People Would Rather Pay For Windows Than Use Linux.

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Saucy wrote:
> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:ubQIh$I9HHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> All in USD.. most of the civilized world outside of the 50 states pays
>> quite a bit more..
>>
>>
>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
>> news:ezfHZBI9HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:eT$0mbH9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> And have you looked at prices for other Vista flavours, bearing in
>>>> mind that many will like the idea of finally getting Media Centre,
>>>> and may well have slightly higher aspirations than your brother?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, Vista is offered in a range of editions. About Vista Home Basic
>>> can be had for $89 USD but here's typical pricing spread from CompUSA:
>>>
>>> $199 USD for Business ed.
>>> $ 99 USD for Home Basic ed.
>>> $159 USD for Home Premium ed.
>>> $259 USD for Ultimate ed.
>>>
>>> Note though, customers already running Vista Basic or Vista Home
>>> Premium can upgrade to Vista Ultimate ed. for $199 USD and $179 USD,
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> But with all that said and done, a family running XP Home can gain
>>> all the benefits of running Vista for about $89 USD - including
>>> Parental Controls - which makes for a very nice upgrade.
>>>
>>> [(unoffical) Windows Vista Feature Comparison - Tom Porterfield MVP]
>>> http://support.teloep.org/vistaver.htm
>>>
>>> [Compare Vista Editions - Microsoft]
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pr.../choose.mspx?wt_svl=10033WHa1&mg_id=10033WHb1
>>>
>>>
>>> [Can your PC run Vista? -Microsoft]
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pr...advisor.mspx?wt_svl=10008WHa1&mg_id=10008WHb1
>>>
>>>
>>> Saucy
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Mike Hall
>> MS MVP Windows Shell/User
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Mr. Hall:
>
> Well, the Europeans wanted the 'N' editions created and then on top of
> that to punish Microsoft to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of
> millions of euros in penalties .. so boo hoo. If the Europeans want a
> refund they can ask the EU for all I care. Korea got in on the act too
> and Micorsoft had to create special K verions (pun not intended).
>
> Anyway, Microsoft has a suggestion box. If Vista pricing concerns you,
> go ahead and tell them:
>
> [Windows Vista Feedback - Microsoft]
> http://feedback.windowsvista.micros...kurl=http://support.microsoft.com/gp/cp_vista
>
>
> *But*, Mr. Hall, Vista Home Basic at $89 USD does make for a good
> upgrade, especially for families who could use the benefits of Parental
> Controls.
>
> 'Have a nice afternoon,
> Saucy

Wow, I thought Mike was bad - you are even worse! o

--
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

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:21:22 -0700, Kerry Brown wrote:

> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> Linux is free.
>> Windows is not.
>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>> Windows XP.
>> Linux is free.
>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME. Linux is free.
>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>> operating system called Vista.
>> Linux is free,
>>
>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>
>> After all, Linux is free.
>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't so
>> good afterall.
>>
>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux, tried
>> Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to Windows?
>> It's a most common occurence.
>>
>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>
>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>
>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the place.
>> It's not.
>>
>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>> year of Linux"
>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more and
>> it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the year
>> of Linux will ever arrive.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>
> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.
> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it
> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create
> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To
> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to
> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from
> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free
> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for
> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to
> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't
> work when trying to market something that is free.

Honestly I think that another significant factor is that it hasn't really
been ready for any mainstream desktops until very recently.

Personally, had MS released Vista beginning of 2006 instead of 2007 and
I'd probably be using Vista right now and would never have looked at
Linux. Beginning of 2006 there were no viable alternatives. Ubuntu was
not as advanced as it is today and the same goes for other distributions.

Even this year, I struggled for a while to find a suitable Development
environment and dual booted with XP for the first few months for most my
programming work until Eclipse 3.3 with CDT 4 was released end of April.
That release, combined with Ubuntu 7.04 put the nail in the coffin and
sealed it for over 90% of my Windows usage. But that was what? 5 months
ago? A year ago I wouldn't have had that option and would have stuck with
Windows.

Now since the beginning of this year, I've used Ubuntu 6.10, 7.04 and I
am now using the Development version of 7.10 due to be released in
October. Now there is a key thing I notice in all of these releases:

Each release is a significant upgrade and a significant improvement. Each
release fixes some major issue, adds support for some major hardware,
makes life easier in some major way, etc.

7.04 Introduced the restricted driver manager which reduces the install
process for proprietary drives to simple point and click.

7.10 Introduces major upgrades to the X Server that provides the
graphics. All the graphics options are configurable via the UI now and
there is no more need to modify any configuration files with a text
editor. You can choose driver, screen resolution, etc. all from one
simple dialog and it automatically generates the necessary configuration
without ever seeing a text editor or command line. And, unlike previous
versions, it is also now able to recover from a bad screen configuration
instead of just dumping the user to a command line.

So what I'm seeing is all the things that many windows users complain
about when trying out Linux...go away. The community *is* listening, and
they are addressing the issues. And they are addressing it far faster
than the sloth like pace of Microsoft.

As I've said in another post, by the time MS will manage to release
Service Pack 1 for Vista, Ubuntu will be on it's 2nd or 3rd release since
the release of Vista already.

That is 2-3 complete OS releases VS one Service Pack.

I think the speed at which the Linux community is advancing and adapting
is something that a lot of people underestimate. Especially from a
distribution such as Ubuntu which does have commercial backing.

And as far as I am concerned, MS is beginning to become stagnant. Not
because they don't want to do anything, but because essentially they
can't.

I mean look at Vista, ok so they improved the UI over the XP and removed
the kiddie colors and hardware accelerated it. But what next? What's the
next major UI upgrade going to be the next release? A new color scheme?
One can only make a window so fancy, only make a button look so good, etc.

The search function is another thing. Ok fine, integrated search now.
Other than improving its performance, what else are they going to do
about it? Make it read the users mind?

Probably about the only area I can see where MS can still improve in is
Security, and that to me doesn't warrant a new version to windows. To me,
that's an obligation to MS' customers regardless of what version of
windows.

Beyond that, what other significant improvements are they going to add?
What new feature is supposed to be next to warrant the next windows
version? What's it going to do that XP or Vista don't when Vista already
barely does little more than XP does.

The same goes for office. I've yet to see anyone mention a *single* thing
anywhere that the new Office can do that the old office can't. New User
interface and that new file format is about the only thing that so far
I've discovered to be new about the new Office.

So what's the next office going to do? Another file format and yet
another user interface re-arrangement?

There are only so many ways to write text. There are only so many ways to
edit a spreadsheet, etc.

I think in many aspects MS is simply hitting or going to hit walls where
they just can't go much further and users aren't going to continuously
shell out more and more money for things that aren't anything more than
UI facelifts.

I doubt MS would have sold even a 10th of the copies of Vista they have
if it wasn't for the fact that they dominate the OEM PC retail channels.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:YqednRpfN69annrbnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:21:22 -0700, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>> Linux is free.
>>> Windows is not.
>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>>> Windows XP.
>>> Linux is free.
>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME. Linux is free.
>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>>> operating system called Vista.
>>> Linux is free,
>>>
>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>>
>>> After all, Linux is free.
>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't so
>>> good afterall.
>>>
>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux, tried
>>> Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to Windows?
>>> It's a most common occurence.
>>>
>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>>
>>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>>
>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the place.
>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>>> year of Linux"
>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more and
>>> it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the year
>>> of Linux will ever arrive.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.
>> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it
>> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create
>> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To
>> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to
>> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from
>> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free
>> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for
>> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to
>> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't
>> work when trying to market something that is free.
>
> Honestly I think that another significant factor is that it hasn't really
> been ready for any mainstream desktops until very recently.
>
> Personally, had MS released Vista beginning of 2006 instead of 2007 and
> I'd probably be using Vista right now and would never have looked at
> Linux. Beginning of 2006 there were no viable alternatives. Ubuntu was
> not as advanced as it is today and the same goes for other distributions.
>
> Even this year, I struggled for a while to find a suitable Development
> environment and dual booted with XP for the first few months for most my
> programming work until Eclipse 3.3 with CDT 4 was released end of April.
> That release, combined with Ubuntu 7.04 put the nail in the coffin and
> sealed it for over 90% of my Windows usage. But that was what? 5 months
> ago? A year ago I wouldn't have had that option and would have stuck with
> Windows.
>
> Now since the beginning of this year, I've used Ubuntu 6.10, 7.04 and I
> am now using the Development version of 7.10 due to be released in
> October. Now there is a key thing I notice in all of these releases:
>
> Each release is a significant upgrade and a significant improvement. Each
> release fixes some major issue, adds support for some major hardware,
> makes life easier in some major way, etc.
>
> 7.04 Introduced the restricted driver manager which reduces the install
> process for proprietary drives to simple point and click.
>
> 7.10 Introduces major upgrades to the X Server that provides the
> graphics. All the graphics options are configurable via the UI now and
> there is no more need to modify any configuration files with a text
> editor. You can choose driver, screen resolution, etc. all from one
> simple dialog and it automatically generates the necessary configuration
> without ever seeing a text editor or command line. And, unlike previous
> versions, it is also now able to recover from a bad screen configuration
> instead of just dumping the user to a command line.
>
> So what I'm seeing is all the things that many windows users complain
> about when trying out Linux...go away. The community *is* listening, and
> they are addressing the issues. And they are addressing it far faster
> than the sloth like pace of Microsoft.
>
> As I've said in another post, by the time MS will manage to release
> Service Pack 1 for Vista, Ubuntu will be on it's 2nd or 3rd release since
> the release of Vista already.
>
> That is 2-3 complete OS releases VS one Service Pack.
>
> I think the speed at which the Linux community is advancing and adapting
> is something that a lot of people underestimate. Especially from a
> distribution such as Ubuntu which does have commercial backing.
>
> And as far as I am concerned, MS is beginning to become stagnant. Not
> because they don't want to do anything, but because essentially they
> can't.
>
> I mean look at Vista, ok so they improved the UI over the XP and removed
> the kiddie colors and hardware accelerated it. But what next? What's the
> next major UI upgrade going to be the next release? A new color scheme?
> One can only make a window so fancy, only make a button look so good, etc.
>
> The search function is another thing. Ok fine, integrated search now.
> Other than improving its performance, what else are they going to do
> about it? Make it read the users mind?
>
> Probably about the only area I can see where MS can still improve in is
> Security, and that to me doesn't warrant a new version to windows. To me,
> that's an obligation to MS' customers regardless of what version of
> windows.
>
> Beyond that, what other significant improvements are they going to add?
> What new feature is supposed to be next to warrant the next windows
> version? What's it going to do that XP or Vista don't when Vista already
> barely does little more than XP does.
>
> The same goes for office. I've yet to see anyone mention a *single* thing
> anywhere that the new Office can do that the old office can't. New User
> interface and that new file format is about the only thing that so far
> I've discovered to be new about the new Office.
>
> So what's the next office going to do? Another file format and yet
> another user interface re-arrangement?
>
> There are only so many ways to write text. There are only so many ways to
> edit a spreadsheet, etc.
>
> I think in many aspects MS is simply hitting or going to hit walls where
> they just can't go much further and users aren't going to continuously
> shell out more and more money for things that aren't anything more than
> UI facelifts.
>
> I doubt MS would have sold even a 10th of the copies of Vista they have
> if it wasn't for the fact that they dominate the OEM PC retail channels.
>


You make some very good points.

For me Linux became a viable alternative somewhere around Fedora FC4. I
mostly use Linux for network troubleshooting and FC4 is where I found it
easy enough to use and configure. I still find I prefer Vista/Office 2007
for that type of work. If there was a viable Linux alternative to
Outlook/Exchange I'd probably use Linux a lot more. I have to run Exchange
on my network because that's what my customers use and I need to know it
inside out. Windows Server and Exchange are a very good and stable
combination. I have tried all the major Linux Exchange clients and they just
don't hold a candle to Outlook warts and all.

I think you have a good point about MS hitting a wall. I think a complete
break from the old is in order or they will gradually lose market share as
people will get tired of upgrading for the sake of lining Microsoft's
pockets. I don't think we are there yet. Vista is a big change in security
for Windows. It does however feel a lot like a stepping stone to something
else. I don't think Microsoft had a choice with this. They control too much
of the market to make a wholesale change in one step. It would cause chaos
in the business world and software industry. It has the potential to cause a
stock market downturn. The software and hardware industry was not ready for
a paradigm shift to real security. Whatever happens it will be interesting.
Personally with the way hardware is advancing I see the OS being very small,
sort of a super BIOS, that runs everything else in virtual machines. If you
want a program from Apple it would come with OS IX runtime, Microsoft -
Windows 15 runtime, etc.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Charlie Tame]

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:O5ZD7JB9HHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> I can't really comment on which is more friendly since I don't have
>> experience using Solaris to any great extent, but you raise a very
>> interesting point and that of course is why "Windows" appears friendly
>> to "most" people - which also makes one wonder why MS chose to swap
>> some things around in Vista apparently just to make it "Look Different".
>>
>> One of the things of course is that all OSs have some new user brick
>> walls that you hit and can't seem to find an obvious way around, and
>> for someone used to Windows as an ordinary "User" Linux is probably
>> quite good at producing them.
>>
>
> Linux is full of weird things unless you already know it.
> I find it hard to set network keys in Ubuntu.. So hard that I gave up
> with the live CD and installed it and its not straight forward then.
> XP and Vista just pop up and say "there is a network here would you like
> to connect and BTW what's the key I need?".
>
> Linux still has a long way to go before it will be installable and
> useable by most people despite what Linux advocates say.
> You should also bear in mind that the Linux advocates have no idea how
> hard Linux is as they already know how to do stuff that they expect
> newbies to do. If you put them in a similar situation and give them
> Vista they complain like hell just because its different and they can't
> be bothered to learn so why do they expect users to learn Linux?
> M$ are starting to find out just how bad users can be with all the
> complaints about something as simple as UAC.. its so simple a five year
> old could understand and use it.. however most of the users aren't five.
> When the people that put Linux distros together actually realize that
> the learning curve is too steep they might produce a better product..
> but given past experience I expect they will concentrate on more fancy
> features to "blow away" windows as that is more interesting than making
> stuff easy to use even for the half of the population below average
> intelligence. If they were being paid then someone would be able to tell
> them what to do first but that's one of the problems with open source
> software.. no one can make a contributor do something they don't want to.

And I can agree with what you say, however it does seem as if the
distributions are getting a little better.

What is a myth is that "Linux" is better on older hardware... and I
don't mean the kernel or "Core" of Linux as we might think of it but the
general term "Linux" as used by some in trying to make a point.

For example I have two machines that are quite old but Win XP, XP Pro
and 2003 server will all run on them. No speed records but they have
been tested as web servers, ftp servers, workshop "Juke boxes" and
various other forms of abuse On both Ubuntu runs VERY badly, Mandriva
simply falls on it's ass and dies and even Debian runs slowly although
it does install on one of them. Text based it would probably be fine,
but these systems are all "Linux" and so the comment I mentioned is
actually quite wrong.

I should say that the Windows test installs on these have both run 24/7
reliably with no restarts except where updates required it. Movie Maker
is pretty slow but works (eventually) as does VS2005.

 

[Charlie Tame]

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:%23eGp1RC9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> I mean OE was a virus trap for years, much of it simply because users
>> left it set at defaults and didn't know how to make them safer. It
>> took years for MS to start with much safer defaults and include a
>> plain text option, simple fixes and yet it took years and OE was
>> undoubtedly the biggest security problem on the internet simply
>> because everybody, including the clueless majority, had it running.
>> Okay so it was a freebie and MS made no profit, but hell, it never
>> occurred to them what it was costing everybody being insecure. I think
>> the idea was that people would buy Outlook, but most were NEVER going
>> to buy that just for simple emails.
>
> Look at sendmail on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. it was full of worm
> holes and other security problems for years before someone finally fixed
> it by dumping it and using postfix.
> However there are still machines out there running the versions with the
> holes in even now.
> Hell they don't even need to pay as postfix is free and a lot easier to
> use than writing aload of $%^<>"£$%^ to a config file to rewrite headers
> and stuff, but they still have cr@p sendmail running.




Yes indeed, it's a bit of a fallacy to think that frequent MS updates
indicate worse holes than other systems.




>> I didn't have any Vista capable machines when the Beta was out, so my
>> first experience was the retail, and frankly it was disappointing
>> considering the time to develop and the alleged rewrite. I'm sure it
>> works well for many but heck, so does XP and probably better if the
>> clean up some of the accumulated detritus. From an average user's
>> perspective though it's not worth paying $300 for and from a business
>> perspective where most are doing WP and data entry what bloody use is
>> aero and ultimate extras like a poker game and animated desktop? 100
>> machines, $30,000 etc.And still the same typos in the WP and data entry.
>>
>> Many will find out how to turn UAC off, many will find out how to run
>> as super user or whatever and WGA/WPA will NOT stop the serious pirate.
>
> The same users would get pi$$ed off by having to enter their password on
> Ubuntu everytime they wanted to do an admin action too.. so they would
> switch to another distro and run as root all the time.



Yes, that is also true, though I think some things are less complex and
some documentation easier to understand. MS tend to go like "In order
for ABC to function you need DEF setup according to MSKB ...

Which means that to set up mail for example you need to refer to 1000
pages



>> Actually here's how I see that issue. I get an ad for Vista and send
>> off for the pirate copy. Either it never arrives or it does and it's
>> bloody useless. Now, I either have to try and get MS to activate it at
>> a price (Which means I can use it but doesn't guarantee it has no
>> malware compiled in there someplace) so I lose but so does MS because
>> now I got me a legal but dangerous version. Or I might just curse the
>> loss and carry on using XP or whatever. OTOH since I lost my money I
>> might just try Linux, and since I am forced into that corner by the
>> loss I might just persist with it long enough to get to like it.
>
> If you buy a pirate copy unknowingly and co-operate with M$ they send
> you a free key and installation media if the one you have is no good.



Yeah but how do they know the one I have is not riddled with some
malware, I mean a pirate copy with a mail trojan in it (or worse) could
be very nasty, and not just for the user.



>> Nailing a few pirates is not enough, if WGA / WGA doesn't get the vast
>> majority of them (and it won't) than it's just a big negative.
>>
>> Similarly with DRM. I have some stuff from years back, in the new
>> Vista machine no go, with XP most does go, with Linux, so far, it all
>> goes. It's all stuff I could have gotten off TV with a VCR anyway.
>> What's with paying more to get less?
>
> I find that WMP11 plays the stuff without copyright encoded in it
> without any trouble.
> BTW it is illegal to bypass the DRM if its in the files so, if you do,
> you are making your Linux illegal in many countries.



In my case I am fairly sure that some unplayable material is quite legit.


>> So it is really not so much what is wrong with Vista as what is wrong
>> at MS during the latter stages of Vista development. I am quite sure a
>> lot of people will look at alternatives now.
>
> There are quite a lot of people that will be put off Linux by the
> inclusion of software to bypass legal things.
> There should be a warning and an option not to install the stuff that
> may make the user a criminal but there isn't in any distro I have seen.


Fair comment, but I am not really suggesting that kind of use, only that
DRM seems like a bit of a sledgehammer

 

[Charlie Tame]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Saucy wrote:
>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:ubQIh$I9HHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> All in USD.. most of the civilized world outside of the 50 states
>>> pays quite a bit more..
>>>
>>>
>>> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ezfHZBI9HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:eT$0mbH9HHA.1484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> And have you looked at prices for other Vista flavours, bearing in
>>>>> mind that many will like the idea of finally getting Media Centre,
>>>>> and may well have slightly higher aspirations than your brother?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, Vista is offered in a range of editions. About Vista Home
>>>> Basic can be had for $89 USD but here's typical pricing spread from
>>>> CompUSA:
>>>>
>>>> $199 USD for Business ed.
>>>> $ 99 USD for Home Basic ed.
>>>> $159 USD for Home Premium ed.
>>>> $259 USD for Ultimate ed.
>>>>
>>>> Note though, customers already running Vista Basic or Vista Home
>>>> Premium can upgrade to Vista Ultimate ed. for $199 USD and $179 USD,
>>>> respectively.
>>>>
>>>> But with all that said and done, a family running XP Home can gain
>>>> all the benefits of running Vista for about $89 USD - including
>>>> Parental Controls - which makes for a very nice upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> [(unoffical) Windows Vista Feature Comparison - Tom Porterfield MVP]
>>>> http://support.teloep.org/vistaver.htm
>>>>
>>>> [Compare Vista Editions - Microsoft]
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pr.../choose.mspx?wt_svl=10033WHa1&mg_id=10033WHb1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Can your PC run Vista? -Microsoft]
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pr...advisor.mspx?wt_svl=10008WHa1&mg_id=10008WHb1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Saucy
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Hall
>>> MS MVP Windows Shell/User
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mr. Hall:
>>
>> Well, the Europeans wanted the 'N' editions created and then on top of
>> that to punish Microsoft to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of
>> millions of euros in penalties .. so boo hoo. If the Europeans want a
>> refund they can ask the EU for all I care. Korea got in on the act too
>> and Micorsoft had to create special K verions (pun not intended).
>>
>> Anyway, Microsoft has a suggestion box. If Vista pricing concerns you,
>> go ahead and tell them:
>>
>> [Windows Vista Feedback - Microsoft]
>> http://feedback.windowsvista.micros...kurl=http://support.microsoft.com/gp/cp_vista
>>
>>
>> *But*, Mr. Hall, Vista Home Basic at $89 USD does make for a good
>> upgrade, especially for families who could use the benefits of
>> Parental Controls.
>>
>> 'Have a nice afternoon,
>> Saucy
>
> Wow, I thought Mike was bad - you are even worse! o
>


A Box of Rocks is a genius by comparison...

 

[Charlie Tame]

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:21:22 -0700, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> <dont.pullout@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1189260347.149706.323110@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>> Linux is free.
>>> Windows is not.
>>> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
>>> Windows XP.
>>> Linux is free.
>>> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME. Linux is free.
>>> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
>>> operating system called Vista.
>>> Linux is free,
>>>
>>> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
>>> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>>>
>>> After all, Linux is free.
>>> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't so
>>> good afterall.
>>>
>>> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux, tried
>>> Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to Windows?
>>> It's a most common occurence.
>>>
>>> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>>>
>>> Where is Linux hiding?
>>>
>>> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
>>> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the place.
>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
>>> year of Linux"
>>> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more and
>>> it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the year
>>> of Linux will ever arrive.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>> Because it is free no one has come up with a way to make money from it.
>> If no one is making money no one is selling it. If no one is selling it
>> there is no mainstream distribution channel. Someone could easily create
>> a distribution (Ubuntu is one) that could compete with Windows. To
>> become popular and gain significant market share they would have to
>> spend a lot of money marketing it. Where would they get a return from
>> that investment? If there was a great demand for it OEMs would be free
>> to distribute it and not pay the creator of the distro. The reason for
>> slow linux adoption is not because it is technically inferior to
>> Windows. It is financial and societal. The capitalist system doesn't
>> work when trying to market something that is free.
>
> Honestly I think that another significant factor is that it hasn't really
> been ready for any mainstream desktops until very recently.
>
> Personally, had MS released Vista beginning of 2006 instead of 2007 and
> I'd probably be using Vista right now and would never have looked at
> Linux. Beginning of 2006 there were no viable alternatives. Ubuntu was
> not as advanced as it is today and the same goes for other distributions.
>
> Even this year, I struggled for a while to find a suitable Development
> environment and dual booted with XP for the first few months for most my
> programming work until Eclipse 3.3 with CDT 4 was released end of April.
> That release, combined with Ubuntu 7.04 put the nail in the coffin and
> sealed it for over 90% of my Windows usage. But that was what? 5 months
> ago? A year ago I wouldn't have had that option and would have stuck with
> Windows.
>
> Now since the beginning of this year, I've used Ubuntu 6.10, 7.04 and I
> am now using the Development version of 7.10 due to be released in
> October. Now there is a key thing I notice in all of these releases:
>
> Each release is a significant upgrade and a significant improvement. Each
> release fixes some major issue, adds support for some major hardware,
> makes life easier in some major way, etc.
>
> 7.04 Introduced the restricted driver manager which reduces the install
> process for proprietary drives to simple point and click.
>
> 7.10 Introduces major upgrades to the X Server that provides the
> graphics. All the graphics options are configurable via the UI now and
> there is no more need to modify any configuration files with a text
> editor. You can choose driver, screen resolution, etc. all from one
> simple dialog and it automatically generates the necessary configuration
> without ever seeing a text editor or command line. And, unlike previous
> versions, it is also now able to recover from a bad screen configuration
> instead of just dumping the user to a command line.
>
> So what I'm seeing is all the things that many windows users complain
> about when trying out Linux...go away. The community *is* listening, and
> they are addressing the issues. And they are addressing it far faster
> than the sloth like pace of Microsoft.
>
> As I've said in another post, by the time MS will manage to release
> Service Pack 1 for Vista, Ubuntu will be on it's 2nd or 3rd release since
> the release of Vista already.
>
> That is 2-3 complete OS releases VS one Service Pack.
>
> I think the speed at which the Linux community is advancing and adapting
> is something that a lot of people underestimate. Especially from a
> distribution such as Ubuntu which does have commercial backing.
>
> And as far as I am concerned, MS is beginning to become stagnant. Not
> because they don't want to do anything, but because essentially they
> can't.
>
> I mean look at Vista, ok so they improved the UI over the XP and removed
> the kiddie colors and hardware accelerated it. But what next? What's the
> next major UI upgrade going to be the next release? A new color scheme?
> One can only make a window so fancy, only make a button look so good, etc.
>
> The search function is another thing. Ok fine, integrated search now.
> Other than improving its performance, what else are they going to do
> about it? Make it read the users mind?
>
> Probably about the only area I can see where MS can still improve in is
> Security, and that to me doesn't warrant a new version to windows. To me,
> that's an obligation to MS' customers regardless of what version of
> windows.
>
> Beyond that, what other significant improvements are they going to add?
> What new feature is supposed to be next to warrant the next windows
> version? What's it going to do that XP or Vista don't when Vista already
> barely does little more than XP does.
>
> The same goes for office. I've yet to see anyone mention a *single* thing
> anywhere that the new Office can do that the old office can't. New User
> interface and that new file format is about the only thing that so far
> I've discovered to be new about the new Office.
>
> So what's the next office going to do? Another file format and yet
> another user interface re-arrangement?
>
> There are only so many ways to write text. There are only so many ways to
> edit a spreadsheet, etc.
>
> I think in many aspects MS is simply hitting or going to hit walls where
> they just can't go much further and users aren't going to continuously
> shell out more and more money for things that aren't anything more than
> UI facelifts.
>
> I doubt MS would have sold even a 10th of the copies of Vista they have
> if it wasn't for the fact that they dominate the OEM PC retail channels.
>


I think you make some very valid points, and there is something I find a
bit aggravating. Items that were functional in XP and in familiar places
have been moved and that's about it as far as the user is concerned.
Now, some of the programming may be new but there are a number of things
that seem to have lost functionality. The MSDN version of Vista, where
XP has something decent to look at and read as it installs, instead has
a few screens that look hastily prepared and incomplete, and poor
quality. First thing you see looks half assed like nobody really cared.

 

[Alias]

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fbvce3$qc7$1@aioe.org...
>
>> A bit of help, no. Hours of cleaning crap off a Windows box, hell yes,
>> with a strong, "boot into Ubuntu, fool!" after I give them the bill.
>> Some heed the advice and I don't see them for computer problems other
>> than "how do I do this in Ubuntu?", others don't and come back again
>> and again. All thank me and give me a big smile when their computer is
>> fixed.
>
> So you fix some windows machines at a cost but don't actually fix them
> well enough that they wont have more problems.

No. I set it up securely but I can't make them update security apps, not
use Emule, not download dodgy programs, etc.

> You get some people to install Ubuntu but you don't know how to make it
> secure.. you have admitted that in the past here as you think its secure
> when you install it which it isn't.

One lives and learns. That said, with a hard ware firewall and the Gnome
Security Suite, it's millions of times more secure than Windows will
ever be.

>
>>
>> Letting/encouraging "friends" take of advantage of you is not true
>> friendship. Would you ask a friend who is a brain surgeon to operate
>> on your brain for free? Would you ask a friend who is a lawyer,
>> plumber or candle stick maker to work for you for free?
>
> Would you not offer to help a friend in need?

Can you answer the question with an answer rather than trying to change
the subject with a question?

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> fcs25 lied and wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is not for the general public.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> True>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The learning curb is still to great for the public to take the time
>>>>> and master.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> People want to click and open a program or download and install
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> viruses and malware.
>>>
>>>
>>> Liar!
>>>
>>> Yeah, great OS.
>>>
>>> True!
>>>
>>> They also want to to dance the WPA
>>>
>>>> and WGA jig. NOT!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullsh*t!
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> LOL! Once again Frank shows everyone how ill informed he is.
>>
>
> LOL! alias once again shows everyone how much he can lie!
> Frank

Again Frank shows how ill informed he is and tries, lamely, to cover it
up with an unfounded accusation.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[dennis@home]

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc8a8v$sgt$1@aioe.org...
> dennis@home wrote:

>> Would you not offer to help a friend in need?
>
> Can you answer the question with an answer rather than trying to change
> the subject with a question?

No.. I answered it in the best way.. if you don't like the answer then it
says a lot about you.

 

[dennis@home]

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:eAv95QN9HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> If you buy a pirate copy unknowingly and co-operate with M$ they send you
>> a free key and installation media if the one you have is no good.
>
>
>
> Yeah but how do they know the one I have is not riddled with some malware,
> I mean a pirate copy with a mail trojan in it (or worse) could be very
> nasty, and not just for the user.

They don't.. thats why you get the media.

>>> Nailing a few pirates is not enough, if WGA / WGA doesn't get the vast
>>> majority of them (and it won't) than it's just a big negative.
>>>
>>> Similarly with DRM. I have some stuff from years back, in the new Vista
>>> machine no go, with XP most does go, with Linux, so far, it all goes.
>>> It's all stuff I could have gotten off TV with a VCR anyway. What's with
>>> paying more to get less?
>>
>> I find that WMP11 plays the stuff without copyright encoded in it without
>> any trouble.
>> BTW it is illegal to bypass the DRM if its in the files so, if you do,
>> you are making your Linux illegal in many countries.
>
>
>
> In my case I am fairly sure that some unplayable material is quite legit.

Are you sure it doesn't have DRM on it even though its legit?
If so you have to transfer the license with it (or remove the DRM).

>
>
>>> So it is really not so much what is wrong with Vista as what is wrong at
>>> MS during the latter stages of Vista development. I am quite sure a lot
>>> of people will look at alternatives now.
>>
>> There are quite a lot of people that will be put off Linux by the
>> inclusion of software to bypass legal things.
>> There should be a warning and an option not to install the stuff that may
>> make the user a criminal but there isn't in any distro I have seen.
>
>
> Fair comment, but I am not really suggesting that kind of use, only that
> DRM seems like a bit of a sledgehammer

I agree but then DRM doesn't usually cause me a problem.
Few things to do with computers cause me a problem for more than a few
minutes these days.. 20+ years ago maybe but not now.

 

[Singer]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in
news:4F1F66A8-7E43-41B6-87C1-15125BF577D7@microsoft.com:

> For me Linux became a viable alternative somewhere around Fedora FC4.
> I mostly use Linux for network troubleshooting and FC4 is where I
> found it easy enough to use and configure. I still find I prefer
> Vista/Office 2007 for that type of work. If there was a viable Linux
> alternative to Outlook/Exchange I'd probably use Linux a lot more. I
> have to run Exchange on my network because that's what my customers
> use and I need to know it inside out. Windows Server and Exchange are
> a very good and stable combination. I have tried all the major Linux
> Exchange clients and they just don't hold a candle to Outlook warts
> and all.
>
> I think you have a good point about MS hitting a wall. I think a
> complete break from the old is in order or they will gradually lose
> market share as people will get tired of upgrading for the sake of
> lining Microsoft's pockets. I don't think we are there yet. Vista is a
> big change in security for Windows. It does however feel a lot like a
> stepping stone to something else. I don't think Microsoft had a choice
> with this. They control too much of the market to make a wholesale
> change in one step. It would cause chaos in the business world and
> software industry. It has the potential to cause a stock market
> downturn. The software and hardware industry was not ready for a
> paradigm shift to real security. Whatever happens it will be
> interesting. Personally with the way hardware is advancing I see the
> OS being very small, sort of a super BIOS, that runs everything else
> in virtual machines. If you want a program from Apple it would come
> with OS IX runtime, Microsoft - Windows 15 runtime, etc.


Linux is certainly a viable system but unfortunately for Linux, and some
would say the end users as well, Microsoft dominates the market.
Microsoft has made a major mistake with Vista, not only because it is
buggy but it's expensive (shrinkwrapped) for a decent version and the
version differences are also confusing. Add to this that it can only be
used on 1 computer at a time and things get even more hostile toward
Microsoft.
I maintain that if Vista was sold for $49.99 and included 5 licenses the
stores would not be able to keep it on the shelves, well after SP1
anyway.
The other problem Microsoft is having is that the business world has
become more tightwad like with their money and what amounts in perception
anyway to eye candy featuritus upgrades don't pass the sniff test for
mass deployments.
This is one reason why Windows 2000 is highly popular as a business
server OS.
It just sits there and does it's job quietly.
It's also a reason why Linux is taking market share, or has in the past
been taking market share from Microsoft's server systems.

Vista has turned out to be a bomb, not in the good sense and despite
Microsoft's best efforts at quelching bad press, the word is out and
Vista reviews are lukewarm at best. Read between the lines and those
reviews are even less flattering.

Office is in a similar situation but in this case it's purely a matter of
"do we really need these features"?
Most people do not.
Sure the new Office is radically different from the older versions but
what does this add in terms of increased productivity and at what cost?

Which brings us to Linux vs Windows and that one is simple.
Is Linux *better* than Windows?
Overall, yes I believe it is better however better does not mean people
will will want to switch.
Problem #1 is that virtually everyone already has Windows or OSX.
Problem #2 is that virtually all their friends, collegegues, teachers,
schools and so forth have Windows or OSX.
Read a Dell or HP or IBM catalog and you will see "Dell reccommends
Microsoft Windows" all over the place.
What does that say about their commitment to Linux?

This is a psychological lemming effect which is a comfort to some people.
IOW they want to go with the crowd because it is comforting.

Problem #3 is that there is a huge investment in software that runs with
Windows. As an example take Trillian Pro which a lot of my friends use.
There is nothing under Linux like it. Cameras work fine and it does a lot
of things very easily. Just because a Linux diehard is willing to spend
time transferring everything over and finding alternative programs
doesn't mean average Jane is willing to do likewise.
This is an example of a desktop system, it just gets worse in
corporations where millions are already invested in Windows based
software, some of it one of a kind verticle applications.

There are a ton of other reasons but it boils down to Microsoft
dominating the market and having been there first.
If Linux and Microsoft started from an even keel, Linux would win because
the only real thing Linux has going against it is the crazy religious
Linux advocacy community which in my opinion is doing more to hurt than
help Linux.

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fbvce3$qc7$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>> A bit of help, no. Hours of cleaning crap off a Windows box, hell
>>> yes, with a strong, "boot into Ubuntu, fool!" after I give them the
>>> bill. Some heed the advice and I don't see them for computer problems
>>> other than "how do I do this in Ubuntu?", others don't and come back
>>> again and again. All thank me and give me a big smile when their
>>> computer is fixed.
>>
>>
>> So you fix some windows machines at a cost but don't actually fix them
>> well enough that they wont have more problems.
>
>
> No. I set it up securely but I can't make them update security apps, not
> use Emule, not download dodgy programs, etc.

So you don't know what you're doing, huh?
>
>> You get some people to install Ubuntu but you don't know how to make
>> it secure.. you have admitted that in the past here as you think its
>> secure when you install it which it isn't.
>
>
> One lives and learns. That said, with a hard ware firewall and the Gnome
> Security Suite, it's millions of times more secure than Windows will
> ever be.
>

A million, huh? More lies?
>>
>>>
>>> Letting/encouraging "friends" take of advantage of you is not true
>>> friendship. Would you ask a friend who is a brain surgeon to operate
>>> on your brain for free? Would you ask a friend who is a lawyer,
>>> plumber or candle stick maker to work for you for free?
>>
>>
>> Would you not offer to help a friend in need?
>
>
> Can you answer the question with an answer rather than trying to change
> the subject with a question?
>
Friends don't let friends install anything linux...period!
Frank

 

[dennis@home]

"Singer" <singer42@geeeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:fc8pna$eqe$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> There are a ton of other reasons but it boils down to Microsoft
> dominating the market and having been there first.
> If Linux and Microsoft started from an even keel, Linux would win because
> the only real thing Linux has going against it is the crazy religious
> Linux advocacy community which in my opinion is doing more to hurt than
> help Linux.
>

M$ weren't first.
Unix and Macs got there before windows.
M$ is better at delivering what the majority of people want not at being
first.

 

[Adam Albright]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:20:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Singer" <singer42@geeeeemail.com> wrote in message
>news:fc8pna$eqe$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> There are a ton of other reasons but it boils down to Microsoft
>> dominating the market and having been there first.
>> If Linux and Microsoft started from an even keel, Linux would win because
>> the only real thing Linux has going against it is the crazy religious
>> Linux advocacy community which in my opinion is doing more to hurt than
>> help Linux.
>>
>
>M$ weren't first.
>Unix and Macs got there before windows.
>M$ is better at delivering what the majority of people want not at being
>first.


That's a loony statement. The majority of people didn't ask for or
want UAC, DRM or WGA. Yet Microsoft forced all that crap on
unsuspecting users. People would like a stable, well tested version of
Windows right out of the box without needed to wait around for some
service pack. Hasn't happened yet, likely never will.

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:16:05 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:O5ZD7JB9HHA.4420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> I can't really comment on which is more friendly since I don't have
>>> experience using Solaris to any great extent, but you raise a very
>>> interesting point and that of course is why "Windows" appears friendly
>>> to "most" people - which also makes one wonder why MS chose to swap
>>> some things around in Vista apparently just to make it "Look
>>> Different".
>>>
>>> One of the things of course is that all OSs have some new user brick
>>> walls that you hit and can't seem to find an obvious way around, and
>>> for someone used to Windows as an ordinary "User" Linux is probably
>>> quite good at producing them.
>>>
>>>
>> Linux is full of weird things unless you already know it. I find it
>> hard to set network keys in Ubuntu.. So hard that I gave up with the
>> live CD and installed it and its not straight forward then. XP and
>> Vista just pop up and say "there is a network here would you like to
>> connect and BTW what's the key I need?".
>>
>> Linux still has a long way to go before it will be installable and
>> useable by most people despite what Linux advocates say. You should
>> also bear in mind that the Linux advocates have no idea how hard Linux
>> is as they already know how to do stuff that they expect newbies to do.
>> If you put them in a similar situation and give them Vista they
>> complain like hell just because its different and they can't be
>> bothered to learn so why do they expect users to learn Linux? M$ are
>> starting to find out just how bad users can be with all the complaints
>> about something as simple as UAC.. its so simple a five year old could
>> understand and use it.. however most of the users aren't five. When the
>> people that put Linux distros together actually realize that the
>> learning curve is too steep they might produce a better product.. but
>> given past experience I expect they will concentrate on more fancy
>> features to "blow away" windows as that is more interesting than making
>> stuff easy to use even for the half of the population below average
>> intelligence. If they were being paid then someone would be able to
>> tell them what to do first but that's one of the problems with open
>> source software.. no one can make a contributor do something they don't
>> want to.
>
> And I can agree with what you say, however it does seem as if the
> distributions are getting a little better.
>
> What is a myth is that "Linux" is better on older hardware... and I
> don't mean the kernel or "Core" of Linux as we might think of it but the
> general term "Linux" as used by some in trying to make a point.
>
> For example I have two machines that are quite old but Win XP, XP Pro
> and 2003 server will all run on them. No speed records but they have
> been tested as web servers, ftp servers, workshop "Juke boxes" and
> various other forms of abuse On both Ubuntu runs VERY badly, Mandriva
> simply falls on it's ass and dies and even Debian runs slowly although
> it does install on one of them. Text based it would probably be fine,
> but these systems are all "Linux" and so the comment I mentioned is
> actually quite wrong.
>
> I should say that the Windows test installs on these have both run 24/7
> reliably with no restarts except where updates required it. Movie Maker
> is pretty slow but works (eventually) as does VS2005.

Ok now I'm curious...

Specs on said systems? =)

I mean I got Ubuntu running on a 5 year old Dell Inspiron 1100 with 256
megs ram (shared with video card)...and the laptop's owner is beyond
happy with it...

So I'm *really* curious as to what the specs are of the systems you are
experiencing problems with. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Slobber Mouth *Albright*]

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:20:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>> "Singer" <singer42@geeeeemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fc8pna$eqe$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> There are a ton of other reasons but it boils down to Microsoft
>>> dominating the market and having been there first.
>>> If Linux and Microsoft started from an even keel, Linux would win because
>>> the only real thing Linux has going against it is the crazy religious
>>> Linux advocacy community which in my opinion is doing more to hurt than
>>> help Linux.
>>>
>> M$ weren't first.
>> Unix and Macs got there before windows.
>> M$ is better at delivering what the majority of people want not at being
>> first.
>
>
> That's a loony statement. The majority of people didn't ask for or
> want UAC, DRM or WGA. Yet Microsoft forced all that crap on
> unsuspecting users. People would like a stable, well tested version of
> Windows right out of the box without needed to wait around for some
> service pack. Hasn't happened yet, likely never will.
>

<Albright, with you sitting at home all day long on the Internet, you
got your finger on the pulse IT in the home and business sectors around
the world do you? Albright, you are a joke.>

 

[Charlie Tame]

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:eAv95QN9HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

>>
>> Fair comment, but I am not really suggesting that kind of use, only
>> that DRM seems like a bit of a sledgehammer
>
> I agree but then DRM doesn't usually cause me a problem.
> Few things to do with computers cause me a problem for more than a few
> minutes these days.. 20+ years ago maybe but not now.

True enough but then some people simply want to use computers and not
spend the time that we have trying to figure out the technicalities.

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:46:27 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:%23eGp1RC9HHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> I mean OE was a virus trap for years, much of it simply because users
>> left it set at defaults and didn't know how to make them safer. It took
>> years for MS to start with much safer defaults and include a plain text
>> option, simple fixes and yet it took years and OE was undoubtedly the
>> biggest security problem on the internet simply because everybody,
>> including the clueless majority, had it running. Okay so it was a
>> freebie and MS made no profit, but hell, it never occurred to them what
>> it was costing everybody being insecure. I think the idea was that
>> people would buy Outlook, but most were NEVER going to buy that just
>> for simple emails.
>
> Look at sendmail on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. it was full of worm
> holes and other security problems for years before someone finally fixed
> it by dumping it and using postfix.
> However there are still machines out there running the versions with the
> holes in even now.
> Hell they don't even need to pay as postfix is free and a lot easier to
> use than writing aload of $%^<>"£$%^ to a config file to rewrite headers
> and stuff, but they still have cr@p sendmail running.
>
>
>> I didn't have any Vista capable machines when the Beta was out, so my
>> first experience was the retail, and frankly it was disappointing
>> considering the time to develop and the alleged rewrite. I'm sure it
>> works well for many but heck, so does XP and probably better if the
>> clean up some of the accumulated detritus. From an average user's
>> perspective though it's not worth paying $300 for and from a business
>> perspective where most are doing WP and data entry what bloody use is
>> aero and ultimate extras like a poker game and animated desktop? 100
>> machines, $30,000 etc.And still the same typos in the WP and data
>> entry.
>>
>> Many will find out how to turn UAC off, many will find out how to run
>> as super user or whatever and WGA/WPA will NOT stop the serious pirate.
>
> The same users would get pi$$ed off by having to enter their password on
> Ubuntu everytime they wanted to do an admin action too.. so they would
> switch to another distro and run as root all the time.
>
>> Actually here's how I see that issue. I get an ad for Vista and send
>> off for the pirate copy. Either it never arrives or it does and it's
>> bloody useless. Now, I either have to try and get MS to activate it at
>> a price (Which means I can use it but doesn't guarantee it has no
>> malware compiled in there someplace) so I lose but so does MS because
>> now I got me a legal but dangerous version. Or I might just curse the
>> loss and carry on using XP or whatever. OTOH since I lost my money I
>> might just try Linux, and since I am forced into that corner by the
>> loss I might just persist with it long enough to get to like it.
>
> If you buy a pirate copy unknowingly and co-operate with M$ they send
> you a free key and installation media if the one you have is no good.
>
>> Nailing a few pirates is not enough, if WGA / WGA doesn't get the vast
>> majority of them (and it won't) than it's just a big negative.
>>
>> Similarly with DRM. I have some stuff from years back, in the new Vista
>> machine no go, with XP most does go, with Linux, so far, it all goes.
>> It's all stuff I could have gotten off TV with a VCR anyway. What's
>> with paying more to get less?
>
> I find that WMP11 plays the stuff without copyright encoded in it
> without any trouble.
> BTW it is illegal to bypass the DRM if its in the files so, if you do,
> you are making your Linux illegal in many countries.

Personally, corporations get to kiss my ass when it comes to DRM. And I
mean every word of that.

When I buy content, whatever it may be, I'm going to watch it *where I*
want it, *when I* want it, *how I* want it, using the *software I* want
under the operating system that I want. And I don't care if it's "legal"
or not what I am doing when I friggin PAID for it. And I honestly can
seriously say that there isn't a single piece of media on this machine
right now that I didn't pay for.

So yea, I'll gladly strip CSS and region coding from DVDs and make a hard
drive image so I can watch said DVD from my hard drive without needing to
use the DVD and can put the DVD away in safety where it won't get
scratched.

DRM does absolutely nothing to benefit me, the customer. And I refuse to
support any of it. Legal or not, I really don't care.



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[naive_but_tech_lover]

Because...LINUX IS FREE we live is a business world of making money. you
cannot make money by promoting and giving free products. and because only 1%
of people use Linux people develop software to the 98% of the market that
uses Windows. You know that. don't you? But can I take Linux, modify it to
make it more user friendly and then sell it at a price to compete with
Windows and make money? That is what Microsoft says is the greatest threat to
Windows. But maybe my cost of making Linux more user friendly,
promoting/marketing, distirbuting and so on will make Linux just a little
less expensive than Windows. It is now costing me more to pay for my software
than my computer hardware. I would love to cut my PC cost by more than half.
So...please make this to be the YEAR OF LINUX. I need the money

"dont.pullout@yahoo.com" wrote:

> Linux is free.
> Windows is not.
> Linux has been free for a long time while Microsoft stagnated with
> Windows XP.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft released a bomb called Windows ME.
> Linux is free.
> Microsoft has released a controversial to some (IOW not too good)
> operating system called Vista.
> Linux is free,
>
> So why the hell is Linux's desktop useage hovering around 1 percent?
> Why does Microsoft still have 95 to 98 percent of the market?
>
> After all, Linux is free.
> Free is a good thing except when what you are getting for free isn't
> so good afterall.
>
> How many people know or know of people who have downloaded Linux,
> tried Linux and then just as quickly dumped Linux and went back to
> Windows?
> It's a most common occurence.
>
> So Linux is free, and Windows is not.
>
> Where is Linux hiding?
>
> Considering there are over 600 different Linux distributions and more
> arriving by the day, you would think Linux would be all over the
> place.
> It's not.
>
> Every year it's the same crap from the Linux advocates "This is the
> year of Linux"
> Yea, well I've been hearing that crap for the past 10 years or more
> and it has never been, nor does the future seem to indicate that the
> year of Linux will ever arrive.
>
> Why?
>
>