The 'WINDOWS TAX'

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
You're the one trolling, complaining about the cost of Windows when pretty much every other piece of commercial software is priced similar or higher. Hell most games cost $60, that's 1/2 of the price for something that will be used 1/10 of the time.

So in you logic anyone who posts a new thread is a troll?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
And you're the one person who decides what's too much money or not? Don't be so arrogant as to try to force your beliefs on others because you are no one to do so. As for licensing other OSes... Linux is free, got anything else to add? And no we don't need enterprise software for our home.

No, the owner of the software is and MS has decided on the price of their software. Linux is free, but you've already given reasons why you can't use it so how is that relevant? If you're limiting yourself to Windows you're stuck paying for Windows it's as simple as that. If you want to spend the time converting to another OS you're free to do that as well. The only thing I can see that MS should do, is offer a 'family pack' of like 3 licenses like Apple does.

You think? Why don't you check your facts before you post. The stuff you just wrote is pure garbage. Because of competition? What competition? And bad press? You must be joking. If you create a product and charge everyone in the world to pay you, you better be able to back up that product. And what are you sayinga bout .Net? You made half a statement then just stopped.....

Competition in the server market and there has been lots of bad press about past IE, IIS, RPC, etc exploits that had to have some impact on MS' decision to focus more on security. And my statement didn't stop early, I just didn't feel like explaining how converting things like IE and WMP to .Net will make them harder to exploit.

Um.. The Windows source code is theirs and no one elses, so YES then can open up the source code and let other developers work on Window related fixes, for FREE! But MS chooses not to for whatever convoluted excuse they choose to dream up.

Um, no it's not. Hit Help->About in IE and you'll see that it's based on Mosaic and distributed with parts licensed from Spyglass, RSA, Independent JPEG group and Intel. And that's just IE.

So you're saying if I don't like Windows I should get a Mac? Why in the world do I need to buy an Apple when I choose to build a PC for myself? Where is the logic in that?

A Mac is a Personal Computer. If you don't want to run Windows and you don't want to learn Linux, OS X is the next logical choice.

You think so? Look at what is happening with Blue-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Microsoft supports HD-DVD while the majority of manufacturers support Blue-Ray(which they believe is the better technology) but because of Microsoft's cloute in the PC market, they can offer incetives to OEMs who live off a razor thin margine of 3% or less and cooerce them to use HD-DVD player in the systems rather than Blue-Ray. HP which in on the Blue-Ray board has already switched over to HD-DVD for unspecified reason, but you can't doubt Microsofts hand in the move.

I don't see how that means that Microsoft "owns" me. They definitely have influence on upcomming technologies, but so do many other corporations.

So in you logic anyone who posts a new thread is a troll?

No, just anyone who starts an intentionally inflammatory thread with no intention of following any of the advice posted in that thead.
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
And you're the one person who decides what's too much money or not? Don't be so arrogant as to try to force your beliefs on others because you are no one to do so. As for licensing other OSes... Linux is free, got anything else to add? And no we don't need enterprise software for our home.

No, the owner of the software is and MS has decided on the price of their software. Linux is free, but you've already given reasons why you can't use it so how is that relevant? If you're limiting yourself to Windows you're stuck paying for Windows it's as simple as that. If you want to spend the time converting to another OS you're free to do that as well. The only thing I can see that MS should do, is offer a 'family pack' of like 3 licenses like Apple does.

You think? Why don't you check your facts before you post. The stuff you just wrote is pure garbage. Because of competition? What competition? And bad press? You must be joking. If you create a product and charge everyone in the world to pay you, you better be able to back up that product. And what are you sayinga bout .Net? You made half a statement then just stopped.....

Competition in the server market and there has been lots of bad press about past IE, IIS, RPC, etc exploits that had to have some impact on MS' decision to focus more on security. And my statement didn't stop early, I just didn't feel like explaining how converting things like IE and WMP to .Net will make them harder to exploit.

Um.. The Windows source code is theirs and no one elses, so YES then can open up the source code and let other developers work on Window related fixes, for FREE! But MS chooses not to for whatever convoluted excuse they choose to dream up.

Um, no it's not. Hit Help->About in IE and you'll see that it's based on Mosaic and distributed with parts licensed from Spyglass, RSA, Independent JPEG group and Intel. And that's just IE.

So you're saying if I don't like Windows I should get a Mac? Why in the world do I need to buy an Apple when I choose to build a PC for myself? Where is the logic in that?

A Mac is a Personal Computer. If you don't want to run Windows and you don't want to learn Linux, OS X is the next logical choice.

You think so? Look at what is happening with Blue-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Microsoft supports HD-DVD while the majority of manufacturers support Blue-Ray(which they believe is the better technology) but because of Microsoft's cloute in the PC market, they can offer incetives to OEMs who live off a razor thin margine of 3% or less and cooerce them to use HD-DVD player in the systems rather than Blue-Ray. HP which in on the Blue-Ray board has already switched over to HD-DVD for unspecified reason, but you can't doubt Microsofts hand in the move.

I don't see how that means that Microsoft "owns" me. They definitely have influence on upcomming technologies, but so do many other corporations.

So in you logic anyone who posts a new thread is a troll?

No, just anyone who starts an intentionally inflammatory thread with no intention of following any of the advice posted in that thead.

So you're saying IE is the Windows OS? Are you sure you're not working for Gates?

You are nothing but a Troll I'm done with you.
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Adobe Premiere Pro and above, fscking AVID newer versions.

That does suck if that's true. If you have a support contract with Adobe why not call them and complain? They might have a valid reason, but I can't think of anything that XP does that Win2K doesn't that Premier would need. And sticking with an older version of Premier is also an option.

Thats a pretty rediculous request when I can't predict in the future what I'll come across that I may or may not want to install XP on...

Not really, ideally with sysprep you should be able to restore that ghost to whatever you want as long as there are drivers. And you did say "on that old machine 10 or 20 years in the future" so I assumed you'd be attempting to install it on hardware you know it supports.

And a know it all.. typical troll behavior.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Originally posted by: drag
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Secure by default has it's caveats too.

Just because a service is disabled by default doesn't mean it's secure. It needs to be secure when it's running. An OS that was secure by default, as well as being secure when configured (prevented you from making bad decisions) would be much more desirable.

Well only ship software you know doesn't have security problems goes without saying.

And it's impossible to make it secure under all configurations.

It depends heavily on the circumstances. Circumstances that are beyond the control of the developers. There are numerious times that a administrator may want to make a configuration change that is secure in one setting, like if he is using the software in a secure network, that is insecure in another setting, like if he is using the software on the internet.
Sure, but analysis tools could show an unsecure setting in an unsecure network, or warn about it. I'm thinking along the lines of MBSA for the server apps.

So it's not usefull to design the software to second guess the administrator. The administrator is always right. Warnings and documentation are fine, but fighting the administrator is not.
Agreed, don't take the power away from the admin, but more information is needed.

This idea also requires the knowledge to secure it, this is a double edged blade.

'Secure by default' method tries to set it up so that it requires knowledge to 'unsecure' it. So that way your already far ahead then what is most commercial software is setup as.

At least then you know that administrator took the effort to learn _something_.
On the job is not the place to learn, at least not at the admin level.

Originally posted by: Chosonman
I don't see myself buying a $500 video card so your reference obviously doesn't include me.
Regardless of the fact you think $150-$200 isnt a lot of money someone else might feel it's too much money it's not up to you to force other people to believing what you think.
Dude, I see the rig in your link, you have no room to complain about ~$80 OS when you're running a AMD64/3400/1GB/6800/dell FP1905.

Where the hell are you buying XP for $200? XP Home can be had for ~$80, pro for ~$140. The fact you quote such a high number shows bias.

Do you even require Pro? About what you likely paid for just your RAM or video card.

The amount charged is VERY reasonable, see OSX which costs ~$100.

Folks, the $500 number I quoted on video cards is obviously the high end. The average video card costs equal or less than the OS ($100-150). That's a single part in the whole PC, you folks sure don't mind spending $150 on a: video card, RAM, x2 for a processor, x3 for a monitor...

Let's be real when we are comparing things, mmkay?
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Sorry, I still think file encryption should be used by everyone. And permissions should be editable. XP home is trash.

Spoken by the true Linux user - seriously, not everyone works for the CIA.

I hate Linux.

The best way to make your computer secure is to never turn it on - but obviously we need to make compromises between security & usability. The odds are far greater that a user is going to loose their encryption key, than anyone is going to break in & steal their data.

There are too many big botnets out there for me to believe it's hard to get into machines. They burn a cd with their key, put it in a safe. Ta-da! Done.

In today's world, computers have become a necessity for everyday life, not just a luxory toy. Everyone needs to learn them, everyone needs to use them. Computers cannot become so complex that everyone needs to have extensive training just to turn them on.

I know plenty of people that get by just fine without them.
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
Originally posted by: Chosonman
So you guys think if I migrated to Linux I wouldn't have any problems running my programs? ie.. games

I know there's a Direct-X emulator for Linux around, but that' costs money to. :(

Try Ubuntu and search for wine or winex in the package manager, or is it cedega? I'm not sure if there is still a charge for it or I was thinking it was available for free now. I'm not too knowledgeable on gaming period... Even if it did cost, I bet it is cheaper than Windows XP.

I would expect though that most of your non-game software has Open Source equivalents that run on linux and are as good, if not better, than the proprietary software. I've switched most of my software to open source stuff, even though I've purchase the proprietary version, just because I try the open source software and like it better.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
So you're saying IE is the Windows OS? Are you sure you're not working for Gates?

Depends on where you draw the line. IE is bundled with the OS and you can't remove it without breaking a large portion of the OS, so while it should be seperate it's defintely required for the OS to function.

You are nothing but a Troll I'm done with you.

I'm the troll? Which one of us started the thread and has ignored every piece of advice given?

Is it just me, or is it getting hot in here?

If by hot you mean the OP is seeing his complaints torn apart and has no rebuttle, then yes.

Try Ubuntu and search for wine or winex in the package manager, or is it cedega? I'm not sure if there is still a charge for it or I was thinking it was available for free now. I'm not too knowledgeable on gaming period... Even if it did cost, I bet it is cheaper than Windows XP.

WINE is the main project, WineX was a fork that focused on gaming support and was later renamed to Cedega. You still have to get a license if you want full support for copy protection and things, but you can get a copy without the non-free parts from CVS for free.
 

kobymu

Senior member
Mar 21, 2005
576
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Sorry, I still think file encryption should be used by everyone. And permissions should be editable. XP home is trash.

Spoken by the true Linux user - seriously, not everyone works for the CIA.

I hate Linux.
god dam you made me spill my coffee :laugh:
ohhh don't you just love it when people make assumptions like that:roll:

 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Is it just me, or is it getting hot in here?

If by hot you mean the OP is seeing his complaints torn apart and has no rebuttle, then yes.

If you call your weak opinions and the comment about my spelling an arguement you can go win some more arguments at you local elementary school with kids closer to your intellectual level. As I said before I'm done with you troll. :)

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Chosonman
I don't see myself buying a $500 video card so your reference obviously doesn't include me.
Regardless of the fact you think $150-$200 isnt a lot of money someone else might feel it's too much money it's not up to you to force other people to believing what you think.
Dude, I see the rig in your link, you have no room to complain about ~$80 OS when you're running a AMD64/3400/1GB/6800/dell FP1905.

Where the hell are you buying XP for $200? XP Home can be had for ~$80, pro for ~$140. The fact you quote such a high number shows bias.

Do you even require Pro? About what you likely paid for just your RAM or video card.

The amount charged is VERY reasonable, see OSX which costs ~$100.

Folks, the $500 number I quoted on video cards is obviously the high end. The average video card costs equal or less than the OS ($100-150). That's a single part in the whole PC, you folks sure don't mind spending $150 on a: video card, RAM, x2 for a processor, x3 for a monitor...

Let's be real when we are comparing things, mmkay?

The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

And as I said before what is small change to you or me is different for everyone else.
It is money that could be saved regarless of it were 1 cent or $100.

So why do you have to pay Microsoft as much as half the cost of a PC everytime you want to buy a PC?

 

JonnyBlaze

Diamond Member
May 24, 2001
3,114
1
0
the price of the os shouldnt be compared to the price of the system. if your that worried about where your pennies are going use linux.
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
maybe you should take this argument up with m$ like the millions of other angry users out there.

whether you like it or not you have to pay to use one license of windows xp and up. as was said earlier, you have other options, 1 is free, the other is the same as m$.

actually you have a third option as well, you could creat your own os and not have to deal with m$ ever again. however likely that may is up to you.

there's no point crying over the money issue. like just about everything else in this world you have to purchase consumer goods.

i understand your frustration, but there's no other way around it legally.
:)
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Originally posted by: Chosonman
The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

And as I said before what is small change to you or me is different for everyone else.
It is money that could be saved regarless of it were 1 cent or $100.

So why do you have to pay Microsoft as much as half the cost of a PC everytime you want to buy a PC?
OK, at this point I'm going to say you are being completely illogical about this.

You say the exact amount is irrelevant, but then mention 1/2 the cost of a PC.

I compare the price vs. what YOUR rig would cost, and you suddenly don't like comparing the price of the OS to the price of the system.

I also compare the price vs. the competition (OSX is a very fair comparison, no one seemed to disagreed with).

The price was also compared to other software.

Your only complaint is there's only 1 OS manufacturer to buy from. After all, you also pay a "video card tax", a "processor tax", a "mobo tax", a "HSF tax" etc. Of course those are going to various companies, so you have no complaint there. :roll:
 

cker

Member
Dec 19, 2005
175
0
0
There are and have been options other than MS for operating systems. All of them have disadvantages.

Linux is cheap, good quality, and runs on lots of hardware. It's got spotty support for cutting-edge video most of the time, and is not user-friendly enough for Grandma.
MacOS is arguably the nicest Unix-ey OS to run, but is only available for specific (pricey) hardware.
BeOS was fast, light and really nice. It died because it was picky about hardware and didn't have the applications users wanted.
Windows runs on almost anything x86, and has a decent user interface. The catch is that it's expensive.

While I'm not a Microsoftie, I appreciate what they've done in terms of creating a universal platform. Consider the price for Windows to reflect more than what you get in the box. You get Windows, you get Windows Update, some low-quality bundled apps like Wordpad (which you can replace with free software), but the real value in my mind comes from universality. There's a huge library of commercial software for Windows - MasterCook, Quicken, Half Life 2, et c. I use Windows, not because I like Windows, but because I want to run Quicken and games. I use Linux for relational databases, servers, programming (talk about bang-for-buck) and work -- I use Windows to balance my checkbook and shoot Nazis, Aliens, et c.

If it's not worth the money to run MS software, use something free. FreeBSD, for instance. If you insist on the functionality -- running Windows-only games, or Windows-only software, it's really the price of admission.
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Yeah, the CPU tax sucks too. You have to pay for a CPU every time you want to buy a PC. So annoying.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Well traditionally the 'microsoft tax' concept came about because even if you didn't want to run Windows, you still had to pay for it

Basicly if your running Linux or OpenBSD and still have to pay Microsoft 30-100 bucks out of the cost of your laptop or whatnot then obviously that is very irritating. Nowadays it's not that difficult to find desktops without Windows. It's still a pain to do it for laptops. I decided I'd rather pay for OS X then for windows to run Linux on a laptop, so I bought a ibook.

But complaining about a 'Microsoft Tax' while your primarly using Windows is a bit odd and isn't realy justified.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
If you call your weak opinions and the comment about my spelling an arguement you can go win some more arguments at you local elementary school with kids closer to your intellectual level. As I said before I'm done with you troll.

I made one comment about your spelling and it was tongue-in-cheek, get over it. And so far you haven't said why you think Windows is too expensive other than "hardware is cheaper" which isn't really an argument IMO since they're two completely different things. And on top of that windows is a lot more complicated than any single piece of hardware.

The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

Do you complain about being required to pay for gas for your car too? OMG you have to pay a gas tax in order to drive your car around! And it's a lot more expensive than this MS tax you're complaining about!
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Chosonman
The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

Not really. You can do everything from build your own, to buy barebones, to getting a Macintosh (which is a Personal Computer). None of these options pays anything to Microsoft. :shocked:

And as I said before what is small change to you or me is different for everyone else.
It is money that could be saved regarless of it were 1 cent or $100.

It's $100. It's dinner for 2 at an "okay" restaurant.

So why do you have to pay Microsoft as much as half the cost of a PC everytime you want to buy a PC?

I don't. :evil:
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: Chosonman
The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

And as I said before what is small change to you or me is different for everyone else.
It is money that could be saved regarless of it were 1 cent or $100.

So why do you have to pay Microsoft as much as half the cost of a PC everytime you want to buy a PC?
OK, at this point I'm going to say you are being completely illogical about this.

You say the exact amount is irrelevant, but then mention 1/2 the cost of a PC.

I compare the price vs. what YOUR rig would cost, and you suddenly don't like comparing the price of the OS to the price of the system.

I also compare the price vs. the competition (OSX is a very fair comparison, no one seemed to disagreed with).

The price was also compared to other software.

Your only complaint is there's only 1 OS manufacturer to buy from. After all, you also pay a "video card tax", a "processor tax", a "mobo tax", a "HSF tax" etc. Of course those are going to various companies, so you have no complaint there. :roll:

My rig was free...
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
If you call your weak opinions and the comment about my spelling an arguement you can go win some more arguments at you local elementary school with kids closer to your intellectual level. As I said before I'm done with you troll.

I made one comment about your spelling and it was tongue-in-cheek, get over it. And so far you haven't said why you think Windows is too expensive other than "hardware is cheaper" which isn't really an argument IMO since they're two completely different things. And on top of that windows is a lot more complicated than any single piece of hardware.

The excact amount is irrelevant if you understand the point: For every PC that is made and bought you will have to pay a portion of the cost of the system to Microsoft, which is in essence a Tax on everyone for owning a PC.

Do you complain about being required to pay for gas for your car too? OMG you have to pay a gas tax in order to drive your car around! And it's a lot more expensive than this MS tax you're complaining about!

Why don't you try and buy a house, balance a mortage, pay you car notes, insurance, pay your student loans, and take your wife out to a nice restaurant at least once a week then talk to me about the value of money.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's not that Linux can't run your software, it's your software can't run on Linux.

This is the crux of the issue here.

You as the consumer have a choice when it comes to operating systems. Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris are just SOME of the options available to you. Some cost money. Some are free. Your selection of a particular operating system is not mandatory nor is it forced upon you.

I choose to use Windows XP because I'm familiar with it and the software I use and am familiar with runs on XP. To me, those benefits outweigh the monetary costs of XP. Another user may choose to run Linux because the monetary costs of XP outweigh its benefits. There are tradeoffs made no matter what decision the user makes. To call the price of Windows XP a "tax" and a "mandatory constraint" is ludicrous.
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's not that Linux can't run your software, it's your software can't run on Linux.

This is the crux of the issue here.

You as the consumer have a choice when it comes to operating systems. Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris are just SOME of the options available to you. Some cost money. Some are free. Your selection of a particular operating system is not mandatory nor is it forced upon you.

I choose to use Windows XP because I'm familiar with it and the software I use and am familiar with runs on XP. To me, those benefits outweigh the monetary costs of XP. Another user may choose to run Linux because the monetary costs of XP outweigh its benefits. There are tradeoffs made no matter what decision the user makes. To call the price of Windows XP a "tax" and a "mandatory constraint" is ludicrous.

Although I agree with you on some points, but the fact remains there is currently virtually no choice for the average home user besides Windows to run the vast majority of software titles. As much as I would like to choose Linux it would not be practical for me right now until the Linux platform is mature enough and has enough support from the software makers for it to become practical.
And for the vast majority of individuals out there migrating to Linux right now would be near imposible considering the level of skills required to impliment such a migration.
So in essence, what you said about having a freedom of choice is rather convoluted at best. Yes the choices are out there, but in essence you really don't have a choice right now.

Also, you must not only consider the cost of the operation system in regards to the influece of Windows over price. As I mentioned before, you must also consider (through the sheer dominence of Windows) MS's influece over PC makers and the level of services they provide to you. OEM's who live off 3% margin are easily influeced by MS rebates and discounts. In the end it will cost you.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: Chosonman
Although I agree with you on some points, but the fact remains there is currently virtually no choice for the average home user besides Windows to run the vast majority of software titles. As much as I would like to choose Linux it would not be practical for me right now until the plateform is mature enough and has enough support from the software makers for it to become practical.
And for the vast majority of individuals out there migrating to Linux right now would be near imposible considering the level of skills required to impliment such a migration.
So in essence, what you said about having a freedom of choice is rather convoluted at best. Yes the choices are out there, but in essence you really don't have a choice right now.

You're thinking about it in the wrong terms. You may say, "Microsoft Word won't run on Linux," but there are many good, open-source alternatives to Word that run just fine on Linux (Open Office comes to mind). The same holds true for surfing the web, sending email, watching videos and listening to MP3s. So while your Windows software titles may not run on Linux, there are certainly substitutes available. Even when substitutes are not available, software such as WINE allows many Windows titles to run seamlessly on Linux.

I never claimed the choice was an easy one, or that changing over to Linux would be simple coming from a Windows background. But there is a choice. It's just a matter of weighing the costs and benefits.