| Subject: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 2:29:48 AM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing, without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and anti-Vista trolls. OK then....... One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses and sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for stopping sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have support cut-off dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about those - but that isn't central to my argument). The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple of reasons: 1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of Vista. Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP and Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer chooses. 2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting two operating systems instead of one. But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own support policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date. They could change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June of this year. For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will continue on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off dates there will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only consider fixing the most serious security breaches". I suspect that the support burden on MS from such a policy would be minimal. They could even reduce it to zero by not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you have a problem with XP after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista". I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those terms. After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day which is no longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically, previous versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by their vendor. In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing to provide support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has been released. This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off dates remain unchanged" - would be: 1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an old, stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off; or a new, fully supported OS with the latest new features. 2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented customers. Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if it makes the customer unhappy? In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications. If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of Thackery's Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I accept you won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them! Why on earth not? SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 4:47:25 AM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing, > without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and > anti-Vista trolls. OK then....... > > One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses > and sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for > stopping sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have > support cut-off dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about > those - but that isn't central to my argument). > > The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple > of reasons: > > 1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of > Vista. > > Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP > and Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer > chooses. > > 2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security > shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting > two operating systems instead of one. > > But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own > support policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date. > They could change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June > of this year. > > For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will > continue on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off > dates there will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only > consider fixing the most serious security breaches". I suspect that the > support burden on MS from such a policy would be minimal. They could even > reduce it to zero by not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you > have a problem with XP after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista". > > I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those > terms. After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day > which is no longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically, > previous versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by > their vendor. In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing > to provide support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has > been released. > > This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off > dates remain unchanged" - would be: > > 1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an > old, stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off; > or a new, fully supported OS with the latest new features. > > 2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented > customers. > > Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must > have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why > Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even > if it makes the customer unhappy? > > In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications. > If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of > Thackery's Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I > accept you won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them! > Why on earth not? > > SteveT If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be obliged to provide full support for it.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 6:07:28 AM |
| From: wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) |
In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > >Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must >have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if >it makes the customer unhappy? > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business partners and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping those entities happy than with anything a customer might think. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 6:23:54 AM |
| From: wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) |
In article <exDFiq0tIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote: > >If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be >obliged to provide full support for it.. > Why? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 6:55:58 AM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
> If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be > obliged to provide full support for it.. On what basis do you make that assertion? How do you define "support"? Microsoft defines what it means by "support" in its EULA. It could, with perfect legality, sell XP as a "legacy" product with no planned fixes. At least, that is my understanding. I was looking at a graphics editor program the other day (can't remember its name), which was available in two versions: the current one, which would only run on W2K, XP and Vista, and an earlier version for those with Win95/98. It was perfectly clear that there was no further support on the older version, but it was for sale if you wanted it. Seems absolutely fair and reasonable to me. SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 7:16:29 AM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:eh3Fcy1tIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be >> obliged to provide full support for it.. > > On what basis do you make that assertion? How do you define "support"? > Microsoft defines what it means by "support" in its EULA. It could, with > perfect legality, sell XP as a "legacy" product with no planned fixes. > > At least, that is my understanding. > > I was looking at a graphics editor program the other day (can't remember > its name), which was available in two versions: the current one, which > would only run on W2K, XP and Vista, and an earlier version for those with > Win95/98. It was perfectly clear that there was no further support on the > older version, but it was for sale if you wanted it. > > Seems absolutely fair and reasonable to me. > Fair and reasonable means nothing to lawyers. Microsoft is a big target. That's in the US. In Europe there are laws saying you have to provide support for current products. The EULA doesn't trump laws. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 7:22:28 AM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
the wharf rat wrote: > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must >> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if >> it makes the customer unhappy? >> > > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business partners > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping those > entities happy than with anything a customer might think. > Yep, MS is happy and so are the vendors. Two out of three ain't bad, right? Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 8:38:36 AM |
| From: Frank [Email Address Protection] |
the wharf rat wrote: > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must >>have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even if >>it makes the customer unhappy? >> > > > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software > in addition to the new operating system. Stop lying mr rat, that is not a true statement. Frank |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 8:39:09 AM |
| From: Frank [Email Address Protection] |
Alias wrote: > the wharf rat wrote: > >> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>> must have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - >>> on why Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next >>> month, even if it makes the customer unhappy? >>> >> >> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new >> software >> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >> business partners >> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >> those >> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >> > > Yep, MS is happy and so are the vendors. Two out of three ain't bad, right? > > Alias Get lost! You don't have Vista. Loser! Frank |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 8:55:54 AM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... > In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, > Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must >>have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even >>if >>it makes the customer unhappy? >> > > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business > partners > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping > those > entities happy than with anything a customer might think. > I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 9:17:14 AM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message news:g0k1ta$gfi$1@reader2.panix.com... > In article <exDFiq0tIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, > Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote: >> >>If a product is still a main part of the portfolio, a company will be >>obliged to provide full support for it.. >> > > Why? > Apart from the updates, to keep XP alive, MS would have to produce the installation media, manuals, packaging, all of which costs. MS no longer want or need these costs as the employees are required to work on Vista, Windows 7, and all of the other current and future product ranges -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 9:19:15 AM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message > news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must >>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, >>> even if >>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>> >> >> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software >> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >> business partners >> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >> those >> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >> > > > I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. > > Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 9:26:31 AM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
> Fair and reasonable means nothing to lawyers. Microsoft is a big target. > That's in the US. In Europe there are laws saying you have to provide > support for current products. The EULA doesn't trump laws. But it depends how you define "support" and how you define "current". "Fixes for major security breaches only" would be fine. Here's another approach: "No more fixes to XP, but anyone who buys XP after June 08 gets a free upgrade to Vista whenever they want it". That would certainly count as support. Remember, MS wouldn't lose money on it: the alternative is to force you to buy a Vista license after June, and if they price them the same, it would all be the same to their bottom line. Simple, then: "Buy XP or Vista, whichever you prefer. The support for Vista consists of ongoing bug fixes for five years. The support for XP consists of a free update to Vista." I think this WOULD stand up in court, especially when you compare it to the alternative: "buy Vista or piss off". SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 9:57:38 AM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>> must >>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, >>>> even if >>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>> >>> >>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software >>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business >>> partners >>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >>> those >>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>> >> >> >> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >> >> > > Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? > > Alias When I bought my XP MCE system (Compaq AMD X2) all you had to do is go to a web site, and they sent me Vista Premium 32 bit for it. Never did install it. XP MCE was just too stable except for SP3 which I had to rename a DLL to get it to boot afterwards. Got it for a good price as at the time Vista was rolling in. I bet if they still produced systems with XP MCE they would fly off the shelves even today. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 11:08:57 AM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>> must >>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, >>>> even if >>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>> >>> >>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software >>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business >>> partners >>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >>> those >>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>> >> >> >> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >> >> > > Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? > > Alias Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 11:13:34 AM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > I'm hoping this can be an intelligent debate about Microsoft's marketing, > without it being overrun by the usual bunch of offensive kids and > anti-Vista trolls. OK then....... Anti-Vista isn't neccessarily anti-Microsoft. Many people try Vista, then decide they don't like it. My last purchase was deliberately Vista. I wanted to try it and with an open mind. My first impressions were WOW. I loved the Aero. I dived right in. But then as I tried to do things outside of simple email and web surfing, I ran into issues. Performance was a biggie. Copy of large files to/from disk and over the network, I couldn't believe how long it was taking. Then I discovered missing pieces like the policy editor to get Vista working with my storage systems. I did eventually get them to map the drives, but had to turn security off to do so, which I didn't like and have since re-enabled security. I had at least one piece of software needing upgrade, but I knew that in advance. But because I coud resolve the above issues, I deferred making Vista my primary workstation. It simply is not ready for me. I also timed my purchase a few weeks in advance if SP1 as I thought it would fix more issues than it did. > One of the things Microsoft wants to do is stop selling new XP licenses > and sell Vista licenses instead. I believe the current target for > stopping sales of XP is next month. I vaguely understand they have > support cut-off dates for XP of 2009 and 2014 (I may be wrong about > those - but that isn't central to my argument). Ford could also stop selling cars and only sell F450's too. > The thing is, why is MS to keen to stop selling XP? I've heard a couple > of reasons: > > 1/ They have to get a return on their investment in the development of > Vista. > > Of course, this can't be right - a sale is a sale, and if they priced XP > and Vista the same, then they get the money whichever the customer > chooses. It is pretty obvious, Microsoft isn't about choices, it what WeSaySo Corp says goes. > 2/ They don't want the burden of supporting XP - with its security > shortcomings - for longer than necessary. Also, they would be supporting > two operating systems instead of one. Burden? It is seasoned and stable code compared to Vista. They don't have to re-write XP or XP x64.... just maintain it with newer drivers and it would work for some time yet to come. And it wouldn't take billions and 5 years to produce like Vista. > But this seems a bit weak to me. Microsoft is in charge of its own > support policy - it doesn't HAVE to support an OS past a certain date. > They could change the licensing terms for all new sales of XP after June > of this year. They could. You could sum up the EULA as you have no rights, Microsoft has all rights. You don't have to read the 50KB of it to get the message. > For instance, I reckon Microsoft could say something like: "XP will > continue on sale indefinitely, but after the existing support cut-off > dates there will be NO new features, NO bug fixes and we will only > consider fixing the most serious security breaches". I suspect that the > support burden on MS from such a policy would be minimal. They could even > reduce it to zero by not fixing any security breaches, either - "if you > have a problem with XP after the cut-off dates, upgrade to Vista". Would you buy a car in 2006 knowing you couldn't get get parts and a tune-up in 2008? > I'm prepared to bet that LOADS of people would still buy XP on those > terms. After all, LOADS of people still happily use software every day > which is no longer supported. If it does the job, why not? Basically, > previous versions of almost any software are generally unsupported by > their vendor. In fact, Microsoft is probably rather unusual in continuing > to provide support for earlier versions of Office when a later version has > been released. > > This policy - "buy XP if you insist, but our existing support cut-off > dates remain unchanged" - would be: > > 1/ Good for customers, because they get a free choice whether to buy an > old, stable OS with a familiar interface and a 2009/2014 support cut-off; > or a new, fully supported OS with the latest new features. Most PCs you buy today (2008) will be retired by 2014. 6 years. > 2/ Good for MS, because they continue to sell new licences to contented > customers. Good point except for the contented customers part. Vista is a mess in contented. > Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they must > have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why > Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, even > if it makes the customer unhappy? Not stupid at all. Greedy, over-priced yes. But brilliant. You buy a PC with Vista. MS sells a license via the OEM. You find out Premium or Basic is a insufficient for your needs. Now Microsoft will sell you a second copy of Ultimate if you stay Vista or if you need XP, they sell you a second copy. The second dip. Now that active Vista development has ceased, they are on to Win7 leaving Vista-unfinished into maintenance mode the idea is that people will be so sick of Vista, they will blindly buy Win7 right away. The triple dip. In the end, Microsoft will sell up to 3 OSes for 1 PC bought today. > In closing, let me just say this. I develop small software applications. > If a customer said to me "I'd like to buy the previous version of > Thackery's Wonder Widget, because I prefer the user interface, and yes, I > accept you won't be doing any more bugfixes on it", I'd sell it to them! > Why on earth not? Because it forces you onto the Microsoft OS tread mill. Microsoft has openly stated, they really want OS changes every 3 years. But the public, including business wants a longer and more stable life cycle. XP is in it's prime and while not new and flashy, it does not come with Vista beta testing problems. Take EeePC. Microsoft is taking XP out of the closet as Vista is too much of a hog to run on a EeePC. And EeePC runs Linux. And EeePC is selling. And Microsoft WeSaySo marketing is pissed so many are seeing Linux can and does work. Our dependency on Microsoft is artificial and hype. I am not anti-Vista, it just inst ready. That is why I keep my main desktop XP. Nor am I am anti-Microsoft. While it is my opinion Vista sucks, I have run every OS they have except for WinMe from DOS 2.0 forward. I have run many others. And for the billions spent, a so called mature development environment, 5+ years in development, starting with an existing code base, Microsoft should be embarased at Vista performance and quality. Since you develop small applications, keep your code portable. If Win7 goes down like Vista, business isn't going to bite the triple dip, it might be the catalyst for appliance PCs based on Linux for $300. In which case, you can move faster to keep your customers happy. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 11:50:35 AM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message news:%233Ekp$3tIHA.4716@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >> >> Alias > > > Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. So did you pay $500+ for a full Ultimate? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 1:03:40 PM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
> Would you buy a car in 2006 knowing you couldn't get get parts and a > tune-up in 2008? Not a good analogy. Unlike a car, software is just bits. Bits never wear out. I mean, seriously, you could go into your attic and find that old copy of Windows 3.11 and install it on your current machine. It will have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses, bugs and shortcomings as it had when you put it in the attic ten years ago. It never needs "parts" or a "tune-up" because it isn't mechanical and it can't wear out. It's just bits. I repeat: LOTS of people use software which is YEARS out of date and totally unsupported - in some cases the vendor has disappeared. But guess what? It works exactly like it always did (including with the same bugs it always had). That will be true for XP, too. The only thing that could render XP unusable is if there were a major rethink of PC hardware. Until then, it will just work. It doesn't NEED ongoing support to keep "just working". I repeat: I honestly can't see any LOGICAL reason why MS shouldn't let you continue buying XP indefinitely, PROVIDED the EULA is modified to say "support ceases in 2009/2014, so caveat emptor". Then it is perfectly clear to the customer exactly what they are buying. In many ways, it's just like buying a new television with a two year guarantee. In effect, the contract with the buyer is that the manufacturer will support it against failure for two years. After that they wash their hands of it. If it breaks, it's the customer's problem. MS could do exactly the same with XP. And as I said, if it's priced the same as Vista then MS has got your money either way. Why should they care whether it's for an XP license or a Vista license? SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 1:26:35 PM |
| From: "Steve Thackery" [Email Address Protection] |
> In the end, Microsoft will sell up to 3 OSes for 1 PC bought today. Canuck, I don't think I really buy your "conspiracy theory" version of Microsoft's Vista marketing tactics - selling you a crap OS so you have to upgrade once or twice more. I think Vista is below par for three reasons: 1/ The current code base has "gone critical" - much of it is top heavy, messy, riddled with legacy workarounds and compatibility bodges, and has become almost unmaintainable (although see my next note). 2/ MS abandoned the development program for what would have been XP's successor in 2003, after having already invested a few years of development in it. The reason was Microsoft's belated realisation of the serious security flaws in their current OS architecture. In fact Vista was begun again, almost from scratch - based in no small part on Server 2003 code. So basically Vista was knocked together in a real hurry. 3/ I get the impression that some of the key, top personnel may have moved into different roles, leaving the Vista development team somewhat less competent that it should have been. For instance, although the UI is better than XP's (in my opinion), it is riddled with inelegancies and inconstencies, suggesting it really wasn't properly thought through. And the file copying debacle is a classic example of incompetence: at RTM is was bloodly hopeless, and even now, after SP1, it's still not as good as XP. They "fixed" something that nobody thought was broken. The first two points are easily confirmed just by reading various insider blogs. The third is mostly just an impression I've got by reading between the lines, and using Vista myself since it came out. I don't think MS would deliberately release a below-par product, intending you to pay again to get a fixed version. I don't think they would take such a risky strategy now that there is significant competition in almost every area they play in. The best way to keep customers - I would suggest - is to do what Apple do. They release a product which everybody thinks is superb, and make the next product even better, and so on. By doing that they build up a committed customer base who thing Apple walks on water, and who keep coming back for more. I bet MS would like to do that if they could. I think Microsoft's OS team has lost the plot - no more, no less. SteveT |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 3:58:32 PM |
| From: "Marc " [Email Address Protection] |
"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... > Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software > in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft business > partners > and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping > those > entities happy than with anything a customer might think. > Except when Microsoft starts including products it's partners provide with Windows... Zip, Moving Making, Calendar, Sidebar anyone? They can't win. They include extra bits and get accused of monopolizing, they don't add stuff, so you need to go and buy it, and they're sucking up to business partners. Marc |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 11:31:49 AM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message > news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>>> must >>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next >>>>> month, even if >>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software >>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>> business partners >>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with >>>> keeping those >>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>> >>> >> >> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >> >> Alias > > > Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. > > So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap. Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/16/2008 6:24:24 PM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>>>> must >>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on why >>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, >>>>>> even if >>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new software >>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>>> business partners >>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >>>>> those >>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >>> >>> Alias >> >> >> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. >> >> > > So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. Enough > said and thanks for stepping into the trap. > > Alias Are you on strong medications? Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be more than enough to run Vista. Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it a serious gaming machine. I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 2:11:42 AM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message > news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and >>>>>>> they must >>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on >>>>>>> why >>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next >>>>>>> month, even if >>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new >>>>>> software >>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>>>> business partners >>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with >>>>>> keeping those >>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >>>> >>>> Alias >>> >>> >>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. >>> >>> >> >> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. >> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap. >> >> Alias > > > Are you on strong medications? > > Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running > Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be > more than enough to run Vista. > > Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it > a serious gaming machine. > > I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista.. > Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long before it was released. I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good job all by itself and doesn't need my help. Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 4:19:17 AM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message news:g0m7ge$4kh$1@aioe.org... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message >> news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on >>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next >>>>>>>> month, even if >>>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new >>>>>>> software >>>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>>>>> business partners >>>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with >>>>>>> keeping those >>>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >>>>> >>>>> Alias >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. >>> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap. >>> >>> Alias >> >> >> Are you on strong medications? >> >> Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running >> Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be >> more than enough to run Vista. >> >> Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it a >> serious gaming machine. >> >> I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista.. >> > > Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long > before it was released. > > I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good job > all by itself and doesn't need my help. > > Alias But I don't have high end hardware. Single core AMD 3500, and 2gb RAM and a 256mb nVidia 6600 video card which I bought to play my games because they were not good with the motherboard integrated video.. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you make it up as you go along. You are a FUD spreader.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 4:56:17 AM |
| From: :: Alias :: [Email Address Protection] |
Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message > news:g0m7ge$4kh$1@aioe.org... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org... >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and >>>>>>>>> they must >>>>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - >>>>>>>>> on why >>>>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next >>>>>>>>> month, even if >>>>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new >>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>>>>>> business partners >>>>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with >>>>>>>> keeping those >>>>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alias >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. >>>> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap. >>>> >>>> Alias >>> >>> >>> Are you on strong medications? >>> >>> Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running >>> Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would >>> be more than enough to run Vista. >>> >>> Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is >>> it a serious gaming machine. >>> >>> I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista.. >>> >> >> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >> before it was released. >> >> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >> >> Alias > > > But I don't have high end hardware. Single core AMD 3500, and 2gb RAM > and a 256mb nVidia 6600 video card which I bought to play my games > because they were not good with the motherboard integrated video.. > > You have no idea what you are talking about, and you make it up as you > go along. You are a FUD spreader.. > > 2 gigs RAM? Enough said. Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 7:31:36 AM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
> > Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long > before it was released. > > I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good job > all by itself and doesn't need my help. > I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high end. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 7:49:26 AM |
| From: :: Alias :: [Email Address Protection] |
Kerry Brown wrote: >> >> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >> before it was released. >> >> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >> > > > I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista > Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high > end. > A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain. Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 8:54:50 AM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Kerry Brown wrote: >>> >>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>> before it was released. >>> >>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>> >> >> >> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista Home >> Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high end. >> > > A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to > build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of > buying retail Ultimate in Spain. > I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I consider to be decent quality. Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where you live. The system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet Vista runs with no problems on it. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 9:09:56 AM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
Kerry Brown wrote: > ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message > news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware >>>> long before it was released. >>>> >>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very >>>> good job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call >>> high end. >>> >> >> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware >> to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the >> cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >> > > > I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in > the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high > end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 > RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very > well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I > consider to be decent quality. > > Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 > Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 > 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 > Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 > LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 > Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 > Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? > Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised > brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could > probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any > edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be > stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is > $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another > $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you > should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has > impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is relative to > where you live. The system specs would not be considered high end > anywhere yet Vista runs with no problems on it. > Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista (or XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete computer. If I wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get a friend to buy it in the States and send it to me. That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the cold and where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and it never goes under 5�C so Canada is completely out of the question :-) Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 9:11:51 AM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message news:u58%23%23y7tIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message > news:g0kjuk$otu$2@aioe.org... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:eoeqWC3tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:g0k0ug$1f1$1@reader2.panix.com... >>>>>> In article <u6ihweztIHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, >>>>>> Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously the marketing machine in Microsoft isn't stupid, and they >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> have considered this. Does anyone know - or have an opinion - on >>>>>>> why >>>>>>> Microsoft are forcing their customers to use Vista after next month, >>>>>>> even if >>>>>>> it makes the customer unhappy? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Vista requires that you purchase new hardware and new >>>>>> software >>>>>> in addition to the new operating system. That makes Microsoft >>>>>> business partners >>>>>> and subsidiaries happy. Microsoft is far more concerned with keeping >>>>>> those >>>>>> entities happy than with anything a customer might think. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am running the same hardware setup that I had for XP.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, so you're using Vista Basic? >>>> >>>> Alias >>> >>> >>> Nope.. I am running Vista Ultimate.. all bells and whistles.. >>> >>> >> >> So you bought the machine knowing that you would need it for Vista. >> Enough said and thanks for stepping into the trap. >> >> Alias > > > Are you on strong medications? > > Any machine supplied with MCE 2005 is well up to the task of running > Vista. Many hobbyists and all serious gamers had machines which would be > more than enough to run Vista. > > Mine was not supplied with MCE 2005 (it is a home build), neither is it a > serious gaming machine. > > I stepped in no trap, but you are still using FUD to discredit Vista.. I have XP MCE on a AMD X2, and HP also mailed out the Vista CDs. But I can tell you, XP MCE is what most people want, stable, relatively fast and compatible. I will never downgrade it with Vista unless Microsoft fixes the Vista issues good. It will remain my MS-Windows desktop so long as I need MS. I have no doubt it would run Vista. But why mess with a perfectly good and stable working PC? |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 9:25:52 AM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
>> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 > > No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? Built onto the motherboard. It's not a high end system :-) Canadian $ which is pretty much at par these days. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 9:25:05 AM |
| From: Frank [Email Address Protection] |
Alias wrote: > Kerry Brown wrote: >=20 >> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message=20 >> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware=20 >>>>> long before it was released. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very=20 >>>>> good job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista= =20 >>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call = >>>> high end. >>>> >>> >>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware = >>> to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the=20 >>> cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>> >> >> >> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living = >> in the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is=20 >> high end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name=20 >> brand DDR2 RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run= =20 >> Vista very well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is = >> what I consider to be decent quality. >> >> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 >=20 >=20 > No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? >=20 >> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised = >> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could=20 >> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any=20 >> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be=20 >> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is=20 >> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be=20 >> another $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00.=20 >> Maybe you should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live = >> in Spain has impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is=20 >> relative to where you live. The system specs would not be considered=20 >> high end anywhere yet Vista runs with no problems on it. >> >=20 > Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista (o= r=20 > XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete computer. I= f=20 > I wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get a friend to bu= y=20 > it in the States and send it to me. >=20 > That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the cold = > and where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and it neve= r=20 > goes under 5=BAC so Canada is completely out of the question :-) >=20 > Alias So is your ability to tell the truth and admit when you're wrong. Frank |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 12:10:23 PM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Kerry Brown wrote: >>> >>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>> before it was released. >>> >>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>> >> >> >> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista Home >> Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high end. >> > > A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to > build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of > buying retail Ultimate in Spain. > > Alias Ya, I still LOL at that $2000 for Vista and MS-Office Retail full versions of Ultimate..... What a farce....hahaha.... Apple, do they do the same? You can buy a nice Apple here for less than MS software and load Open Office. Or like I did on my new system, Ubuntu/Fedora/Vista triple boot and of course, Open Office. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 12:28:52 PM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:2E5A8BF6-8DA4-4129-B7D7-A88CF082CEB9@microsoft.com... > ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message > news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>> before it was released. >>>> >>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high >>> end. >>> >> >> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >> > > > I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in > the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high end. > I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 RAM is > $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very well and > is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I consider to be > decent quality. > > Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 > Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 > 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 > Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 > LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 > Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 > Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 > > Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised > brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could > probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any > edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be stable, > all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is $125.00, > Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another $200.00. > The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you should move > to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has impacted your > computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where you live. The > system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet Vista runs with > no problems on it. You are quoting OEM versions. He is talking the full retail. You know, the better ones that are complete and recoverable. You also are without office tools. Add in business or ultimate office tools you are well over the $1000, more than twice the price of the total hardware package. Me, got a Q6600, 4GB RAM, 22" wide LCD, 500GB drive, Vista (not so) Premium x64 OEM, keyboard, mouse, cables, $749 at Best Buy. No assembly required and a warranty. But I did a refit, to 8GB RAM, 2nd hard drive and a dedicated 8500GT 256M fanless video. Runs Vista like a pig (file/network copy specifically), but Ubuntu with Compiz, smoking hot and fast. Back to software, sounds like Microsoft is shafting Euros, probably because of the court decisions for Microsoft anti-competitive business practices. But at $2000 for a OS and Office full versions, I imagine Macs and Linux are making serious headway. And think, Canada have NAFTA free trade with the US and a par dollar. That Vista OEM is cheaper in the US, 97.87 at MWave. How does it feel to pay 25% more for being Canadian? Mind you, that is better than what Alias has to deal with in Spain...ouch... |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 12:37:24 PM |
| From: "Canuck57" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message news:g0n00k$984$1@aioe.org... > Kerry Brown wrote: >> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>>> before it was released. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call >>>> high end. >>>> >>> >>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >>> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >>> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>> >> >> >> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in >> the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high >> end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 >> RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very >> well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I >> consider to be decent quality. >> >> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 > > No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? CAD and USD are near par with each other, have been now for 4 months now or so. Ok, it fluxuates up and down but it so close it is like the Bank of Canada is managing it to be par. >> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised >> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could >> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any >> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be >> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is >> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another >> $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you >> should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has >> impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where >> you live. The system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet >> Vista runs with no problems on it. >> > > Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista (or > XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete computer. If I > wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get a friend to buy it > in the States and send it to me. Here, almost everyone buys the OEM right off the shelf. In fact, one store I deal with, most retail/full versions are special order only. No one in their right mind is going to pay full retail for Ultimate Full Retail...anything. > That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the cold and > where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and it never goes > under 5�C so Canada is completely out of the question :-) > > Alias I hear you there. This is a weird year in Canada. Almost broke record low temperate a few months ago, -35C. Today, going to 33C and may well be record temperatures for the day. Screwy. I am contemplating Costa Rica myself. Snow I don't mind, but that cold just isn't very nice. You are better off in Spain. Maybe wait until you know someone going to Canada, Spain or UK and bring a more sanely priced copy back. |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 1:44:37 PM |
| From: measekite [Email Address Protection] |
Canuck57 wrote: > ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message > news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> Kerry Brown wrote: >> >>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>> before it was released. >>>> >>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>> >>>> >>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista Home >>> Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high end. >>> >>> >> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >> >> Alias >> > > Ya, I still LOL at that $2000 for Vista and MS-Office Retail full versions > of Ultimate..... > > What a farce....hahaha.... > Do not be like Frankie Crankie ...LOL. It is not hahaha but ha ha ha ha But most of the time that idiot goes hehehe...LOL! > Apple, do they do the same? You can buy a nice Apple here for less than MS > software and load Open Office. Or like I did on my new system, > Ubuntu/Fedora/Vista triple boot and of course, Open Office. > > > |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 2:41:49 PM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:2E5A8BF6-8DA4-4129-B7D7-A88CF082CEB9@microsoft.com... > ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message > news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>> before it was released. >>>> >>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call high >>> end. >>> >> >> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >> > > > I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in > the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high end. > I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 RAM is > $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very well and > is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I consider to be > decent quality. > > Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 > Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 > 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 > Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 > LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 > Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 > Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 > > Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised > brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could > probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any > edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be stable, > all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is $125.00, > Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another $200.00. > The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you should move > to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has impacted your > computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where you live. The > system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet Vista runs with > no problems on it. > > -- > Kerry Brown > MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration > http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ > > > Kerry Prices for everything are higher in Europe than in North America, and taxation plays its part. Don't let Alias fool you into believing that Spain is a peasant country, because it is anything but peasant. For sure some of the old ways of life still exist, but Spain is as technologically advanced as most countries, and has been the only European country growing over the last few years. They may not have the cheap computer fairs as in the UK, but one can get computers, parts and software at reasonable prices just as one can in other countries. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 2:42:57 PM |
| From: "Mike Hall - MVP" [Email Address Protection] |
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message news:g0n00k$984$1@aioe.org... > Kerry Brown wrote: >> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>>> before it was released. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call >>>> high end. >>>> >>> >>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >>> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >>> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>> >> >> >> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in >> the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high >> end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 >> RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very >> well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I >> consider to be decent quality. >> >> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 > > No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? > >> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised >> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could >> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any >> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be >> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is >> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another >> $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you >> should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has >> impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where >> you live. The system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet >> Vista runs with no problems on it. >> > > Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista (or > XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete computer. If I > wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get a friend to buy it > in the States and send it to me. > > That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the cold and > where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and it never goes > under 5�C so Canada is completely out of the question :-) > > Alias The more I see your answers to other people, the less I think that you know about computers.. -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 2:43:12 PM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message news:UlGXj.146998$Cj7.110714@pd7urf2no... > > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message > news:2E5A8BF6-8DA4-4129-B7D7-A88CF082CEB9@microsoft.com... >> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>>> before it was released. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call >>>> high end. >>>> >>> >>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >>> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >>> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>> >> >> >> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in >> the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high >> end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 >> RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista very >> well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I >> consider to be decent quality. >> >> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 >> >> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised >> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could >> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any >> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be >> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is >> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be another >> $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you >> should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live in Spain has >> impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is relative to where >> you live. The system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet >> Vista runs with no problems on it. > > You are quoting OEM versions. He is talking the full retail. You know, > the better ones that are complete and recoverable. You also are without > office tools. Add in business or ultimate office tools you are well over > the $1000, more than twice the price of the total hardware package. Generic OEM disks are a full install just like a retail disk. You may be thinking of the large OEMs like Dell and HP. I wouldn't wish that user experience on anyone. They install so much crap even a Quad Core would struggle. As for Office you are the first person to mention it. I don't see it anywhere else in the thread. Open Office runs equally well on Vista or Linux so there's no difference there. If you need Microsoft Office then despite what people say about Wine you really need a Microsoft OS to run it properly. > > Me, got a Q6600, 4GB RAM, 22" wide LCD, 500GB drive, Vista (not so) > Premium x64 OEM, keyboard, mouse, cables, $749 at Best Buy. No assembly > required and a warranty. But I did a refit, to 8GB RAM, 2nd hard drive > and a dedicated 8500GT 256M fanless video. > > Runs Vista like a pig (file/network copy specifically), but Ubuntu with > Compiz, smoking hot and fast. > Then something is wrong. I dual boot Ubuntu and Vista Business on this laptop. They run about the same speed doing the same tasks. If anything the Vista Atheros wireless driver is a little faster than the MadWifi driver in Ubuntu so wireless is a bit faster in Vista on this machine. Other than that I don't notice much difference other than the UI. Both have been very stable with few problems. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 3:24:50 PM |
| From: Alias [Email Address Protection] |
Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message > news:g0n00k$984$1@aioe.org... >> Kerry Brown wrote: >>> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware >>>>>> long before it was released. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very >>>>>> good job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with >>>>> Vista Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what >>>>> I'd call high end. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware >>>> to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the >>>> cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living >>> in the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is >>> high end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name >>> brand DDR2 RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will >>> run Vista very well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware >>> which is what I consider to be decent quality. >>> >>> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >>> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >>> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >>> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >>> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >>> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >>> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 >> >> No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? >> >>> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised >>> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could >>> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any >>> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be >>> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is >>> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be >>> another $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00. >>> Maybe you should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live >>> in Spain has impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is >>> relative to where you live. The system specs would not be considered >>> high end anywhere yet Vista runs with no problems on it. >>> >> >> Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista >> (or XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete >> computer. If I wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get >> a friend to buy it in the States and send it to me. >> >> That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the cold >> and where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and it >> never goes under 5�C so Canada is completely out of the question :-) >> >> Alias > > > The more I see your answers to other people, the less I think that you > know about computers.. > > Again, Mike plays the more knowledgeable than thou card like a true MS fanboy. Frank would be proud of you. Fact is, you know more than I and I know more than you. Alias |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 3:40:30 PM |
| From: Frank [Email Address Protection] |
Alias wrote: > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >=20 >> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message=20 >> news:g0n00k$984$1@aioe.org... >> >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>> >>>> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message=20 >>>> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware = >>>>>>> long before it was released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very= =20 >>>>>>> good job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with=20 >>>>>> Vista Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what=20 >>>>>> I'd call high end. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap=20 >>>>> hardware to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even=20 >>>>> cover the cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are=20 >>>> living in the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of = >>>> RAM is high end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of = >>>> name brand DDR2 RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that=20 >>>> will run Vista very well and is easily under $500.00 for the=20 >>>> hardware which is what I consider to be decent quality. >>>> >>>> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00 >>>> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00 >>>> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00 >>>> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00 >>>> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00 >>>> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00 >>>> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00 >>> >>> >>> No video or audio card? Are these Canadian or US dollars? >>> >>>> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all=20 >>>> recognised brand names. If you're not particular about where you=20 >>>> shop you could probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end.=20 >>>> It will run any edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The = >>>> system will be stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista=20 >>>> Home Premium is $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen = >>>> LCD would be another $200.00. The complete system with Vista=20 >>>> Ultimate is $865.00. Maybe you should move to Canada. It sounds like= =20 >>>> your decision to live in Spain has impacted your computing=20 >>>> experience. In any case cost is relative to where you live. The=20 >>>> system specs would not be considered high end anywhere yet Vista=20 >>>> runs with no problems on it. >>>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, in Spain, you can't buy a copy of a generic OEM Vista = >>> (or XP for that matter), only retail, unless you buy a complete=20 >>> computer. If I wanted to buy another copy of Vista or XP, I would get= =20 >>> a friend to buy it in the States and send it to me. >>> >>> That said, I didn't move to Spain for computer prices. I hate the=20 >>> cold and where I live, there's sunshine at least 300 days a year and = >>> it never goes under 5=BAC so Canada is completely out of the question= :-) >>> >>> Alias >> >> >> >> The more I see your answers to other people, the less I think that you= =20 >> know about computers.. >> >> >=20 > Again, Mike plays the more knowledgeable than thou card like a true MS = > fanboy. Frank would be proud of you. >=20 > Fact is, you know more than I and I know more than you. >=20 > Alias IOW's alias is just one stupid, ignorant POS lying linux troll. Loser! Frank |
| Back |
| Subject: Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market? |
| Group: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general |
| Date: 5/17/2008 3:54:59 PM |
| From: "Kerry Brown" [Email Address Protection] |
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message news:eJxDSbGuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message > news:2E5A8BF6-8DA4-4129-B7D7-A88CF082CEB9@microsoft.com... >> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware long >>>>> before it was released. >>>>> >>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very good >>>>> job all by itself and doesn't need my help. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista >>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call >>>> high end. >>>> >>> >>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware to >>> build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of >>> buying retail Ultimate in Spain. >>> >> >> >> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living in >> the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is high >> end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand DDR2 >> RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vi |