|Given that MS has dropped support for Windows 98 and will no longer offer security patches |
Does this justify me stealing a copy of OS X for the Mac as Apple don't support my copy of OS 7?
(By the way, that Mac OS was my fav every OS!)
Most consumer law predates the boom in personal computers and simply hasn't been updated. Unfortunately, most legislators and officials of the judiciary don't actually understand computers - we see evidence of this all the time.
In 1982, my sister's sandwich toaster literally exploded in a blue flash (I was there). It was two years old and out of guarantee, but when I pointed out that the cable inlet was screwed to the hotplate rather than the case (a blatant design/manufacturing flaw) an offer to replace followed immediately.
Incidentally, car manufacturers understand perfectly well that if a (safety critical) manufacturing fault is discovered all affected cars have to be recalled and repaired at zero cost even if the fault is not identified within the guarantee period.
I accept that this principle has not been tested in court with respect to software.
|most legislators and officials of the judiciary don't actually understand computers - we see evidence of this all the time |
Now, now, they understand perfectly well that the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes!
I only use XP because it came with my laptop. I don't see a point in upgrading from 2000 or XP. I will use 2000 for as long as I can. For business use, 98SE or 2000 is just fine.
|instead of trying to squeeze every possible grand out of us all... |
That mantra getting REALLY old (I assume that MS is capable of multitasking - that is working on more than one thing at a time?)
And it sounds like you are in favor of software piracy.
|For business use, 98SE or 2000 is just fine. |
That IS a joke, right?
98 won't even open or run half the programs now being sold, and it is probably THE worst version ever for business.
[edited by: Wlauzon at 1:20 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2006]
> That IS a joke, right?
No. Tell me what business apps will not run on Windows 98SE. If a business needs Office, Office 97 is more than adequate.
What won't run:
And about 53,000 other programs produced since 2005.
All the applications you've mentioned run on Windows 98SE. My point is that there are operating systems from Microsoft that are more than sufficient to handle today's business needs. Use the OS if it come with your computer. I actually downgraded my Dell Dimension 8400 from XP to 2000 when I first purchased it. Couldn't be happier.
|All the applications you've mentioned run on Windows 98SE. |
The Expressions line runs only on XP and Vista.
As a programmer, I can state with confidence that there is no difficulty writing software to run under Win98 and XP. There are a very few issues but mostly these are low-level and only affect utilities (advanced file managers, etc.) Where new functions are used, you have to dynamically link to them and if not present you have to may have to disable the feature, but this is not common.
The best example of this I can think of is when multiple monitors were introduced (in 98 I think). If you want your software to be able to take advantage of multiple monitors whilst still running on older systems, you have to take special measures (but it's pretty easy - I know, I've done it).
Win98 SE is still the minimum requirement for most software and it works pretty well. However, to be fair, it is old and I plan to stop supporting it myself in the software that I write.
It might keep Dad from putting his copy of Vista on his daugther's PC but it won't lock out the real pirates, they'll crack it and distribute it. It will cause trouble for non technical people who, for whatever reason, end up getting shut out of their own system which they fully paid for (virus, disk corruption ...). Arrrrrrrr!
Good point about old copies of Windows helping them with market share. Windows great strength is that nearly everyone has a copy (legal or illegal). Take that away and it opens the door (to your local Mac store ;) ).
The other thing that always amazes me is that on the one hand Microsoft is trying to squeeze every penny possible out of everyone and on the other hand Bill Gates is giving it away. Don't get me wrong, I think Bill's charity is a good thing but it seems to me they could save themselves some time by just charging everyone less for windows, give copies of windows away to charities, researchers (one way to support cancer research), and poor users, and also not being such sticklers about piracy. Most people who try to pirate windows don't do it because they want to, they do it because it's overpriced and they can't afford it.
|Most people who try to pirate windows don't do it because they want to, they do it because it's overpriced and they can't afford it. |
Agreed... what sort of price to the likes of Dell, Lenovo, and HP pay for OEM versions? If the retail price were closer to this, I think most people would be happier with MS - they might even end up increasing their profits by selling more.
|The fact is 97% of all copied software/music ... would not have bought the software if they couldn't get a pirate version |
|as someone pointed out earlier, 95% of "pirates" would never buy Windows for $150. |
mm120: Where did these percentage figures come from?
From an average salary in these countries (and also living and seeing people in these countries); for some of them $150 is a monthly salary, and IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IT WILL BE SPENT ON SOFTWARE.
As far as "good doer Bill", I wouldn't keep my hopes up too high...there were many people before him who created "Charities" and "Foundations". Most of the times it is done to avoid taxation and preserve capital within family. Carefully crafted by lawyers (an Billy has plenty) "foundations" typically have very little to no accountability. I bet Billy will save way more tax-free money then he ever publicly claim to donate. JMHO.
[edited by: aleksl at 12:03 am (utc) on Oct. 7, 2006]
> they might even end up increasing their profits by selling more.
That's the supply & demand curve isn't it? Microsoft would need to sell more units to make up for the reduction in price, but where are the additional PCs going to come from? Ex-pirates? Macintosh? That's a risky proposition and Microsoft could in fact be less profitable if they reduced their price. Someone at Microsoft has probably crunched the numbers and has figured out the best price for their profits.
I think that the price should remain realistic. I view it as a great way to redistribute wealth. If you lower it, then all the fat cats will just spend it on more toys. Everyone else will just continue pirating.
The charity aspect is VERY real. Over $70 million at one specific charity I know of from the inside. *AND* they got IBM and CISCO to kick in the hardware.
Makes GOOGLE look like a bunch of pikers.
plumsauce: The charity aspect is VERY real.
don't doubt that. except for this:
2006 Revenue (ttm) - $44Bln
2006 Gross profit - $36Bln
Microsoft, SEC filing
2006 revenue - $44Bln (same)
2006 profit - $16Bln (my god, $20Bln dollars disappeared? or went to "charities"?)
Quarterly earnings growth -23% (falling big time? stock doesn't seem to care)
There are at least two sources that Microsoft related charitable works come from, Microsoft Inc. and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Only the Microsoft Inc. amounts are "on book".
If you are from outside of North America, you may not be familiar with the difference in numbers from different reporting sources. Notice that the first profit number you gave is GROSS, not NET. Also, there are very specific requirements for SEC filings, think GAAP. Then, there is a third set of numbers to satisfy the IRS.
The FACT remains that the cheque was cut and it was delivered.
Furthermore, William Buffett of Berkshire Industries fame, is a pretty smart cookie, has access to a raft of advisors, and he chose to entrust the foundation with his charitable works.
So, GOOGLE gives away a few scholarships from the pennies left over after outfitting the aerial equivalent of the Playboy Mansion. Pah! Pikers!
|but where are the additional PCs going to come from? |
I was talking about retail prices when I suggested that a reduction in price might increase profits. So far as the retail (pretty box) versions of Windows are concerned, I am sure that the vast majority are upgrades, i.e. additional PCs are not required in order to possibly increase profits by reducing the price of retail versions.
Since the manufacturing costs are very low and the retails costs are very high, it is easy to imagine a 50% reduction in price yielding a 200% increase in sales (with a little advertising) and therefore increased profits.
Most manufacturers that sell goods to the public use special offers and promotions to sell more goods and, in part, to help judge the best price for goods (to maximize revenue). However, I don't remember Microsoft ever having a sale or whatever. Instead, they take the view that they have a virtual monopoly and prefer to wring as much money out of people by brute force.
>> As far as "good doer Bill", I wouldn't keep my hopes up too high...there were many people before him who created "Charities" and "Foundations". Most of the times it is done to avoid taxation and preserve capital within family. Carefully crafted by lawyers (an Billy has plenty) "foundations" typically have very little to no accountability. I bet Billy will save way more tax-free money then he ever publicly claim to donate. JMHO.
Now that's a statement. Let's see if it actually makes sense: Bill is giving away 95% of his wealth to preserve capital for his family? Are you serious? Assuming that the current tax laws stay--and many belive that the "Death Tax" will actually be abolished--in place his children would have to pay 55%, and that is after Bill or his wife died (in 40 - 60 years). Think of how more the shares will be worth by then via stock price increases, dividends, buybacks, company splits into several new ones, and so on.
Look it's OK to hate Gates, Buffet, Google or MSFT but to go into nonsensical tirades and assume that everything one person does is bad, that is not fair nor right. See: [google.com...]
The problem here isn't even whether Microsoft is good at making software or not, the problem here is that Windows runs on 95% of computers, which is far more than for any other piece of software.
With that number of users, in the hundreds of millions, even if they had a 99.99% reliability rate for the piracy lockout system, you're talking massive numbers of legitimate users (including some in major companies) locked out unfairly.
In order to avoid massive amounts of extremely bad publicity, Microsoft won't just have to do a good job on the lockout scheme, they have to do a close-to-perfect job, which is an impossible task.
It wouldn't be so bad if other OSes did this, but they don't, and without the OS working you can't run all the other software you've bought legitimately.
| This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 50 ( 1  ) |