What's the deal with the $100

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zim Babwe
  • Start date Start date
Z

Zim Babwe

I have read in a few posts here that Microsoft is charging $100 per year to
Rent Vista. Where did that come from? I've heard of no such thing.
Someone must be yanking chains around here.
 
Zim Babwe said:
I have read in a few posts here that Microsoft is charging $100 per year to
Rent Vista. Where did that come from? I've heard of no such thing.
Someone must be yanking chains around here.
Click to expand...

It's some idiot posting that.
 
You don't "own" the operating system. You own the right to use it.

MS will likely come out with a newer O/S in four years (they promised
sooner). If it is 4 years the cost of Vista Ultimate is $399 / 4 = $100 per
year.

Of course you could use Vista for 8 years. XP has been out for 5 years
already and MS promises another 5 years of support for Windows XP. I would
expect similar for Vista.

--


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!
 
MSFT is considering having you pay to update software with significant
updates (not hotfixes) but they aren't "renting Vista."

CH
 
You have got to be kidding! Do you have any references to support that?

Maybe I like Ubuntu more than I thought I did.

Dale
 
Dale said:
You have got to be kidding! Do you have any references to support that?

Maybe I like Ubuntu more than I thought I did.

Dale
Click to expand...

What upsets you so much about that? Apple ALREADY charges for "significant
updates": $129 every 2 year (approx), and has for years.

Why should Microsoft be any different?
 
Andre Da Costa said:
I didn't have to pay for the extras I got with Vista Ultimate.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry
Click to expand...


Actually, you did (in a way), Andre: I paid $135US for my System Builder copy
of Vista Home Premium, while you may or may not have paid at least $160US more
for your copy of Vista Ultimate.

If I want the Vista Ultimate Extras, I will have to pay extra for an Anytime
Upgrade to Ultimate to get them.

Anyway, I didn't pay for my copy of Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007,
Microsoft gave it to me for attending a Launch Event.
 
Hmm, I don't know, Ultimate Extras are not add-ons you can buy for a lower
edition of Vista such as Home Basic, Home Premium, Business or Enterprise.
Its an exclusive feature of Ultimate Edition for customers who purchased the
Ultimate edition, Upgrade or FPP or even OEM.
 
Apple charges for "significant" upgrades. Microsoft already does the same
thing. W2K3 versus W2K3 R2. You had to buy a whole new license. Microsoft
has never given away "significant" upgrades but if we are going to have to
start paying for service packs and minor feature packs then I see that as a
problem. That said, we still have not seen any supporting information on
any such changes except for rumor.

Dale
 
Apple charges for "significant" upgrades. Microsoft already does the same
thing. W2K3 versus W2K3 R2. You had to buy a whole new license.
Click to expand...

This was for a server upgrade -- do you mean that Windows 2003 Server
versus Windows 2003 Server Release 2 was considered an upgrade? If so,
bad marketing -- should have named W2K3 R2 Windows 2005 Server...

Unless it was one of those nose in the tent efforts to get folks used
to paying for 'Service Packs'.

I agree with you, charging for Service Packs is the sort of thing which
encourages folks to not want to pay for the original.
 
In more than one product group's forums lately, I have been told by
Microsoft employees that Microsoft is working on iterative development. As
soon as a product is usable, they shipped it leaving many known issues and
desired features for later iterations.

They wouldn't answer my question when I asked if I could pay for the product
iteratively.

Well, if any of this is true, and I reiterate that we do not have a single
reference to anything indicating it is more than the ravings of a newsgroup
lunatic, Microsoft may have found a way for us to pay iteratively. Of
course, what's so bad is that we are paying the full price of the product up
front already.

Dale
 
The thing is, Microsoft already has a rather large target on its back,
engaging in this sort of approach (if true), just provides ammo for
folks wanting to feel 'moral' by doing end runs with the Microsoft
licensing/activation game. I am not in any way encouraging or
endorsing those end runs, I don't do it myself, but an approach that
makes Microsoft appear 'greedy' does have consequences.
 
A friend at work just bought a new MacBook Pro. He runs Vista on it better
than any box I have seen running Vista before. It seems that the best
platform for Vista is a Mac.

Maybe there's something to the idea that Vista will be a boon to Apple.

Dale
 
Since I build up systems as part of my client support, I get to test
configurations quite a bit. Vista has lead me to raise the bar for
'standard' systems.

Last year, a 939AMD 3800X2 with 1G of PC3200 DDR dual channel memory
and an ATI x550 was something I would happily deploy.

For now, the 'base' system is an AM2 4200X2 (or 4600X2) with 2G of
PC5300 DDR2 dual channel memory and an ATI x1300 with 256M onboard is
what I suggest to clients. Even if they are deploying XP (which is
what they are at the moment), at least they are well positioned to move
to Vista.
 
I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.

Dale
 
Dale said:
I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.

Dale
Click to expand...

I have to work on Intel but I've never owned anything but AMD.
My Athlon XP runs just fine.
I've had AMD PCs since the 386 and never had compatibility issues.
AMD is generally cheaper and faster than Intel.
I thought it was pretty sad when the Intel Pentium 200 was first introduced
and they insisted it was faster than an AMD, when it was faster and much
more expensive than the AMD 166, and maybe a little cheaper but definitely
much slower than AMD's 200.
If I could afford a PC right now I'd go with the AM2.
 
I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.
Click to expand...
That would be a VERY long time ago. Sort of like saying, 'I got a bad
taste in my mouth for Microsoft when I bought WinME and found out it
was bad stuff', I've not bought a Microsoft OS since.

Like hard drive manufacturers, the two CPU guys shift places from time
to time. I preferred AMD K6-2-400's to similarly priced Pentium II's.
I liked the faster P3's as they ran relatively cool. I shifted to AMD
XP's -- though some ran hot, because the Pentium 4's were pricey, and
then as they P4's moved up the performance ladder, THEY ran hot (and
the Retail fans were LOUD).

When the AMD 64's came out I was impressed with their price,
performance and that they ran nice and cool (and quiet even with stock
fans). The 939 Dual cores were sweet, and I like the X2 Dual cores.

But the newer Intel dual cores offer marginally better
price/performance, though they still run hotter than the AMD's.

Hard drive manufacturers do the same thing, for the longest time, I
really preferred both WD and IBM, I ran away from IBM when they started
failing when subject to high duty cycles. I avoided Seagate IDE drives
(but found their higher end SCSI drives to be excellent). Then WD
seemed to get in to a bit of a reliability funk, and Seagate started
producing nice drives which ran quiet and are quite reliable.

All this is to say that while I 'punish' manufacturers for bad cycles,
I don't elephantize my memory regarding them -- after I've heard and
seen a change, I respond to it. Your mileage and approach of course
may vary.
 
Oh, I know that my bad taste is no longer justified LOL. I just haven't
made that leap. And now with the Core 2 Duo, it will probably be a few more
years before I have to consider it.

Dale
 
Oh, I know that my bad taste is no longer justified LOL. I just haven't
made that leap. And now with the Core 2 Duo, it will probably be a few more
years before I have to consider it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, heck I figure the time is right for me to try one of the
Core 2 Duo Intel CPU's.

Old Dog

New Tricks
 
Back
Top