Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: The cost of NOT using Linux

  • Subject: Re: The cost of NOT using Linux
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:00:53 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / ISBE, Manchester University / ITS / Netscape / MCC
  • References: <4okncnFf57t9U1@individual.net> <pan.2006.10.05.17.45.07.355314@invalid.address>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ JDS ] on Thursday 05 October 2006 18:45 \__

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:41:29 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
> 
>> An estimate of the cost of updating corporate machines from the previous
>> version of an OS from a well-known vendor to that same vendor's
>> anticipated new release:-
>> 
>> http://smallbusiness.itworld.com/4383/nls_networking061005/page_1.html
> 
> "New PCs will cost $1,500-$2,000. Darn few existing corporate PCs will
> have the video horsepower needed to run Aero, Vista's primary upgrade
> inducement."
> 
> I repeat the important bit: "Vista's primary upgrade inducement."
> 
> 
> So even industry magazines recognize that the only part of Vista that is
> seen as an important inducement to upgrade IS EYE CANDY!!!!
> 
> Not security
> 
> Not interoperability (although we all know that since MS defines "multiple
> platforms" as Windows 95, 98, NT, XP, 2000, etc. "interoperability" will
> actually be quite high for Vista :)
> 
> Not stability
> 
> Not speed
> 
> EYE CANDY!!!
> 
> But of course, that is all the Home user really cares about, initially.
> Fine for them. But will business users?
> 
> hmmm...

Businesses can get VIsta (with or without the Eye Candy addon, though DRM is
a must-have) via broadband.

http://tinyurl.com/qw892

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index