What are you talking about?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ProgramMax Jan 31, 2007 5:54 PM EDT |
You made a number of assumptions that hit me as being absolutely foolish. Take the difference between XP Home and XP Pro. With Pro I can use remote desktop. And with Pro I can mess with my services. And so on and so forth. I see no reason why these can't be considered modular. Now suppose while I'm at the store I only want to spend enough to get XP Home. So I buy it and then after installing maybe get a demo of some of these things and realize "Well, I like X feature, but not Y. There's no reason for me to buy Pro and pay for both X and Y." PERFECT! So buy just X at a lower cost. Your first assumption is that you will be required to buy anything. It makes no sense for Microsoft to try to make people pay for what would be considered "basic services" of the OS. Your second assumption is that things won't be bundled. I'm not garunteeing that they are, but suppose I'm the average computer user and I want to just connect my thumb drive and it works. I wouldn't know that I have to buy a module for USB and another for memory management and another for the partition format and what not. Please understand that your bold claims strike me as both unfounded and unthoughtful. In fact it feels like you feel more inclined to attack Microsoft than to use common sense. |
| tuxchick Jan 31, 2007 6:42 PM EDT |
Why would anyone defend such an expensive, customer-hostile OS like Windows? You are confusing modularity with getting gouged. With any Linux distribution, whether you download a free version or pay for a commercial version, you get everything. You don't pay more for additional functionality. If you don't want certain features or packages, they are very easy to remove. Linux can be as small as 50 megabytes, like Puppy and Damn Small Linux, or as big as all of Debian, which is over 13,000 packages, or about eight CDs. Puppy and DSL, as small as they are, contain more user-friendly and productivity apps than any version of Windows, and it doesn't cost you more to add more. This new Windows "modularity" really means "gouge the suckers." It does not mean that Windows is now customizable in a useful way, but released in various crippled versions until you're paying full freight. Nothing that Microsoft does is for the benefit of end users- it's all about lock-in and price-gouging. Windows and Microsoft are criticized for very good reasons, which any honest person who can read already knows. |
| ProgramMax Jan 31, 2007 6:58 PM EDT |
I am not really trying to be defensive. I'm trying to be logical. But first, XP Pro was $300. If I made $10 / hour then it would take 30 hours of work (less than a week) to buy Windows. And this is Pro, mind you. Now then, it would take me WELL over a week to learn linux and be able to do the same things. So "such an expensive, customer-hostile" seems wrong to me. In fact Linux is more expensive because my time isn't worthless. And because it is easier to use it certainly doesn't seem customer-hostile. But that's not the point. You said you don't have to pay for additional functionality. Really? How much is any of the functionallity offered by Oracle. Whoops. Not free. And drivers aren't always provided so I guess I need to research the device and write my own, which will take at least two months. The time I spend costs money. But that's not the point either. The point is that the exact same cost for modularity existed in the difference between XP Home and XP Pro. And nobody complained. This patent is clearly for that same thing only a more modular basis. Maybe I want to use IIS but I don't want remote desktop. So I don't need all the features of Pro and I don't need all the price of Pro. I can now buy just the part I need. What proof do you have that it actually means "gouge the suckers?" You too seem to have an unfounded bias which guides you more than reason and logic. Like I said before, there is no way Microsoft is going to sell just a minimalist Operating System that then requires users to purchase a seperate module for memory management as the author had suggested. What every single Windows customer expects is to be able to buy, install, and run. It seems pretty obvious that they will deliver that like they always have. |
| tuxchick Jan 31, 2007 7:52 PM EDT |
Logical? Er, ok, but I think you missed the boat a bit there. Oracle is not free for either Linux or Windows, so what's your point? Writing your own drivers? You're joking, right? You don't have to do that. Linux supports more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows. And you don't have to install them from CDs or reboot eleventy-nine times, or phone home to the mother ship for permission. How many hours at $10/hr do you waste trying to secure Windows, which is simply not secure-able, and how much money do you waste on anti-malware software? How many hours at $10/hr are Windows' forced hardware upgrades costing you? How can you say that this absurd patent is in any way a good thing, or that having multiple crippled verions of Windows is more cost-effective than an operating system that gives you everything? That is definitely gouging the suckers. BTW, I've always crabbed about the artificial distinctions between Windows versions, going back to NT 4 Server and Desktop. The physical difference was about 500 lines of code that put artificial limitations on how many users could connect to the server functions. The cost difference was substantial when you added up the higher server license and CALs. Gouging all the way. Not unlike putting a governor on your car, and for $5000 more they'll take it off so you can go faster. Oh, and don't blame Linux for Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly power and taking away your choices as a customer. That alone is enough reason to not send money to redmond, let alone shoddy product quality and overpriced products. |
| bigg Jan 31, 2007 8:02 PM EDT |
> How many hours at $10/hr do you waste trying to secure Windows Exactly, sort of, considering I make a lot more than that. And when you do have the inevitable security problem, how much time does it take to fix? I remember reading about how to take spyware out of the registry and asked myself "Why am I doing this again?" > What every single Windows customer expects is to be able to buy, install, and run. It seems pretty obvious that they will deliver that like they always have. I'd like to see that. My mom tried that once, and I found 480+ pieces of spyware on her machine after 4 months. Maintenance time is wasted time. Always. My only maintenance of my Debian system is pushing the update button every so often. |
| tqk Jan 31, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
>Now then, it would take me WELL over a week to learn linux and be able to do the same things. Ah, I see. You can pontificate without ever having actually tried using it. Thanks. Good to know. Move along. Nothing to see here. Oh, in case you do want to try it, slurp down a couple or three Live CDs, plop one in the drive, tell the BIOS to boot from CD, then learn just how excruciatingly difficult - Not! - it is to run Linux, all without ever touching your existing OS on your hard drive. I too recommend Damn Small Linux. You might like Ubuntu as well. Me, I like Grml, but I suspect it's beyond your present capabilities (it's not intended for noobs). When you get over the shock, check out http://distrowatch.com - hope you've got a few years free time on your hands. You might also take a look at PC-BSD (though it's not a live CD) or Freesbie (which is a live FreeBSD CD). None of them will cost you a penny, all of them spit at viruses and malware, and any of them will pretty much run on anything. None of them phone home to the mother ship to be validated. Oh, and you can use the CD to install it on as many machines as you please. Burn copies and hand 'em out to your friends. PS TC: Last I heard, Debian was up to 17,000 packages free to download, and the CD set (of which you really only need the first to install) is up to eleven. :-) |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 01, 2007 12:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Your first assumption is that you will be required to buy anything. It makes no sense for Microsoft to try to make people pay for what would be considered "basic services" of the OS. Please read the patent application IN FULL. Paying for basic services is *exactly* what MS patented here. It's not like you pay for an extra module to provide function X that you haven't got but really want. No, MS wants you to pay to take the throttle off the software you already have. Read the patent. Here are some examples that MS *themselves* wrote in the patent application. I didn't think this up. MS did and you can read them yourself in the patent: - If you buy extra RAM, you have to pay MS to make Windows actually use it - If you want to open extra windows, you have to pay MS because they limit how many windows you can have opened at the same time. - If you want to have several applications open at the same time, pay MS extra. - Stuff you have to pay extra for (separately): power management, removable memory support, a metered disk drive(*), number of processors supported, a screen resolution, screen color depth, and 3D acceleration, peripheral accessories, network interfaces, peer-to-peer networking, number of concurrent windows, a number of concurrent applications, advanced sound support, themes/styles, a game controller support, increased video memory, high speed disk access, network drive support, and network printing. (*) Yes, metered. Too bad you got yourself some 250 Gb 300 Mbps SATA drives. They will only let you use it up to 40 Gb at 100 Mbps. Want them faster or bigger? Pay up! - a suite support pack to improve the performance of utilities such as word processors. - patches/bug fixes/service packs (yes, you'll have to pay extra for patches) - the number of processors may be limited to one, or to a fixed performance level (Got a 3 Ghz dual-core CPU? Too bad. You can use 1 core at 2 Ghz. Want more? Pay up!) - DSL speeds up 500 kilobits per second, or speeds up to the maximum supported by the available hardware. Also, mind this: - add-on modules may be available for limited periods of time, based on the license terms |
| dcparris Feb 01, 2007 12:21 AM EDT |
ProgramMax: While I question just how far MS is likely to go in gouging for modules (kinda like bobbing for apples, isn't it?) please don't waste your breath trying to tell us how long it took you to learn Linux at $10/hr. Besides, most people I know who make $10/hr have to pay the bills with that money. It normally takes them much, much longer to actually save the $300 for a retail copy of Windows. The myth that Windows is easier to use or even to learn is exactly that a long-proven myth, especially in light of the fact that the only people I've ever helped move to Linux barely grasp the difference between a click and a double-click. I spent 30 minutes teaching them how to use their system, including e-mail. > And nobody complained. Is that true? Or did their complaints fall on deaf ears? You might be correct; they may have just migrated quietly to another OS so as not to be viewed as complaining. Mind you, I'm not complaining at all. I have no reason to. I don't use that OS (well, I do at work, but I have complained as much as I can without getting fired). > It makes no sense for Microsoft to try to make people pay for what would be considered "basic services" of the OS. You're quite right. It doesn't. But that doesn't mean they won't try it. As for your view of "buying" features, I honestly feel for you. Really, my heart goes out to you. I know that's condescending, but we choose the Linux distro we want based on our needs and preferences. If our choice doesn't include a particular "module" (read "package" or "service") by default, adding it is usually a simple matter of using Synaptic, Yast or similar to install the module(s). But to pay extra (or worse, per seat) for remote desktop functionality? Give me a break! Never mind CALs for connecting to a server. Besides, the simple fact that MS is seeking to patent a modular, DRM-ed system is proof that they are poised to gouge. It may not be as bad as the author portrays, but it sure won't be any fun for the users. The fact is that MS has been moving in the direction of adding new restrictions to what users can do with the software. Oracle is not a function of the OS, is it? I thought that was a DB server. As for drivers, don't get me started. Windows printer drivers are a form of Hell all by themselves, even when it's supposed to be a "plug-n-play" printer. Besides, if you really think about it, there is an HCL for Windows, too. And good Windows admins do their homework and buy hardware on the HCL. Look, I highly recommend you do some homework before you try to debate the merits of Linux vs. Windows here. All of us have extensive experience with both systems, and with non-techies who use both systems. You really sound like you're still learning Linux and are more comfortable with Windows. I honestly don't see how an experienced Linux user could still have the "buying" software mentality of the Windows world. Everyone knows you're only renting it anyway. If you really want to throw more money at your computer, go ahead. If you want to sell your freedom, go ahead. That's your choice. Just please don't expect me to put any weight into your arguments as they stand. |
| jdixon Feb 01, 2007 3:49 AM EDT |
OK, a lot to read, but I'll start at the top... > Your first assumption is that you will be required to buy anything. It makes no sense for Microsoft to try to make people pay for what would be considered "basic services" of the OS. Why not. They do now. Or did you get XP for free? >Your second assumption is that things won't be bundled. I'm not garunteeing that they are, but suppose I'm the average computer user and I want to just connect my thumb drive and it works. I wouldn't know that I have to buy a module for USB and another for memory management and another for the partition format and what not. You won't need to. Microsoft will already have your credit card info from when you bought and registered the OS, and you'll be required to keep the machine connected to the network so the OS can authenticate itself to Micorosft on a regular basis. The OS will determine what modules you'll need, they'll be downloaded, and your credit card will be billed. All without any action on your part except using the system. > In fact Linux is more expensive because my time isn't worthless... It might as well be if you're using it to argue for Windows in this forum. Unless you're getting paid to do so, of course... > And because it is easier to use it certainly doesn't seem customer-hostile. I find Linux easier to use than Windows. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is ease of use. > How much is any of the functionallity offered by Oracle. Whoops. Not free. Wrong. Or haven't you heard of MySQL and/or PostgreSQL? And those are only two options. There are others. > And drivers aren't always provided so I guess I need to research the device and write my own, which will take at least two months. So if I have devices which aren't supported under XP but are under Linux, this makes XP worth less than Linux? I think I have several lying around. Funny, they seemed to work fine under Windows 95. > The time I spend costs money. You know, you really need to learn the difference between "opportunity cost" and "cash outlay". Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on current economics textbooks, so I can't offer any suggestions. > What every single Windows customer expects is to be able to buy, install, and run. See my comment above. Oh, and you left off several items, as in, and pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.... > It seems pretty obvious that they will deliver that like they always have. Which is exactly what tuxchick is saying. I hope Microsoft is paying you well for your time. Otherwise, if I accept your viewpoint, you've just wasted enough of it to cover the cost of an upgrade to Vista. |
| hkwint Feb 01, 2007 3:51 AM EDT |
A few notes: -I can't consider the differences between different Windows versions as modular. With modularity, we mean, like back with Win95, when (as I was told) you could decide which parts of the OS to install or not, for _one_ and the same versions of Windows. Now, with Windows XP or Windows XP Pro, you can't configure what to install or what not, and you can't configure the kernel to leave out stuff you don't use. You can't configure it without a GUI. -What Microsoft is patenting here, is the same as the MPAA/RIAA is doing with DRM: Taking away / restricting the rights you have today, and selling them back to you (again) and thereby earning more money. The only reason companies take away your rights with the goal of reselling them to you, is their business model, which in a capitalistic world requires the profit to grow every year. It is simple: that people pay money for MS products, means (for MS) they can try to ask more money for it, and the same amount of money maybe twice. This has worked for years. You, the customer, are their milk-cow. While the cow keeps looking healthy, you could retrieve more and more milk from it every month. It's not the task of the cow-milkers to meet the demands of the cow, or listening to the cow, as long as it is healthy, despite (not because) the cow-milker. -With Linux, 95% of the software I use was for free, which means legal and gratis. With Windows, 95% of the software I used was cracked and illegal (I was a student with only around E100 per month to spend on other stuff than primary needs, mind you). If I would had to buy licenses for the software I used, which wasn't much shocking stuff beyond MatLab maybe, it would have costed me probably over 1500 euro's. Now, divide that by ten. Also, Windows is very vulnerable to identity theft malware, which would cost you much more than the money that equals the time learning Linux. -If I spend ten hours at learning Linux, which may cost me more than buying one Windows License, I can install and use Linux for free on as many computers as I want. I can transfer it to any other PC I want. I can change hardware whenever I want, with whatever I want (as long as Linux support it). I can use Gentoo both as a desktop, workstation or a server, and I could let as many people log in to that server as I wanted to. I could distribute Linux to as much small clients as I want, without having to buy one CAL. -Using Linux (and other free software like Firefox) instead of Windows probably saves me more than 10 hours a month, every month. That is mainly the case because you can configure it much better for your needs, and because of the choice of different software solutions (for example GUI/CLI) it offers you. -Linux is tested for years, and build on years of experience. The technology Microsoft is pushing lately, like the software they will be using for 'paying per module' is not tested that much, and therefore, is a risk for its customers. Microsoft leaves their customers in the cold by delivering non-tested software (most of the time containing more bugs per line of programming code than Linux) and methods, and therefore is unreliable. |
| jimf Feb 01, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
> inclined to attack Microsoft than to use common sense. Oh My, that would be far too easy :D > How much is any of the functionality offered by Oracle Opps, bad choice... How many individuals even use Oracle. So you just popped from the single user to the corporate giant, but ok... Ever hear of mysql? Many individuals and good size companies do use mysql, and guess what, it's free. If I use a knoda front end I have an equal to MS Access, but without the extensibility issues, and, I didn't pay another couple hundred for it. If I need it for more robust applications, heck, It's already running with most of the Apache websites out there. Don't like mysql, try postgres, or firebird. They, and a few others are available for 'free' (along with the drivers) in Linux and they already run some very large operations. Oh, and if your fortune 1000 Corporation 'really must' have Oracle, You can still use it on Linux. > I am not really trying to be defensive. I'm trying to be logical. Well, pardon, but you're not. You really need to have run both for a while (I and everyone here have) to understand that their is no comparison. Linux is the better OS with a number of superior and easy to use Desktops, security, stability, and flexibility; a truly enterprise worthy OS. Despite raking in all those big bucks, that's nothing that MS has ever achieved. Or you can just keep paying MS their outrageous fees, be treated like a criminal under house arrest, and have the jailer dole out spoonfuls of gruel (for a stipend). It's your choice. I could care less. > It seems pretty obvious that they will deliver that like they always have. Deliver what? As I said, I've run both, and, MS is infinitely better at delivering grief to the user or the company. And, MS charges you for their problems. Perhaps they're really charging you for all the nice Trojans, virus, bugs and bloat... now it's apparently going to be for each of those 'services... How $pecial... |
| bigg Feb 01, 2007 4:44 AM EDT |
> Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on current economics textbooks, so I can't offer any suggestions. Three good choices: Hubbard and O'Brien Frank and Bernanke Krugman and Wells Amazon has some good deals. Sorry, couldn't resist. The guy could *seriously* use one of these books. |
| jimf Feb 01, 2007 4:50 AM EDT |
> The guy could *seriously* use one of these books. He could 'seriously' use a PCLOS live CD, but then he probably doesn't have the time for even that... Oh well, he apparently has lots of money ;-) |
| dek Feb 01, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
I cry troll! A very uninformed or blinded troll. He's pretty well educated -- his post makes sense while his points don't. He is, none the less, a TROLL. You've been bitten by the troll, dudes (and dudettes)! ;-) Sorry! (me crawls back under my rock) Don K. PS I am not OP nor would I ever play those games. |
| jimf Feb 01, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
> I cry troll! Not persistent enough for a troll. Maybe a MS rep, but in any case, he got an eyeful. |
| jdixon Feb 01, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
> Maybe a MS rep... As indicated in my reply, that would be my guess. Anyone who values his time so highly but bothers to come to an obviously pro-Linux forum to extol the virtues of Windows is probably getting paid to do so. |
| bigg Feb 01, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
> pro-Linux forum I don't understand that label at all. This is pro-Truth forum. |
| jimf Feb 01, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
> probably getting paid to do so. Once again, MS spends it's money poorly. |
| tuxchick Feb 01, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
Now dek, no one would ever call you a troll. Maybe a nice gnome or sprite, but not troll. :) |
| dcparris Feb 01, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
Dontchya just hate it when people use arguments leftover from 1997? :-) |
| jdixon Feb 02, 2007 8:04 AM EDT |
> This is pro-Truth forum. We try bigg, but we all have biases, and it's good practice to admit to the ones you know about. |
| bigg Feb 02, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." - Harry Truman |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!