Windows Vista is cheap!

[VIAN]

I posted this other thread previously arguing against Windows Vista. But Here is another point of view.

Upgrading from XP to Vista Home Basic is gonna be about $100. How cheap is that! You have to admit, from all the software we buy, OS's are the cheapest there is. For example: Internet security. Every year we (most people anyway) spend 35-70 dollars on Internet security software. After 4 years you would have paid 140-280 dollars on Internet security software. While with windows, you would have only paid $100 in that span of time.

Personally, I would rather end up paying a yearly fee for updates on Windows just like Anti-virus companies do. Because, I think it would be better: windows would release REAL updates instead of trying to impress us with new useless interfaces. It would mean continuously working on actually improving the OS. But I realize this idea still has some kinks to fix and I bet all of you are hating me right now because it might mean actually paying more for the OS in the long run, and increasing the amount of times they have to give Microsoft money. But if it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already.

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I posted this other thread previously arguing against Windows Vista. But Here is another point of view.

Upgrading from XP to Vista Home Basic is gonna be about $100. How cheap is that! You have to admit, from all the software we buy, OS's are the cheapest there is. For example: Internet security. Every year we (most people anyway) spend 35-70 dollars on Internet security software. After 4 years you would have paid 140-280 dollars on Internet security software. While with windows, you would have only paid $100 in that span of time.

Personally, I would rather end up paying a yearly fee for updates on Windows just like Anti-virus companies do. Because, I think it would be better: windows would release REAL updates instead of trying to impress us with new useless interfaces. It would mean continuously working on actually improving the OS. But I realize this idea still has some kinks to fix and I bet all of you are hating me right now because it might mean actually paying more for the OS in the long run, and increasing the amount of times they have to give Microsoft money. But if it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already.

I have to disagree with your last point: "If it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already." I think the technical problems with WinFS would have prevented it's use, no matter how much we were paying Microsoft. Let's face facts here. Microsoft already makes a L-O-T of money. They employ thousands and thousands of very talented software engineers. This is one of those things where throwing more money at the problem is unlikely to help.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: htne
I have to disagree with your last point: "If it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already." I think the technical problems with WinFS would have prevented it's use, no matter how much we were paying Microsoft. Let's face facts here. Microsoft already makes a L-O-T of money. They employ thousands and thousands of very talented software engineers. This is one of those things where throwing more money at the problem is unlikely to help.

I'm not saying that they would've had more money to finish WinFS, but they would've had more time for it; instead of working on useless features like the new interface.

The limitations of the interface in that you are limited to only 3 colors and 1 design - that's just unacceptable. They need more customization in this area. That would've been somthing to work on, not just another interface with the same limitations.

It really doesn't matter anyway, most of us are going to upgrade to Vista cause of DX10. I might because of the extra security. Upgrading earlier is better, it means more for the money, technically, if you don't count the intial bugs and incompatabilities.

 

[jhu]

or you could not run windows and save even more

 

[sourceninja]

Wow, everyone I know use free tools for firewalls, antivirus, spam filtering, etc. What are you paying 30-70 a year for?

I have yet to pay for an opertating system directly. I will get vista when either a) a friend sends me a copy from the MS store, b) my college offers it for 10.00 and i buy a copy to play with, or c) I buy a prebuild pc with it on it (not likley)

 

[passwordforgetterguy]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
Wow, everyone I know use free tools for firewalls, antivirus, spam filtering, etc. What are you paying 30-70 a year for?

I have yet to pay for an opertating system directly. I will get vista when either a) a friend sends me a copy from the MS store, b) my college offers it for 10.00 and i buy a copy to play with, or c) I buy a prebuild pc with it on it (not likley)

heh ... waiting on your friend to send it from the company store may take a while. MS company store is the LAST to get it... customers first

 

[sourceninja]

I was fine with windows 2000, I'm fine now with ubuntu. Vista is just another toy for another partition.

 

[Nothinman]

But if it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already.

MS is probably the most profitable software company ever and you think that they might have a better software release schedule if they made even more?

 

[tersome]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I posted this other thread previously arguing against Windows Vista. But Here is another point of view.

Upgrading from Tiger to Leopard is gonna be about $100. How cheap is that! You have to admit, from all the software we buy, OS's are the cheapest there is. For example: Internet security. Every year we (most people anyway) spend 35-70 dollars on Internet security software. After 4 years you would have paid 140-280 dollars on Internet security software. While with windows, you would have only paid $100 in that span of time.

Personally, I would rather end up paying a yearly fee for updates on OSX just like Anti-virus companies do. Because, I think it would be better: Apple would release REAL updates instead of trying to impress us with new useless search tools. It would mean continuously working on actually improving the OS. But I realize this idea still has some kinks to fix and I bet all of you are hating me right now because it might mean actually paying more for the OS in the long run, and increasing the amount of times they have to give Apple money. But if it was this way, then WinFS would have been ours already.

If you want yearly updates to your OS, then get a mac.

 

[Nothinman]

If you want yearly updates to your OS, then get a mac.

Or run Linux and you can have updates as often as you want for free.

 

[mikeford]

The cost of windows doesn't stop at the OS, there is a parade of stuff that follows behind it.

The cost of having a monopoly that blocks all external innovation is incalcuable.

 

[pkme2]

The new Vista may have its kinks worked out, maybe not, but it can wait.

Using the present O/S is fine, whether its Windows, Linux or Mac.

They all work and why are we trying to try something that take at least a year to refine.
What's the use of being frustrated like Win 64?
They still haven't got it together on Win 64 so why would you suppose they'll get it together for Vista?

Let Microsoft solve their issues with Vista. Until that time happens, we can use our present O/Ss happily.