On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:30:17 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Good. So where do I get my budget version of Vista that includes all the
>> bundled apps of the more expensive versions?
> You pay for it on-line and it unlocks the features contained in the DVD or CD
Indeed? So if I get my budget version of Vista for $199.95, but decide I
want to host a multi-site web server, I can simply install IIS, for, say,
$49.95? Or is that going to be a $700 upgrade to "Vista Server"?
Not kvetching, just asking. :)
[re bundled apps]
> Oddly enough, I believe that Microsoft will rave about having these
I wouldn't bet on it... and I certainly wouldn't bet on them offering
non-MS products this way. Eg if I want, say, Postgres instead of SQL
Server, will it be available via the MS-manged "repository"? Will their
package manager update even non-MS applications? Their current approach
doesn't even handle all MS's *own* apps, let alone anyone else's.
In short, when comparing Vista to Linux, what's it offer that can even
pretend to compete with a tool such as Synaptic, for sheer ease of
installing and updating applications, while letting *me* decide whether I
want MS's solution, or someone else's?
> Only later will the baffled customer realise that all which was promised
> is in fact behind lock and bar. It is then that the credit card
> relinquishes another lump of gold.
> I believe it was you, Kelsey, who mentioned the couple that wrongly
> assumed Office to be part of Windows. Ultimately they felt ripped off.
Exactly. "We already bought Windows... why do we need to buy this other
stuff?" Not to mention that when they actually *did* buy Office, they
still didn't get what they thought they were paying for - so they felt
doubly ripped off. Pay for Windows *and* pay for Office and *still* not
get the tools they actually needed.
>> At least tell us Fister can finally run, safely, without the need of AV
>> software. That would at least be a step forward. You know, AV
>> software - like the Ubuntu versions the OP brought up simply *don't
>> need*? Yeah, those. Or is Fister going to be just as helpless and
>> fragile as every other version of Windows, needing that sort of crap to
>> hold its poor little hand?
> Well said. I am glad to have seen it posed so objectively.
Not terribly objective, frankly, so I'm assuming that was a tad of
sarcasm... but let's be honest here, isn't it about freaking time MS got
its act together enough to release a version of Windows that can actually
be used safely without AV tools and the like?
OSX, as far as I'm aware, manages it. So does Unix. So does Linux. So
do the various BSDs. Why can't Windows? At the very least, if you *have*
to have that sort of hand-holding, why isn't it bundled as a part of the
Look at 95, 98, ME and 2K as examples. Each had internet support - yet
none of them bundled even a firewall, despite the fact that, in their
default net-enabled configurations, they *desperately* needed one. Took
'em what, eight years to figure out that net-enabled machines kinda need a
firewall, so let's bundle one, even if it is a crippled piece of crap?
MS has absolutely no interest in safe, reliable computing. Never have.
If they did, firewalls and AV tools and anti-spyware and the like would
have been standard issue since at least Win95, yet they're still not
bundled, as of XP at least. Let's just say I don't have great faith that
Vista will be notably better in this regard.
On the other hand... MS is in a very bad situation in that regard. Since
they have created a multi-billion-dollar-a-year AV industry, should they
attempt to bundled AV apps as freebies, they're liable to get slammed
again for anticompetitive practices, and justifiably so - they'd be doing
to Norton's what they did to Netscape.
So on the one hand, if they don't bundle it, they look like incompetent
boobs; if they do bundle it, they get slammed. It's a no-Win for them. I
can't really say I feel to sorry for them, though, since the problem is
entirely one of their own creation - if their stuff weren't such a sieve
in the first place, the entire AV industry would be at most a bit player.
MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.