Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> What Would You Pay for Vista?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | But the store had scads of Windows Basic (aka Home Basic) upgrades
> | which just weren't moving very fast, even at $59.95.
> `----
>
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/what_would_you_pay_for_vista.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
> http://tinyurl.com/3a2cvz
>
> Luring people in to the unknown...
>
> How about Windows and Office for 3 bucks? People have begun to realise that
> Windows is not worth the money that it costs. There are free alternatives
> that are far better.
Here's the thing, and I am *really* not being sarcastic: Microsoft would
have to pay *me* to use Vista. Seriously.
1) ... They'd need to buy me the monstrous powerhouse PC essential to
run their massively bloated OS to any worthwhile degree.
2) ... They'd need to pay me to be their guinea pig for their Alpha OS.
3) ... They'd need to pay me to endure the restrictions of DRM that
would prevent me from (apart from other things) enjoying
protected content on my existing monitor ... either that or
they'd need to buy me a new HDCP compliant monitor.
4) ... They'd need to buy me all new versions of all the Windows apps,
for those Vista compatible versions that are *not* free upgrades
(e.g. Adobe).
5) ... They'd need to pay me damages for all the legacy games I will
never again be able to play, because Vista does not, nor ever
will, support them.
6) ... They'd need to somehow find, then buy for me, working
alternatives for all the applications that do not, and may never,
work under Vista.
7) ... They'd need to either find or develop, then buy for me, working
alternatives for the existing specialised hardware devices that I
own, some of which do not even have proper XP support, let alone
Vista support. Examples include a Catweasel Floppy Controller,
Compelson Labs SIMM card programmer, and the DAP component of a
Fujifilm FinePix 40i digital camera.
8) ... They'd need to agree to underwrite my losses in the
disproportionately likely event of data loss under Vista.
9) ... They'd need to grant me access to the *full* sources for Vista
since I inherently do not trust them with my data. Presumably
this privilege would not be free, assuming they'd even agreed to
it at all, at *any* price.
10) .. They'd need to provide free, on-site, 24 hour support for the
inevitable and numerous serious support issues I'm extremely
likely to have with Vista. In fact, better make that an in-house
support team, since they'll likely be needed about once every
five minutes.
So how much does Microsoft need to pay *me* to use Vista? Looks like
several hundred thousand so far (full time, on-site, support engineers
are not cheap), and that's not even including insurance underwriting and
personal damages.
But then, just on principle, I would never buy Vista, much less use it
(my experiment with the free Beta was more time with Vista than I ever
want). There just isn't enough money in the world to convince me otherwise.
Even if Microsoft made a sworn affidavit that they'd never misrepresent
Linux or FOSS in the press ever again, that they'd open up the full
sources of their entire product catalogue, that they'd once and for all
fix all the bugs and hardware issues (also with things like the
eXb0rks), that they'd conform to open standards and stop trying to
embrace and extend (bastardise) existing standards to lock out the
competition, and that they'd stop strong-arming OEMs into Windows
exclusive deals ... I'd still tell them to shove it.
I already *have* the best Operating System ... where's my motivation to
switch?
Or IOW - where's the "WOW!"?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| I found [Vista] to be a dangerously unstable operating system,
| which has caused me to lose data ... unfortunately this product
| is unfit for any user. - [H]ardOCP, <http://tinyurl.com/3bpfs2>
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
18:23:08 up 6 days, 15:55, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.30, 0.22
|
|
