This is true, and because there are so many different distributions, you really get to choose an OS based on your own taste.. thats why you dont hear me bashing other distros.. Sure I use Redhat on my Desktop, and BSD for my webserver, but I dont think either of those is superior to any other. Why? Because, at the core, they are all the same. Each distro has things the others dont, and it can be really tailor fit to what you want to do, and what you need. Some distros are geared towards complete beginners, and some towards the genius hacker. Really, Joohang, I think if you did some research, you would find this is makes much more sense than pushing out one OS and saying "it will help all of you" and its your only choice. And choice, is what drives the linux revolution. Like I said, "who owns your computer anyway?"
Yes I admit that I don't know much about Linux. I tried using a bit but really didn't see any use of it.
Feel free to correct me if I'm not making any sense.
<< What differs is mostly just how its preconfigured, what software is included etc. >>
This is my point exactly. Because it can be customized so many ways, it must be quite hellish to help out an ordinary computer user. I think there should be one distribution that dominates certain markets, but I don't see that happening at the moment.
One more thing: Linux should look into Plug-n-Play or something similar.
Feel free to correct me if I'm not making any sense.
<< What differs is mostly just how its preconfigured, what software is included etc. >>
This is my point exactly. Because it can be customized so many ways, it must be quite hellish to help out an ordinary computer user. I think there should be one distribution that dominates certain markets, but I don't see that happening at the moment.
One more thing: Linux should look into Plug-n-Play or something similar.
<< Do you honestly believe per-year charging will end up costing us less? This is M$ after all. The subscription system empowers MS and takes away end-user liberty. MS can hike rates at any time. Users won't be able to skip an OS generation. It's designed to maintain a steady revenue stream. >>
Think about businesses and large organizations, too. And yes, I believe that the subscription fee will be quite reasonable, at least during the first few years of this new idea. Last time I checked, most organizations like to upgrade their platform at least every two generations or every two or three years at least, with gradual upgrading of their hardware. Microsoft does have some talented people, and I doubt that a bunch of airheads made the company what it is today.
I personally believe that this subscription idea is too early to the market. If Microsoft finds that this wouldn't work, it will be removed before release. You've seen them do this. We'll just sit and watch how this all turns out.
<< This in concert with the product activation annoyances would all but guarantee their OS market share shrinks. >>
How can you be so sure?
<< Enter .net maybe? I still don't have a solid idea what this is but again it must benefit M$ first and us second and peripherally. >>
Part of the .Net initiative involves software-as-a-service functionality, but the media is too dumb to research properly and talk about .Net as if there is nothing else but that "unwanted feature."
I find .Net a great strategy, especially from developer's point of view.
P.S. I am NOT trying to attack anybody here, nor am I fully disagreeing with you. Just sharing my view about the topic.
Think about businesses and large organizations, too. And yes, I believe that the subscription fee will be quite reasonable, at least during the first few years of this new idea. Last time I checked, most organizations like to upgrade their platform at least every two generations or every two or three years at least, with gradual upgrading of their hardware. Microsoft does have some talented people, and I doubt that a bunch of airheads made the company what it is today.
I personally believe that this subscription idea is too early to the market. If Microsoft finds that this wouldn't work, it will be removed before release. You've seen them do this. We'll just sit and watch how this all turns out.
<< This in concert with the product activation annoyances would all but guarantee their OS market share shrinks. >>
How can you be so sure?
<< Enter .net maybe? I still don't have a solid idea what this is but again it must benefit M$ first and us second and peripherally. >>
Part of the .Net initiative involves software-as-a-service functionality, but the media is too dumb to research properly and talk about .Net as if there is nothing else but that "unwanted feature."
I find .Net a great strategy, especially from developer's point of view.
P.S. I am NOT trying to attack anybody here, nor am I fully disagreeing with you. Just sharing my view about the topic.
And I still believe that Linux needs some serious work done before it can compete with Windows properly.
Just because there is a subscription fee to Windows, companies are not going to give dump out their existing platform out of the door. And does Linux have a chance to compete against .Net? Can a Linux developer deploy an application (or a web application) as quickly as VB.NET (or ASP.NET, or C#)? Sure, one may argue that these apps are not as "perfect" as those compiled in Linux with C++/Java, but they get their job done. Also, the CLR that powers .NET apps are written by a very experienced and knowledged software engineer.
Considering all the re-training costs, hellish Help Desk (I could be wrong with this argument), and an attractive development platform probably matters more to companies than the Windows subscription fee, which should turn out to be roughly what they were paying for any way. Think about it this way: Most companies still buy Intel, not AMD. Some of them don't even consider saving up costs by getting Celeron or Duron, and go for the mainstream CPUs.
Just because there is a subscription fee to Windows, companies are not going to give dump out their existing platform out of the door. And does Linux have a chance to compete against .Net? Can a Linux developer deploy an application (or a web application) as quickly as VB.NET (or ASP.NET, or C#)? Sure, one may argue that these apps are not as "perfect" as those compiled in Linux with C++/Java, but they get their job done. Also, the CLR that powers .NET apps are written by a very experienced and knowledged software engineer.
Considering all the re-training costs, hellish Help Desk (I could be wrong with this argument), and an attractive development platform probably matters more to companies than the Windows subscription fee, which should turn out to be roughly what they were paying for any way. Think about it this way: Most companies still buy Intel, not AMD. Some of them don't even consider saving up costs by getting Celeron or Duron, and go for the mainstream CPUs.
<< How can you be so sure? >>
joohang, because not one person has embraced the idea of per-by-year pricing and not one person has had anything positive to say regarding product activation. MS's effective monopoly allows them to get away with bludgeoning the Windows user base, if they so choose.
More and more it seems the marketing types and bean counters are calling the shots at MS. Subscription pricing must be stopped. I see it as only bringing harm to our industry.
joohang, because not one person has embraced the idea of per-by-year pricing and not one person has had anything positive to say regarding product activation. MS's effective monopoly allows them to get away with bludgeoning the Windows user base, if they so choose.
More and more it seems the marketing types and bean counters are calling the shots at MS. Subscription pricing must be stopped. I see it as only bringing harm to our industry.
Even if they do this, it'd probably be cracked in about a week...and I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, I could go download Whistler Beta 2 right now...
About the CNN Article:
Is that an official word from Microsoft or a speculation from that Le Tocq person? Also, there is a high possibility that the subscription will be optional. i.e. You may be able to purchase or subscribe to Windows.
He also seems to be a very anti-Microsoft analyst. That CNN article is a shame to be up there. It is backed up by some guy I've never heard of before, who is not a Microsoft representative either.
Judging from my beta testing of other MS products that have subscription features (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, but I won't say it b/c of the NDA) I think it will be optional.
Here's another thread that may interest you.
Link to Deja thread
Is that an official word from Microsoft or a speculation from that Le Tocq person? Also, there is a high possibility that the subscription will be optional. i.e. You may be able to purchase or subscribe to Windows.
He also seems to be a very anti-Microsoft analyst. That CNN article is a shame to be up there. It is backed up by some guy I've never heard of before, who is not a Microsoft representative either.
Judging from my beta testing of other MS products that have subscription features (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, but I won't say it b/c of the NDA) I think it will be optional.
Here's another thread that may interest you.
Link to Deja thread
<< Also, there is a high possibility that the subscription will be optional. >>
The only way to ensure that is to make a large enough stink about it right now. Free speech and all, right? But we'll see.
The only way to ensure that is to make a large enough stink about it right now. Free speech and all, right? But we'll see.
<< ure, one may argue that these apps are not as "perfect" as those compiled in Linux with C++/Java, but they get their job done. >>
See, thats the attitude that keeps M$ in business, users settling for less.. We'll see just how little they settle for...
Is it that we'd prefer to get the OS for free as many of us (me included) do by whatever means (not to imply anything 
), or that you think the total money spent on a subscription basis will be more than we would've paid for OSes?
How much would you pay yearly for the OS? $10? $20? $50? $100?
$10 a year would equate to $100 (I think that's how much the standard microsoft end-user OS costs) in 10 years. Not bad.
$20 is $100 in 5 years. I'm sure we've all bought (or, ahem, upgraded to) a new OS at least once every 5 years.
$50 means $100 every 2 years. Many of us would've bought (or gotten) a new OS in that time, although being forced to pay that much every 2 years is quite annoying.
$100 ....well, if they decided to charge that much, I'm pretty sure it'd fall flat on it's ass pretty quickly.
), or that you think the total money spent on a subscription basis will be more than we would've paid for OSes?How much would you pay yearly for the OS? $10? $20? $50? $100?
$10 a year would equate to $100 (I think that's how much the standard microsoft end-user OS costs) in 10 years. Not bad.
$20 is $100 in 5 years. I'm sure we've all bought (or, ahem, upgraded to) a new OS at least once every 5 years.
$50 means $100 every 2 years. Many of us would've bought (or gotten) a new OS in that time, although being forced to pay that much every 2 years is quite annoying.
$100 ....well, if they decided to charge that much, I'm pretty sure it'd fall flat on it's ass pretty quickly.
Guess what people,
Welcome to the real world.
I know alot of you don't have big computer expercience, such as using mainframes, but this is the status Quo. Companies like Computer Associates, Platinum, EMC, IBM, and the list goes on, run business this way. The most notorious is Computer Associates.
A per year charge is assigned, plus you get a per MIPS charge. The bigger your boxes, the more you pay. In a way, it's detrimental to the industry, but companies like CA are after the bottom line (theirs). Microsoft is testing the market for similar reasons. They can make more money this way, while making it look like they are doing the consumer a favor. If it's a wash, they will return to the old way.
The company I work for spent almost 150 million dollars last year alone on the licensing fees to the software it uses. All platforms. That broke out to about 55% to mainframe/super-computer licenses, and the remaining 45% to PC's and small servers. Those numbers are actually misleading, the workload was actually about 85% mainframe/super-computers and 15% PCs and small servers. So, the licensing money is better spent with the larger platforms. Note that this is a recurring charge, not a one time affair.
Microsoft wants to join the big boys like Sun, IBM, CA, Motorola, Hitachi, etc, for how services are charged. The difference is that the main target for Microsoft is the home user, whereas the others target industry. Industry pays the fees knowing that 1) they don't have much choice (supply and demand), 2) with those high fees comes "johnny on the spot" service. We don't go into hold queus, when we call, they send technicians out immediately. Our service agreements expressly state that.
Though, there is a recent trend, lead by IBM, to change it from a per MIPS pricing scheme to one which is a "pay-as-you-go" plan. Should save money. With IBM producing incredibly powerful machines, some of which in clusters extend to more than 100,000 mips, companies would get slaughtered under the old pricing strategies. So IBM is trying to change the industry to stop charging by maximum number of MIPS, and rather charge by actual MIPS used.
<< And Russ:, why would the OEMs care? They'd probably pay less in licensing fees to microsoft >>
Pretender,
For one very simple reason. Whatever teensy savings they might realize (they already pay pennies on the dollar) will quickly be overwhelmed by the tech support costs associated with hundreds of thousands of customers calling every year to ask "how"?
Russ, NCNE
How about I pirate it once, and never pay for it or any Microsoft software my entire life? Sounds good to me!
At least I have the balls to say it.
At least I have the balls to say it.
This is not such an evil idea as you all make it out to be. Pretender seems to make the most sense, breaking it down to $10 a year, $20 a year and such. Upgrades for the OS now cost about $90 for a retail version, and $50 for an OEM cd. (I'm talking legal routes here.)
I'm sure that with a subscription comes free updates and upgrades. Would the phone company upgrade their phone service and make you keep the old one? The whole point of .NET is to get software as a service - not as a once bought, never upgraded product. Look at it this way. For $10-20 a year, you get the newest "flavor" of OS out there. They wouldn't give you an upgrade to NT Server from 98 for the same price. Whistler is in the same class as 98 and 95. Win 2k is in the same class as NT.
The article said yearly fees, not monthly fees. If I paid $30 a year for continuously upgrading versions of Windows and Office, I would be happy. (a $20/ $10 OS/Office split). It would be smart of MS to still offer full version that you can pay all at once. However, those versions wouldn't have the free upgrade. It all comes down to how often you upgrade. It might save you money, it might not. It is not "evil" MS at work. It is MS the business at work, trying to turn a better profit.
I'm sure that with a subscription comes free updates and upgrades. Would the phone company upgrade their phone service and make you keep the old one? The whole point of .NET is to get software as a service - not as a once bought, never upgraded product. Look at it this way. For $10-20 a year, you get the newest "flavor" of OS out there. They wouldn't give you an upgrade to NT Server from 98 for the same price. Whistler is in the same class as 98 and 95. Win 2k is in the same class as NT.
The article said yearly fees, not monthly fees. If I paid $30 a year for continuously upgrading versions of Windows and Office, I would be happy. (a $20/ $10 OS/Office split). It would be smart of MS to still offer full version that you can pay all at once. However, those versions wouldn't have the free upgrade. It all comes down to how often you upgrade. It might save you money, it might not. It is not "evil" MS at work. It is MS the business at work, trying to turn a better profit.
Yeah, nice if you could set the price. But are you still just as happy thinking about $50/year. Then $75 the next year, and so on and on.
The price will be in Microsofts favor. Figure $75 upfront and $75 a year each. What this means is that M$ can make money out of software even if you don't upgrade. $75 to have the privilage of using there software. Windows 95 would cost $375 if you add it up since it came out.
It's all about making money, and since they have 90 percent of the market they can set the rules and there is nothing the consumer can do about it.
It's all about making money, and since they have 90 percent of the market they can set the rules and there is nothing the consumer can do about it.
Q]It's all about making money, and since they have 90 percent of the market they can set the rules and there is nothing the consumer can do about it. [/i] >>
Except stop buying it. We have the power of the dollar, which means we have the power.
Enough of us get sick of it, they have to change. I mean, is this how you really feel?? I think this is how most users feel. "well, we have no where else to go, and theres nothing we can do about it"... I just couldnt throw my money away like that, and be powerless. I would much rather by an OS for 30 bucks (though I could have got it for FREE) and feel like I gained power, not lost it.
<< One more thing: Linux should look into Plug-n-Play or something similar. >>
BTW, they do, most distros include Kudzu, or something similar, while Ones like BSD detect your hardware on startup as a part of the kernel. Most work better than plug-and-pray I might add.
Except stop buying it. We have the power of the dollar, which means we have the power.
Enough of us get sick of it, they have to change. I mean, is this how you really feel?? I think this is how most users feel. "well, we have no where else to go, and theres nothing we can do about it"... I just couldnt throw my money away like that, and be powerless. I would much rather by an OS for 30 bucks (though I could have got it for FREE) and feel like I gained power, not lost it.
<< One more thing: Linux should look into Plug-n-Play or something similar. >>
BTW, they do, most distros include Kudzu, or something similar, while Ones like BSD detect your hardware on startup as a part of the kernel. Most work better than plug-and-pray I might add.
<< Except stop buying it. We have the power of the dollar, which means we have the power.
Enough of us get sick of it, they have to change. I mean, is this how you really feel?? I think this is how most users feel. "well, we have no where else to go, and theres nothing we can do about it"... I just couldnt throw my money away like that, and be powerless. I would much rather by an OS for 30 bucks (though I could have got it for FREE) and feel like I gained power, not lost it. >>
The problem is, "we" aren't their main buyers. Most of the people are the morons who will go out to the store and buy every new OS and OS upgrade that Micro$haft puts out because it's supposedly "more stable", "has added features", or is just "better". Businesses are also responsible for a large portion of Microsoft's profits, considering the amount they pay per NT or 2k license, and although they don't go for every upgrade, generally money isn't an object to them and they wouldn't care if they had to pay one lump sum or a bunch of yearly payments. The computer administrators might dislike having to deal with any problems which occur and having to call Microsoft up every time a format, re-install, or yearly payment needs to be done, but if they're not making the purchasing decisions, then their suffering has little impact.
To make a long story short, the only way this will be shut down depends on how much the media plays up the "yearly charge" downside and how much attention it receives.
<< Wait, you aren't serious, are you? >>
Absolutely, (If you know what you were doing..) Example: My Girlfreinds Computer. Almost every time it boots up, it detects her vid card and monitor... cant ever get the modem to work.( not that we use it with cable..) and the network card needs drivers replaced every couple of months.. I have tried everything.. maybe there is a hardware problem.. but it is a dual boot, and for some reason, in linux, this isnt a problem. I have been building PCs since the 8086, and from what I have seen of M$ plug and play, it really needs some work. How many times has it not worked for you?? why is it everyone is familiar with the procedure to force detection of hardware?? I have been doing it since 95, yet the only problem I have had with linux in this department is unsupported hardware. But at least a quick check of a website will tell you what isnt supported..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter