retail price.
Especially in places outside America, as we've gone over already!
 
P

Paul-B

Obadiah said:
Fist you could not have stated it better! Secondly: Ah, but is an OS
in which businesses have invested billions of dollars in training
and
have acquired years of experience with really a commodity? There are
no other OSes which make an acceptable substitute so the price of the
OS is fairly inelastic.
People need it at any price so sales don't decrease when the price
increases.

Tom Lake
Click to expand...
There is, of course, the option to stick with what you already have,
which is paid for, which works as well as if not better than Vista,
which will be supported for a good few years yet, and in which many of
the bugs which go along with any Microsoft new product have been mostly
ironed-out.

So stick with XP, Server 2003, and give Greedy-Gates the finger.

Personally I don't know why so many people seem to want to rush-out and
be the first to buy a new o/s when the old one works perfectly well.
More money than sense, IMO. Certainly I am advising all my clients to
steer well-clear of Vista until at least SP1, and possibly SP2.

If you must have the eye-candy get one of the many lookalike theme kits
which are around.
 
R

Richard Urban

You're right! The last "credible" competition was IBM's OS/2.

Linux doesn't even get close. And, I do have the latest Ubuntu (6.06) on a
VMWare virtual drive for testing purposes.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew
 
R

Richard Urban

Really!

Is this latest version going to allow me to perform a one click install of
the software ***I*** want to install - even if it is NOT included with the
download package?

Better yet, put a CD/DVD in the tray and have an installer run
automatically.

Can I finally run AutoCad and not have any associated slow downs due to
virtualization?

Didn't think so!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
A

Alias

Richard said:
Really!

Is this latest version going to allow me to perform a one click install
of the software ***I*** want to install - even if it is NOT included
with the download package?
Click to expand...

Depends on the software.
Better yet, put a CD/DVD in the tray and have an installer run
automatically.
Click to expand...

If the program was written for Ubuntu, why not?
Can I finally run AutoCad and not have any associated slow downs due to
virtualization?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Never ran AutoCad but if it's a Windows program, you're
probably better off running it in Windows. Hence, the need for a dual boot.
Didn't think so!
Click to expand...

Wow, one program won't work. BFD.

Alias
 
A

Alias

Richard said:
Can I finally run AutoCad and not have any associated slow downs due to
virtualization?
Click to expand...

DOS based software doesn't run in XP but I bet that didn't stop you from
putting XP on your computers.

Alias
 
A

arachnid

The latest Ubuntu is 6.10: http://www.ubuntu.com/
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Urban is one of those people for whom Linux will
never be good enough until it runs every last piece of software ever
written solely for Windows on every last piece of hardware ever designed
strictly for Windows. And then he'll still whine that Linux isn't as
good as Windows because it doesn't have WPA, WGA(N), and DRM.
 
Top