Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...n_to_bit-tech/
...
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...n_to_bit-tech/
...
It looks to me that Microsoft are trying to work out the minimum amount of upgrades that they can get away with. I'd say that 10 times is completely unacceptable, vista could be around for years and lots of us would soon run out.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
Software is absolutely ridiculous, what other thing do we pay money for where we would accept such second rate performance, you buy it then you have to download the latest fix. Would we accept that with anything else, imagine having to download a fix for your microwave before you can cook a potato.
To cap it all we download the beta versions so that we can test it for them, then they treat us like this.
People power is the only way we can get round this, so keep on raging. Big Brother Microsoft is listening.
Isn't it the situation with microsoft that you don't buy the software but you buy a licence to use it?
And when you do so you agree to the licence conditions.
Therefore if you don't like the licence then don't buy it.
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
That is essentially the same for any software but the crux is you cant usually read the license conditions without breaking the seal.Which makes the software non returnable to the vendor.
I don't think 10 hardware changes is completely unreasonable.
104456--you can read the licence agreement without breaking the seal, even in fact without buying the product--
here ya go http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
If you already own an operating system and had an on-line connection that would be true but MS as do other software manufacturers do not normally let you read the license until after either breaking the seal or installing the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by dneilson
I'll be building my new PC this winter. As of right now I'm leaning toward installing Ubuntu Linux ver. 6.06 or 6.10. only. I've messed with Linux for a number of years and finally found a distro that can stand toe to toe with Windows. I'm using Ubuntu almost exclusively now, kicking over to Windows only to do my financial stuff. Sometime ago Microsoft made a statement about joining alliance with hardware manufacturers to make their hardware proprietary effectively killing Linux. But I think the threat of yet another anti-trust suit might have made them re-think that. Atleast I hope so. So, I don't think I'll be going to Vista anytime soon.
I've been noodling about with Ubuntu myself, and I like it too. I just have to learn more about it so I can make it my main OS eventually. M$ will never have a lock on hardware from any manufacturer, unless M$ buys the mfr.; the loss of extra sales to Linux and other users would be felt I'm sure. I'm glad there are significant numbers of corporate Linux users out there!
Now that I have built my new rig I'll be using my old one as my very first Linux box :cool:
Tried most distros on VMware, but this way I can experiment with them a bit more.
A nice setup indeed!
I just feel that if you pay a very high sum of money for a piece of retail software then it is perfectly reasonable that you should be able to use it for as long as you want. I am astounded that people will accept buying more than one license for there own personal use.
I realise that I'm in the minority here, but mark my words if you find Microsoft reasonable then next time you wont even be able to buy a license, you will be renting it.
YES! I do! I like the bloat.....because it feels so good turning off the useless "services" and other features. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by maxximilian
bistro....
Isn't that like the old joke.....I like banging my head on the wall because it feels so good when I stop...... :D
I'm sure you are not wrong, but I feel that Microsoft have a Monopoly and we all need to buy their software if we want to be able to use our computers normally. I'd say that just because they have a license this doesn't make it fair, imagine if you bought a music CD and you could only play it on one CD player, when that player dies you then have to replace your entire music collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by anne
The bottom line is companies like Microsoft want to make as much money as possible and they will push their license terms to ensure this, it is our jobs not to lie down and take it but make our feelings heard.
I'd imagine that Microsoft will be fighting some court cases on their license issues it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
I agree with everything said by Philgo. Its very simple to say that "if you don't like it, don't buy it". But as Philgo said, MS is a monopoly and there is basically no real alternative to Windows in most cases. There have to be fair rules of conduct from MS, otherwise they will be taking advantage of their monopoly which I believe is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philgo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061030-8104.html
Another article...
Quote:
"Validation will fail if the software detects a substantially different hardware configuration," the spokesperson said. "At that point, the customer is able to use the one reassignment for the new device. If, after using its one reassignment right, a customer again exceeds the tolerance for updated components, the customer can purchase an additional license or seek remediation through Microsoft’s support services."
I guess I'll have to put MS in my speed dial.Quote:
For those reading between the lines, Microsoft's response is telling. The option of seeking remediation through Microsoft support is a sign that the company has left a giant "safety net" in place, much as they did with Windows XP.
Sorry, but M$ is not a monopoly. They are successful because their product is purchased by so many people. There are other alternatives out there, but people choose to buy Microsoft. When someone comes up with something better, that will change the market. General Motors used to sell more than half of all cars made in the world, not so long ago, and people whined about them too; real competition changed that also. Sometimes, the simplest answer is the best answer! If you don't like it, don't buy it. I have no sympathy for someone who buys something he doesn't want or like. If you want MS to change their policy, buy some of their stock and make your voice heard.
Thay have a huge market advantage because windows comes already intergrated on 99%+ of ready built PCs so thier market share is nigh guaranteed in this deparment.
Whilst hardware manufacturers have to compete on both specification and overheads are slim so much so that hardware prices have slumped over the last few years.Microsfoft on the other hand having no viable contender, makes it a one horse race.They can set thier own agenda on price structure there is no market force as they do not have to compete with anyone of note.
We've had this discussion before, about whether MS is a monopoly or not, can't find the thread though. Lets remember that a monopoly does not mean 100% market share.
On an official note, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (United States v. Microsoft May 18, 1998) held that:
* Microsoft has a monopoly of PC operating systems,
* Microsoft harmed consumers through its use of its monopoly powers, and
* several of Microsoft's contracts had anti-competitive effects.
On a personal and unofficial note, I believe that MS is a monopoly for the simple fact that myself and millions of others rely too much on MS at this moment in time to be able to give it up. You cannot simply say that if you don't want to use it, don't buy it. But what if I don't have a feasible alternative? What if MS decides to charge $1000 for their OS? A lot of us would be in big trouble. On the one hand, it would be too much money to pay and on the other, we would not have a choice.
IMO, that makes MS a monopoly both on an official level, and a personal level.
United States vs. Microsoft
The very definition of a monopoly (including the Latin root of the word) means 100% market share, to the exclusion of any and all competition. Furthermore, Haaretz probably wouldn't publicize this any more than would the New York Times; but T.P. Jackson has had a number of his decisions overturned by the US Court of Appeals for faulty application of case law, specious reasoning, failure to abide by stare decisis and for lack of objectivity. The "harming consumers" is laughable on its face. I couldn't afford a computer until Windows hit the market; its development and adoption by millions of consumers helped bring the price of a computer within reach of the home user and spawned competition as well. I agree they're milking the price for Vista for all it's worth, but the market will correct that. As far as a monopoly on OSs? Laughable...ever heard of Apple?Quote:
Lets remember that a monopoly does not mean 100% market share.
Yes, I can--and I did. You're not stuck or forced to buy Microsoft. Get Linux for free. If you can learn how to use Windows, you can learn Linux. Or Apple OS-X. M$ can charge $5000 for all I care; I'm not buying Vista until the price comes within my range--which it will. These initial MS prices are for those who absolutely have to have the latest thing and will pay dearly for the bragging rights.Quote:
You cannot simply say that if you don't want to use it, don't buy it.
Sorry my friend, but I have my opinions too. :)
I'm installing Ubuntu 6.1 as a dual-boot this week.
I've probably done 10 hardware upgrades in the last three months.
I can't wait to prove I can live on the linux side, so I can show my friends how to do it too.
Monopoly, in the strict literal definition means one competitior (mono = one), however, in the economical sense, it does not have to be one or 100%. Laws passed by governments decide what constitutes a monopoly. And as far as I know, Microsoft is considered a monopoly by every developed country.
There are other OSs available on the market, but they don't have nearly enough market share to threaten Microsofts share of the OS market. That includes Linux and Apple (I am pretty sure Linux has a bigger share than Apple, but I may be mistaken).
If I was to move to another OS, I wouldn't necessarily move to a lesser quality OS, but a less capable OS for my needs. It would be (almost) impossible to find the games that I like and the business programs that I use for another operating system. This ties me to MS, whether I like it or not. Many other people are in the same situation as myself.
I do want to use Windows, I like the operating system. But I don't want to pay an arm and a leg to use it.
As for the honorable Judge Jackson, the appeals court did overturn some of his decisions, but upheld that Microsoft is a monopoly.
You're more than generous in referring to Judge Jackson as honorable. :) Frankly, the man is an intellectual lightweight. That's not opinion; he's demonstrated it himself in his volume of work. However, the honorific his position confers is "The Honorable," so I'll concede the point.
If that decision were ever go to the Supreme Court, I believe it would be overturned in the present Court. It would never be overturned with the Court we had a generation ago, during the Carter years; so opinions do change over time. I'm just happy that, despite government meddling, the market works by the immutable forces of supply and demand. Which, in the long run, will determine Vista's price; if MS doesn't drop the price eventually, sales will disappear.
Of course we all have opinions and that it to be respected.
What I don't understand is why some people do not think that it's reasonable that when you buy a RETAIL license for Vista, you can't upgrade your hardware as much as you like.
If your argument is to prevent piracy, then surely all Microsoft has to do is switch off all machines with a duplicate key. this can be done if they access the update site during a short period of time each other.
For me Apple and Linux are not an option but staying with XP certainly is.
I think it's perfectly reasonable, and wish that it were so. My point was never that it is unreasonable to expect; my point is that Microsoft owns Microsoft, not the users. Microsoft has the right to do as it pleases. I have the right not to buy Microsoft. I don't have the right to tell Microsoft what to produce. I also have the right to start looking elsewhere for an operating system, which I am doing now. I've installed Ubuntu 6.10 and PCLinux on a spare computer, and am finally going to learn them inside and out.
If Vista comes down in price, and is more reasonable in its license restrictions, I may think of buying it. Actually, their policy is not so much different than it used to be; they've just clarified it and seem intent on enforcing it more strictly. That's their prerogative. Oh well.
I feel that we all have the right to tell Microsoft what we want them to produce, at the end of the day we are the customers and without us they are out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by lgbpop
It's also worth noting that as computer enthusiasts we help them develop and support their products, so why do they want to screw us for more and more money every chance they get.
The main thing that I want to get across is that the more we show them that we are upset with their license terms the more chance we have of changing their minds.
Perhaps being British gives me more of a fighting spirit :D
Being American, I'm more of a laissez-faire spirit. :) When the government (God forbid) owns corporate enties they can dictate the terms of production and sale. Otherwise, let the market rule--and rule it does. The secret of business success is not in selling what you want to make, but to make what will sell.Not if people keep buying.... ;)Quote:
at the end of the day we are the customers and without us they are out of business.
Perhaps if we dumped hundreds of copies of Vista overboard into Boston Harbor, maybe then.......
Aw, forget it....it worked before, but probably not a second time.
LMAO Bistro :D
All we need is a millionaire to buy them in the first place :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bistro
Dump them at the end of M$'s entrance road on Bel-Red, that would mess up morning traffic for sure!
Well, heck....we'll ask Bill Gates to buy them for us and.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Philgo
No.....wait.....that won't work.....
I like the Boston Tea Party suggestion :) The way I see it, one thing that could happen is that MS realizes that they don't have a monopoly (noting that members of this board have said that they would readily switch to another OS, the market force that we are), and that MS would suddenly become reasonable, as a business decision of course. Another is that legislators will step in. Interestly enough, consumer protection, and business practices legislation, in Canada anyway, do not yet address this issue; it's new; all of the internet legal issues are new everywhere. But it is of the same nature as business behaviour that the Ontario consumer protection legislation prohibits, like tied selling; forcing you to buy another product as a condition of buying. So I would suggest you contact your local representatives
to ask for amendments to legislation to deal with this kind of coercive corporate behaviour.
Chas
Looks like there are bigger players crying foul about Vista pricing.
Acer: Vista is an excuse for Microsoft price hikes
Yup.....gotta pay for all that eye-candy, bells, whistles....
Hey look....somebody has to cover for all those Christmas bonuses MS is giving to its executive staff.
Latest update:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e589
Wow, they actually listened to their users and changed that cursed license! I guess they deserve a pat on the back for that.
Thought this little tid bit would fit n here:
Novell Shares Surge After Report of Agreement With Microsoft
By Rochelle Garner
Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Shares Novell Inc. surged the most in three years after the Wall Street Journal reported that the company, a distributor of the Linux operating system, is entering into an agreement with Microsoft Corp.
Microsoft plans to provide sales support for Novell's Suse Linux operating system, the Journal reported on its Web site, citing unidentified people familiar with the companies.
I'm very glad to see that common sense has prevailed - I fear they would have had a large mountain of unsaleabale retail boxes otherwise :eek: And it shows that MS does listen, despite what many people say :) :)