You know that the cost of Windows' licenses are too much when...

[VirtualLarry]

You see full-sized AIO PCs... powered by Android!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...23&ignorebbr=1

What a crazy-expensive abomination of computing this is. If only the Wintel tax was cheaper for OEMs, then they wouldn't have to resort to things like this.

 

[Zaap]

??
I'm not getting what exactly is being resorted to? You can get an AIO running Windows for near the same price. And that thing is ARM and with a touchscreen. It's not new either.

Personally I can't stand all-in-ones in general, but I fail to see what Windows has to do with this.

 

[ViRGE]

??
I'm not getting what exactly is being resorted to? You can get an AIO running Windows for near the same price. And that thing is ARM and with a touchscreen. It's not new either.

Indeed. It's literally an oversized tablet. And not a very good one considering the outdated SoC.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Wasn't Microsoft working on a "starter Edition" for Windows 8 that was free or close to it?

 

[sweenish]

The two things OP mentions have nothing to do with each other. There is no correllation for this.

 

[mikeymikec]

IMO, if MS got rid of the system of having 'OEM' and 'Retail' copies of Windows and just had one type (same price as the OEM version) which can be transferred to a new machine when the old one is decommissioned, and then have an 'Upgrade' version for something like half the price, that would be much more reasonable.

The cost of the retail version is usually something like double the OEM version, and the upgrade version's cost has fluctuated drastically over the years (I remember seeing upgrade versions for more than the OEM version, for example, yet I picked up Win8 Pro for £40, just over half the cost of an OEM licence).

 

[Imaginer]

IMO, if MS got rid of the system of having 'OEM' and 'Retail' copies of Windows and just had one type (same price as the OEM version) which can be transferred to a new machine when the old one is decommissioned, and then have an 'Upgrade' version for something like half the price, that would be much more reasonable.

The cost of the retail version is usually something like double the OEM version, and the upgrade version's cost has fluctuated drastically over the years (I remember seeing upgrade versions for more than the OEM version, for example, yet I picked up Win8 Pro for £40, just over half the cost of an OEM licence).

This model, is fine for custom, personal builds... where one would part out components in an upgrade rather than a whole system...

But keep this in mind.

The old (whole) machine - would most likely be either sold, donated, or transfered to another person (of which would also put it to use). You effectively have taken away an OS from that buyer/recipient. And usually, when one buys a new machine - the OS comes with it rather than having to bring your own in many cases to begin with.

Retail versions, per agreement, have this flexibility you have mentioned - and is sold as a stand-alone. Upgrades however, if applied to OEM installs, are still bound by OEM licensing (and my paragraph above).

Also, the cost of a usual retail license, this can be cheaper - on the levels of a deluxe version of a video game. But the main complaints and heavy "bitching" comes from people that expect something for nothing on ALL software.

 

[Imaginer]

Also, Android systems - are service subsidized. Windows systems, are meant to be standalone.

 

[TerryMathews]

Also, Android systems - are service subsidized. Windows systems, are meant to be standalone.

Oh. So you mean that Microsoft doesn't receive ad revenue through Windows store, WMP store, Bing, and Hotmail/Outlook.com?

 

[Imaginer]

Oh. So you mean that Microsoft doesn't receive ad revenue through Windows store, WMP store, Bing, and Hotmail/Outlook.com?

Not when using it as a desktop Windows system and none of the "free" apps. Also, applies when not searching under "Everything" in Windows 8/8.1 (even then, there are no side ads for anything irrelevant - results are searches). Outlook accounts for me, has NO spam compared to Gmail right now. Windows store, lists what normal stores do anyways - and no typical, ill relevant advertisements.

My point stands, Android is designed and marketed to leverage being subsidized by services in a connected manner. Windows, from the get-go, is stand alone usage (with connectivity).

 

[ninaholic37]

Outlook accounts for me, has NO spam compared to Gmail right now.

Not sure what universe you're living in, but I have both an outlook and gmail account, and the outlook one is definitely just as spammy. In fact, on every computer I've tried, Outlook won't even let me click on anything (i.e. clicking on my messages to read them) until ALL it's spammy ads are loaded, which sometimes takes 5-10 seconds and doesn't even warn me that I have to wait until all the ads are loaded, so it just comes across as "unresponsive" until then. I don't think any other site I've ever visited was so desperate to shove ads in my face.

 

[TerryMathews]

Not when using it as a desktop Windows system and none of the "free" apps. Also, applies when not searching under "Everything" in Windows 8/8.1 (even then, there are no side ads for anything irrelevant - results are searches). Outlook accounts for me, has NO spam compared to Gmail right now. Windows store, lists what normal stores do anyways - and no typical, ill relevant advertisements.

My point stands, Android is designed and marketed to leverage being subsidized by services in a connected manner. Windows, from the get-go, is stand alone usage (with connectivity).

Hasn't been true since Windows XP.

My point stands: at least you get a discount from Google. Microsoft does the same thing and you still pay full price.

 

[Red Squirrel]

You should see how bad it gets in the server world. Not only do you have to pay several grand for the license, but you also have to pay even more per user depending what the server is for. It boggles my mind that companies are ok with paying that kind of money for something virtual.

 

[Imaginer]

Not sure what universe you're living in, but I have both an outlook and gmail account, and the outlook one is definitely just as spammy. In fact, on every computer I've tried, Outlook won't even let me click on anything (i.e. clicking on my messages to read them) until ALL it's spammy ads are loaded, which sometimes takes 5-10 seconds and doesn't even warn me that I have to wait until all the ads are loaded, so it just comes across as "unresponsive" until then. I don't think any other site I've ever visited was so desperate to shove ads in my face.

The website, upon logging into outlook.com, adblock on Opera blocked 5 ads. Is that what you mean?

I am referring to the spam email in my junk folders. Currently, I have not received any spam in my outlook email versus gmail.

If we are talking about the desktop Outlook or modern Windows mail clients, this isn't an issue to begin with.

 

[Imaginer]

It boggles my mind that companies are ok with paying that kind of money for something virtual.

Then why pay for someone posting news articles and doing their due diligence in reporting it by compiling the relevant information and presenting it in a manner that is concise and gets the point across? That is in essence, virtual. The propagation of an idea or point.

Software, is virtual, but time and effort goes into creating and supporting the code and software. You honestly think these things should come free? Software development, is always concurrent and good suites are kept up to date.

What sometimes irks me about the free solutions - is that sometimes, support is not as solid or concurrent, and this depends on the level of interest. What more, is that it is still not entirely free - someone has to put their time into that effort that takes away time from other efforts (namely either day jobs, or other projects).

Another, is that many free coders - do not always follow best practices to begin with (being learned off the cruft). Because of this, the code in itself can be not as ideal and leads to problems. Though I am not discounting paid houses of software coding either - because even some people there are guilty of not following good conventions - that trickle down.

I used my fair share of free suites and paid suites. Overall, "free" software works... but I ran into more hurdles to jump over versus some of the paid software suites. It is also a reason why I do not mind paying for something that will garner a level of solid support with ease of collaboration in case something goes wrong (in case of your example - server software, for me it would be my CAD software).

Could the seats be cheaper over time? Sure, but that goes into the business planning side of things - less people to buy into or being a part of the market will insinuate higher costs for the recuperation of development time given a certain period of time.