A
R
Rick Rogers
So their motivation is to make the illegitimate users go legit? What a
surprise.
Yes, the honest user will be inconvenienced on occasion by the new security
implementation. Just like I have to wait in line at the airport to get
through security, or wait at the police checkpoint to see if I'm wearing my
safety belt and have my vehicle inspected, or tolerate the fact that I am
being filmed as I shop at Wally World.
"Microsoft trusted its users to do the right thing and generally they did"
This was before the notion of "get it for free on the internet" existed. The
theives then were far and few between, now many have the attitude of not
paying unless you get caught.
"There is a restriction on how many times users can transfer the boxed copy
of Windows they purchase to a new machine."
While we don't know for sure that this will be the case, I do agree this
will be a bad move. However, this is a private company that has the right to
restrict how their software is used. If the imposed limitation is a bad one,
which I believe it to be, it will make itself evident in a small backlash
from the technical community. I say "small" because the truth is that the
majority get their copy of Windows with the system and never do major
hardware upgrades. The power user that builds their own machine is still a
very tiny minority.
"There will be no long queues of users outside computer stores lining up to
buy a boxed copy of Vista Home Basic to load on their underpowered XP
computers"
Start me up! Remember Win95 - those days, the days when only geeks had
computers, are gone. Computers are in the realm of the great unwashed, the
technically inefficient. This is why the transfer limitation will probably
not have any major affect in sales, as to most it simply won't matter.
"The strategy is a risky one. Like pirate CDs and DVDs, the vast majority of
pirate Windows copies proliferate in second and third world markets. The
reason is that many users in those markets find Windows prohibitively
expensive. Can Microsoft force a significant proportion of them to go
legitimate? Perhaps, or perhaps it will simply drive them into the welcoming
arms of the Linux world."
Risky? No, more like calculated risk, and probably a safe one based on the
points I've already given. It's not the geek's world anymore. Is it too
expensive in the tirdl world market? Hell, it's too expensive in the first
world market, but it still sells. Linux, as far as it has come along, is
still the realm of the geek. Linux could actually benefit from a marketing
campaign, but that will never happen as there is no profit motive in doing
so.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
surprise.
Yes, the honest user will be inconvenienced on occasion by the new security
implementation. Just like I have to wait in line at the airport to get
through security, or wait at the police checkpoint to see if I'm wearing my
safety belt and have my vehicle inspected, or tolerate the fact that I am
being filmed as I shop at Wally World.
"Microsoft trusted its users to do the right thing and generally they did"
This was before the notion of "get it for free on the internet" existed. The
theives then were far and few between, now many have the attitude of not
paying unless you get caught.
"There is a restriction on how many times users can transfer the boxed copy
of Windows they purchase to a new machine."
While we don't know for sure that this will be the case, I do agree this
will be a bad move. However, this is a private company that has the right to
restrict how their software is used. If the imposed limitation is a bad one,
which I believe it to be, it will make itself evident in a small backlash
from the technical community. I say "small" because the truth is that the
majority get their copy of Windows with the system and never do major
hardware upgrades. The power user that builds their own machine is still a
very tiny minority.
"There will be no long queues of users outside computer stores lining up to
buy a boxed copy of Vista Home Basic to load on their underpowered XP
computers"
Start me up! Remember Win95 - those days, the days when only geeks had
computers, are gone. Computers are in the realm of the great unwashed, the
technically inefficient. This is why the transfer limitation will probably
not have any major affect in sales, as to most it simply won't matter.
"The strategy is a risky one. Like pirate CDs and DVDs, the vast majority of
pirate Windows copies proliferate in second and third world markets. The
reason is that many users in those markets find Windows prohibitively
expensive. Can Microsoft force a significant proportion of them to go
legitimate? Perhaps, or perhaps it will simply drive them into the welcoming
arms of the Linux world."
Risky? No, more like calculated risk, and probably a safe one based on the
points I've already given. It's not the geek's world anymore. Is it too
expensive in the tirdl world market? Hell, it's too expensive in the first
world market, but it still sells. Linux, as far as it has come along, is
still the realm of the geek. Linux could actually benefit from a marketing
campaign, but that will never happen as there is no profit motive in doing
so.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
A
Alias~-
Rick said:
No, their motivation is greed. In an attempt to satisfy this greed, they
rolled out WPA/WGA, etc.
You didn't buy the airport, police check point or Wally World and
there's no way you could steal them so your analogy is seriously flawed.
That's one theory. My theory is that MS allowed piracy before XP in
order to saturate and control the market. Now they're trying to cash in.
They lied and said that controlling piracy will lower prices. Vista is
more expensive than XP.
This minority may be a minority in your country but not here. Only
idiots don't buy white boxes in Spain but, then again, all the ISPs push
Usenet so I guess we have a more educated consumer here.
Um, non geeks have been operating computers since the 60s.
Yeah, when you make $200 a month, Windows is expensive.
For now.
Word of mouth is the best advertising and there are retail chains here
in Spain that will build you a box with Linux free if you buy the white
box from them.
Yes, you are right, MS' rip off scam will not be detected by Americans
in the USA but, then again, they voted for someone who thinks he speaks
to god for president.
Alias
R
Rick Rogers
Alias~- said:
This is capitalism, companies are driven by greed and profit motive. If they
flounder and fail to produce profits and pay dividends, shareholders will
move their investments elsewhere and the company will go under. The motive
behind these changes is to make it more difficult for the pirates and
discourage illegal distribution, and that also makes for more inconveniences
for the legitimate user.
It's my plane ticket, my car, and my items in the shopping cart. The point
was that we all have to deal with some security measures that previously did
not exist in all walks of life.
Who knows, but watch out for the black helicopters, conspiracy is all around
us. Average prices have risen over the past 6 years (since XP's release),
and for high demand items prices will always be higher, that's basic
economics.
You're thinking locally, and the issue is global. Possibly Spain has a more
educated user, but the sad fact is that a majority of users worldwide are
the great unwashed. I could only wish that the consumer was more educated.
Using, yes. Building, no. Non-geeks never messed with installing an OS then,
most don't now.
When you make $200 per month and are squandering your money on computers,
you have your priorities in life all f*&^ed up.
I suspect it will continue to, and if it happens to slow (reduced demand),
then prices will be reduced to increase sales. Such is a market driven
economy.
Sadly, that is not so. Word of mouth is probably the worst marketing
technique there is.
He was the lesser of two (we)evils. Like choosing between Packard Bell and
Compaq and there are no alternatives. Niether is great, nor are they what
you want out of a pc, but you've got to choose one.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
R
Richard Urban
I see you are still using User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
Why not Linux? Save your $200 a month for something more important.
--
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!
Why not Linux? Save your $200 a month for something more important.
--
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!
J
John Barnes
Good answers, but why butt your head against a brick wall. Microsoft haters
will always ignore/hate licenses, think profit is greed and piracy
(stealing) is okay.
will always ignore/hate licenses, think profit is greed and piracy
(stealing) is okay.
A
Alias~-
Richard said:
Um, I dont' live in the third world and I make much more than that. I
have legit XP on all three of my computers. That said, I am about to
start testing Linux as soon as I have time.
Alias
A
Alias~-
Rick said:
To the exclusion of caring about their paying customers? Ever hear of PR?
If
It also costs MS more to pay the activation phone people and the
programmers for their sleazy and greedy anti piracy programs.
Maybe you accept Bush's FUD. I don't.
MS has lied and said that stopping piracy will lower prices, not me.
Then move to a civilized country ;-)
False. I know a lot of non geeks who can install Windows.
Perhaps having a computer will enable someone to make more. How is that
"f*&^ed up"?
I have yet to see MS lower its prices for anything. Can you give me an
example?
LOL! And you believe that?
Yeah, the one who gave a big tax break to the largest corporations. Nice
choice.
Alias
W
Will
Well right at this monent I'm downloading Unbutu
I'll see how I go with it I've used linux Redhat before which took a lot of
getting used to but they say Unbutu is a lot better
I'll still buy Vista and install it on a desktop that intend to leave as it
is
On average I change my whole system at least once a year that will now have
to happen with the system I run Unbutu on
Thanks to all the restrictions MSFT have imposed I will no longer have the
luxury of changing the system on which vista is installed
I earn plenty of money however I prefer to keep my money in my pocket and
not hand it over to MSFT
I'll see how I go with it I've used linux Redhat before which took a lot of
getting used to but they say Unbutu is a lot better
I'll still buy Vista and install it on a desktop that intend to leave as it
is
On average I change my whole system at least once a year that will now have
to happen with the system I run Unbutu on
Thanks to all the restrictions MSFT have imposed I will no longer have the
luxury of changing the system on which vista is installed
I earn plenty of money however I prefer to keep my money in my pocket and
not hand it over to MSFT
R
Rick Rogers
Sometimes it's just fun.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
X
xfile
Sometimes it's just fun.
Yes, this is why I couldn't help to join
Wrong - seriously wrong. Refer to any basic economics books if you wish.
We are living in a market economy and a socialist capitalism, if you wish to
call it.
In pure capitalism as it was the case in 18th century, you don't have
minimum wage, you don't have labor union, you don't get pay leave, and you
don't have anti-trust laws, and the list can go on and on.
And profit does not equal to greed. Profit doesn't mean you can earn what
you don't deserved.
The way you interpreted profit-oriented companies would only make a
businessman like myself feel ashamed.
Yes, this is why I couldn't help to join
Wrong - seriously wrong. Refer to any basic economics books if you wish.
We are living in a market economy and a socialist capitalism, if you wish to
call it.
In pure capitalism as it was the case in 18th century, you don't have
minimum wage, you don't have labor union, you don't get pay leave, and you
don't have anti-trust laws, and the list can go on and on.
And profit does not equal to greed. Profit doesn't mean you can earn what
you don't deserved.
The way you interpreted profit-oriented companies would only make a
businessman like myself feel ashamed.
R
Rick Rogers
Alias~- said:
Again, it's a calculated risk as to whether or not this will work for
Microsoft. If it fails miserably, then watch for the backpeddling. I supect,
however, that it won't.
Every risk has an associated cost. Evidentally the projected income exceeds
the expense. Anit-piracy isn't greed, it's protection of intellectual
property.
I don't think the US is the only country that has imposed additional
restrictions on its consumers, look to recent events in the UK. And, I don't
think it would matter who was sitting in Washington at the time. The
president doesn't run the country as much as congress does, he just takes
the heat.
Piracy hasn't stopped. If anything, it's more rampant than ever.
Been there, and many other beautiful countries. Were I to be afforded the
same opportunities that I find here, I would consider it.
You're in the minority. Just because you personally know many does not make
it a fact. The vast majority of worldwide sales are preinstalled versions,
not retail. Most consumers have no idea what an OS actually is or does, much
less how to install and configure one.
Sorry, but it is. If one spends their entire monthly income on a piece of
software rather than providing for food and shelter, then their priorities
are messed up.
I didn't say they had. I said that if demand slows, we might see a price
reduction. How much would you pay for a copy of Win2000 now?Certainly far
less than you would have in 2000. Why? No demand. There's nothing wrong with
it, it's still useful, it's just not in demand anymore.
It's not me that determines which marketing techniques work and which ones
don't. The facts speak for themselves. Linux is a good system, but it relies
heavily on word of mouth, and it's not getting too far with it. Given good
marketing, it'd be a lot further along and could effectively compete with
Windows.
The other one would have seriously impeded civil liberties and personal
freedom. One did not affect me personally as much as the other would have.
But I digress too much.
Keep in mind that I am no fan of these security measures or the licensing
scheme. In fact, I generally have argued against them and pressed for a
"family" license for the average home as a better solution (and better PR).
I don't justify Microsoft's position, like you I have issues with it, I'm
merely trying to explain it and their rationale for them.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
R
Richard Urban
Why don't you turn your considerable efforts to rail about "big oil" on an
appropriate newsgroup or chat room?
You surely (Shirley) must drive a car!
--
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!
appropriate newsgroup or chat room?
You surely (Shirley) must drive a car!
--
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!
X
xfile
And for those who believe we are still living in capitalism and greed is one
good thing -
stop complaining if any companies moved the "entire", not just part of,
operations to offshore, and you couldn't get a bonus check for X'mas, and
your medical insurance coverage is less than perfect, nor if you couldn't
get any unemployment benefits or welfare assistance, because all of these
will not be in capitalism and if a company's goal is only to pursue profits
and greed.
good thing -
stop complaining if any companies moved the "entire", not just part of,
operations to offshore, and you couldn't get a bonus check for X'mas, and
your medical insurance coverage is less than perfect, nor if you couldn't
get any unemployment benefits or welfare assistance, because all of these
will not be in capitalism and if a company's goal is only to pursue profits
and greed.
R
Rick Rogers
xfile said:Yes, this is why I couldn't help to join
Me neither.
We are living in a mix of laissez-faire/Keynesian economics. Companies and
their investors are driven by the desire to make money. Quite often, greed
comes in as a factor as the more they make, the more they want to make.
Absolutely, and there was a very wide disparity between the rich and the
poor. Then the market collapsed in the early 20th century and many of the
rich suddenly became the poor, and they clamored for government controls.
I don't have any problem with a company making a profit, in fact they
should. Greed is a fine line, and when profit motive turns into greed the
company stops thinking about what's best for its consumers. Failure
generally doesn't come too far after that. Many think Microsoft has hit that
point, but I don't see it.
I interpret it based on a mix of observation, involvement, and study. I work
in a fairly large company that deals in finance. I tell people all the time
where we make our money, I endeavor to be up front with such things. As
such, I have to keep up with changes in the economic environment, so
constant study is also a factor for me. When I look at profit oriented
companies, I see them for what they are.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
<snip>
J
John Barnes
In a market economy if the profits on a product become sufficient to
encourage competition, then you will have a capitalist competitor.
Apparently the profits for Microsoft aren't sufficiently large as to get,
say Google, to enter the business. Other consumer OS's aren't refined
enough to compete at the moment. Linnux may be fine for a geek but not for
granny.
Per Ayn Rand's definition of greed, greed is good.
Don't forget, all you socialists out there, if any company makes these
greedy profits, greedy government has its hand out to confiscate a
significant portion. That then gets distributed as your benevolent
government dictates.
encourage competition, then you will have a capitalist competitor.
Apparently the profits for Microsoft aren't sufficiently large as to get,
say Google, to enter the business. Other consumer OS's aren't refined
enough to compete at the moment. Linnux may be fine for a geek but not for
granny.
Per Ayn Rand's definition of greed, greed is good.
Don't forget, all you socialists out there, if any company makes these
greedy profits, greedy government has its hand out to confiscate a
significant portion. That then gets distributed as your benevolent
government dictates.
J
John Barnes
Companies always look out for their customers. No customers no business.
They balance the profitability of certain customers against other
considerations, like piracy of the product. Having a limit in place to
guard against obvious piracy makes sense. Giving a small number of waivers
for the tiny number who would need them for legitimate purposes also makes
sense. Microsoft has, in the past, been quite cooperative in these
circumstances and odds favour that they will continue to do that.
They balance the profitability of certain customers against other
considerations, like piracy of the product. Having a limit in place to
guard against obvious piracy makes sense. Giving a small number of waivers
for the tiny number who would need them for legitimate purposes also makes
sense. Microsoft has, in the past, been quite cooperative in these
circumstances and odds favour that they will continue to do that.
K
Kerry Brown
Will said:
This is the solution to the whole problem of WGA, WPA, WGAN, etc. Vote with
your wallet. If enough people do then Microsoft will change their policies.
That's the way our "capitalist" economy works. I agree with Rick Rogers that
I don't think enough people will switch to an alternative OS that it will
make a difference but voting with your wallet is your only real chance of
changing things. If nothing else if all the geeks moved to Linux, Microsoft
and other companies that base their profits on Windows would have to fix
their support systems as all the free support would be using a different OS
and unlikely to help their friends and neighbours
Personally I like Windows and I really like Vista. I also like Linux. I will
not be switching to Linux and I am willing to put up with WGA, WPA for two
reasons. One - I am more productive with Windows than Linux. I make my
living with computers and so far I can make more money using Windows. I
guess that's greed. Two - I have had software that I have developed ripped
off and it hurts on a personal as well as financial level. Years ago I was
against any form of copy protection. After having a program I developed
ripped off by a larger developer who basically told me they'd be happy to
see me in court as they could afford better lawyers I started using copy
protection, code obfuscation, and any available means I could find to
protect my programs. Piracy is theft and hurts the victim in ways other than
just financially. Just because Microsoft is very large doesn't mean they
don't feel the same emotions at the top levels. And yes I am aware that many
people feel that Microsoft is guilty of doing the same thing as the larger
developer did to me.
W
Will
Kerry
I agree with everything you say I will also continue to use Windows and I
will buy Vista and use it because I make my living with my computer too.
However being a computer geek I love tweaking my system and upgrading
components on it, This however will become a thing of the past with the new
restrictions in the EULA and SPP ect
But I will also use Unbutu as I do want to become familiar with it and it
will be a great test OS for my work (web design) it's always a good thing to
have an alternative OS to test my work on.
I'm definately not a microsoft hater but I must say they really need to have
a good long think about the direction their taking, My feeling is that they
have put themselves in a monopoly position with Windows and are moving
towards cashing in on it bigtime with Vista. And I guess their fully
entitled to do that. However for people like us that depend on a high end OS
to make a living, we're stuck with windows, but on the otherhand for the
average home user that only uses a pc for Emailing friends and family maybe
some home shopping and playing the occasional game Unbutu does all that too
and if it's easy to use, Then considdering the pricing of Vista I get the
feeling quite a few average home users will make the switch to Unbutu and I
can also see quite a few retailers selling buget priced pc's with Unbutu pre
installed.
I think microsoft will \be under some pressure to rethink their strategy
maybe not straight away because a new OS will always get sales up for a
while but once things settle a little people will notice that it's not all
it's made out to be specially if this SPP WGA and WGAN turns out to be a
nightmare and legitimate users are effected.
I agree with everything you say I will also continue to use Windows and I
will buy Vista and use it because I make my living with my computer too.
However being a computer geek I love tweaking my system and upgrading
components on it, This however will become a thing of the past with the new
restrictions in the EULA and SPP ect
But I will also use Unbutu as I do want to become familiar with it and it
will be a great test OS for my work (web design) it's always a good thing to
have an alternative OS to test my work on.
I'm definately not a microsoft hater but I must say they really need to have
a good long think about the direction their taking, My feeling is that they
have put themselves in a monopoly position with Windows and are moving
towards cashing in on it bigtime with Vista. And I guess their fully
entitled to do that. However for people like us that depend on a high end OS
to make a living, we're stuck with windows, but on the otherhand for the
average home user that only uses a pc for Emailing friends and family maybe
some home shopping and playing the occasional game Unbutu does all that too
and if it's easy to use, Then considdering the pricing of Vista I get the
feeling quite a few average home users will make the switch to Unbutu and I
can also see quite a few retailers selling buget priced pc's with Unbutu pre
installed.
I think microsoft will \be under some pressure to rethink their strategy
maybe not straight away because a new OS will always get sales up for a
while but once things settle a little people will notice that it's not all
it's made out to be specially if this SPP WGA and WGAN turns out to be a
nightmare and legitimate users are effected.
G
Guest
I agree Kerry,
You can please some of the people all the time, all of the people some of
the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.
Again, I stand by my original word that Microsoft, in protecting it's own
interest again'ts piracy, will binefit the end users.
Look, no matter what you think about Microsoft's past "blind eye" to piracy,
the world is different. Thanks to broadband, piracy has become a crime that
is largely out of control. Sure, in the dial up days, you could download a
copy of windows, but even win 95 was over 400Mb, and it would take days. It
wasn't a worry, because there were too few people with fast enough
connections to handle a full OS download. Now, well, lets just say, I
downloaded Vista in less than an hour.
Microsoft sees the problems facing them, and they are trying to meet it.
Especially with Vista. XP came at a time when broadband was still new. The
protection features, for Microsoft weren't even a thought. I mean, hell, who
would have thought that broadband (Cable and DSL) would have become so
popular, moreover, who would have thought that it would become so cheap.
As much as I know many people think of Microsoft as "The evil empire," I
believe they have the right, as a company to protect their income. And note,
all the people bitching about this, are using Microsoft products, and if you
aren't, if you are just a troll, you really need to get a life.
I like Kerry, like windows. I like Vista more than any other version I have
used. I haven't experienced most of the problems others claim, which makes me
believe that it isn't the OS that's the problem. I am not a program writer, I
am not a software developer, but I understand that they are both hard jobs.
It takes time, and a lot of money to develop a program, especially an OS that
is functional and friendly. I think it is only fair that the people who use
it, actually pay for it.
Now, as far as the price, well, it will be lightly more expensive. Windows
home premium, which will most likely be the common software load for most
computer, is said to cost about $240. That is only $55 up from the Amazon.com
price for XP Home full version with SP2. Business will be around $299, which
is only about $30 higher than the full version of XP Pro with SP2 that Amazon
has for $269.
I am talking retail, not OEM here.
And for those people who just HAVE to have Ultimate, well, you are going to
have to shell out the cash for it. Sorry about that, but that is the way it
goes. You want the best, you got to pay for it.
Will there be lines at best buy on the release date? If so, very short ones.
I suspect more people will be buying new computers pre-loaded with Vista Home
Premium, than buying retail copies. I will be buying a retail copy, because
my system is all ready for it.
As far as the restrictions on upgrades, well, I have made my statement on
the best upgrade ideas. Do it before you buy and load, so you can make the
newer updates in a couple years, and not have to fiddle with it.
Love it or hate it, complain all you want, but this train's a comin. All
Aboard, or get off the tracks, because you can't stop it.
Just a thought
You can please some of the people all the time, all of the people some of
the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.
Again, I stand by my original word that Microsoft, in protecting it's own
interest again'ts piracy, will binefit the end users.
Look, no matter what you think about Microsoft's past "blind eye" to piracy,
the world is different. Thanks to broadband, piracy has become a crime that
is largely out of control. Sure, in the dial up days, you could download a
copy of windows, but even win 95 was over 400Mb, and it would take days. It
wasn't a worry, because there were too few people with fast enough
connections to handle a full OS download. Now, well, lets just say, I
downloaded Vista in less than an hour.
Microsoft sees the problems facing them, and they are trying to meet it.
Especially with Vista. XP came at a time when broadband was still new. The
protection features, for Microsoft weren't even a thought. I mean, hell, who
would have thought that broadband (Cable and DSL) would have become so
popular, moreover, who would have thought that it would become so cheap.
As much as I know many people think of Microsoft as "The evil empire," I
believe they have the right, as a company to protect their income. And note,
all the people bitching about this, are using Microsoft products, and if you
aren't, if you are just a troll, you really need to get a life.
I like Kerry, like windows. I like Vista more than any other version I have
used. I haven't experienced most of the problems others claim, which makes me
believe that it isn't the OS that's the problem. I am not a program writer, I
am not a software developer, but I understand that they are both hard jobs.
It takes time, and a lot of money to develop a program, especially an OS that
is functional and friendly. I think it is only fair that the people who use
it, actually pay for it.
Now, as far as the price, well, it will be lightly more expensive. Windows
home premium, which will most likely be the common software load for most
computer, is said to cost about $240. That is only $55 up from the Amazon.com
price for XP Home full version with SP2. Business will be around $299, which
is only about $30 higher than the full version of XP Pro with SP2 that Amazon
has for $269.
I am talking retail, not OEM here.
And for those people who just HAVE to have Ultimate, well, you are going to
have to shell out the cash for it. Sorry about that, but that is the way it
goes. You want the best, you got to pay for it.
Will there be lines at best buy on the release date? If so, very short ones.
I suspect more people will be buying new computers pre-loaded with Vista Home
Premium, than buying retail copies. I will be buying a retail copy, because
my system is all ready for it.
As far as the restrictions on upgrades, well, I have made my statement on
the best upgrade ideas. Do it before you buy and load, so you can make the
newer updates in a couple years, and not have to fiddle with it.
Love it or hate it, complain all you want, but this train's a comin. All
Aboard, or get off the tracks, because you can't stop it.
Just a thought