Whirlpool

I just read this article:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26037/1103/

I thought it may interest some of you. Its just about how ridiculous the prices are for Windows 7 and how the author believes more people will make a transition over to Linux.

I personally believe whilst he has some valid points, most people will be too comfortable with Windows as they use it everyday and everywhere. If there ever was a time to switch, it was when Vista came out as the GUI felt "different" and there were a lot of problems with hardware and drivers etc. I believe the prices might effect some of the curious users who like to learn new skills on a computer as it did with me when vista came out.

It doesn't really bother me how pricey Windows 7 will be personally as I'm happy with my choice of OS. It's always interesting to know whats happening on the other side though. From what I've heard windows 7 looks promising, but my Linux desktop is too damn sexy to even give a rats.

It's not all about price. Windows could be free and I still wouldn't touch it.

pretty poor from Microsoft, as soons as 7 is released, welcome linux to all household computers :)

And as always, everyone will just buy the OEM and Upgrade editions...

I wouldn't use windows if they paid me that much.

my main machine is exclusive ubuntu, however I have been running Windows 7 on my eeePC (was XP).

it *is* pretty darn good and I thought maybe i would even pay for it, but when that pricing came out I just laughed. I'll be either returning to the original XP for the eee or I will maybe give ubuntu netbook edition a go.

People do not chose windows, it comes pre loaded on the machine if it was a fully working Linux system then they would stay with Linux.

Scaramunga writes...

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26037/1103/

Link broken ?

ßlueGroper writes...

Link broken ?

not even www.itwire.com works ATM

Brycey-Boy© writes...

pretty poor from Microsoft, as soons as 7 is released, welcome linux to all household computers :)

Why wait for it?

I use both win xp and ubuntu and the price for windows 7 they can go and shove it really. :-)

Even if they gave it away (which they should as an apology for purchasers of Vista), the price of using it would still be too high.

Cheers,

Arkay.

At the end of this year i am pushing my mums PC over to ubuntu from Windows XP. she has never touched vista

dimavs writes...

Why wait for it?

1. lazyness
2. currently using RC edition

As *some* linux fanboys continually point out – Windows already comes installed on almost all computers. Only a very very small percentage of users actually need to buy windows in a box, hence the cost is totally hidden.

I have been using WinXP for about 5 years – i dunno what it cost, but assuming you use the Windows OS for 2 releases (eg. skip every 2nd OS) – you could have gotten 9 years out of it – making it very cost effective.

moore2 writes...

you could have gotten 9 years out of it – making it very cost effective.

Windows Xp-9 Years-$149
Linux-unlimited years-$0

^ You are totally right, i'm just pointing out that when people say "OMG windows is $$$!!11!!!" they dont take into account that fact it is a lasting product.

I could also say Windows XP lasts infinite years, therefore the cost approaches $0 per year.

Its not as if they offer the same experience to the user either – if you need windows, then you need windows (and vice versa) – it doesn't matter what Linux costs if it doesn't do what you want it to.

with the cost thing of windows dont you usually get it for free when you purchase a new pc or laptop?
I know the couple of times I have bought a pc I got the windows cd included, even after i specifically told the vendor I didnt want it and wasnt paying for it, I didnt pay and got it anyway so I dont see where the issue of paying for a windows cd becomes a valid point here
Dont quote me but under oem licencing if you get some major hardware installed on your pc you maybe elligable for a windows licence free of charge

moore2 writes...

I could also say Windows XP lasts infinite years, therefore the cost approaches $0 per year.

Not quite.. windows stops supporting there own products after so many years.. eg win 2000, 98, 95, nt, 3.11 ..so you are forced into upgrading. With linux you upgrade for free. Another thing that annoys me is that people who upgrade the mobo in there pc will have to acquire another license as Vista OEM or 7 OEM are assigned to that motherboard (mind you this is only the OEM license). Which is still frustrating.

I agree what you say about the OS suiting the users needs.

Greg writes...

with the cost thing of windows dont you usually get it for free when you purchase a new pc or laptop?

It's not free. The shop pays for the licenses and they pass the cost on to you. If they gave you a cd even when you said you didn't want it, you can be sure you did pay for it as part of the total price.

Scaramunga writes...

windows stops supporting there own products after so many years.. eg win 2000, 98, 95, nt, 3.11 ..so you are forced into upgrading.

Usually by the time MS stop supporting their product you have long been forced to upgrade because current software wont work on older versions of Windows. Who cares if 98 is not longer supported, you can't buy software that works on it anyway.

I don't think the price of Windows 7 is going to move people to Linux. Very very few people buy the retail version, most people buy a PC with Windows pre-installed, and most people I know try and score a copy for nothing because they want it but don't want to pay. If they can't find a free copy they don't worry about it. Soooo many times have I had arguments with people of MS Office and their attempts to score a free copy because "oh it is expensive and I only need it for the kids to do their assignments, surely you can burn me a disc?" Yeh right.

The types of people who will more than likely move to Linux in the near future are the ones who are a little savvy and have hit a point on frustration with vendor locking, DRM, virus and spyware issues etc.

Bah, silly article, reminded me why I don't read IT Wire anymore.

Windows 7 is cheaper and better than Vista. Vista has gotten better over the years, but at RTM it was a bit of a dog. Anyone who didn't switch to Linux then isn't going to be pushed over by 7's pricing. Anyone who's already switched is probably going to stay switched no matter what the price is.

Enthusiasts will buy Win7 upgrades soon after release, but most punters will just get it OEM with their next new machine. OEM prices haven't gone up, but the operating system has gotten better. What about that is going to drive existing Windows users to Linux?

Oh, and I really don't get why he's surprised that big OEMs like Dell get better prices than the corner computer store that buys 50 licenses a month. You buy 10 million units of anything and you'd expect to pay less than someone buying 50 units. I don't get why this journo finds that strange.

It must be better if you pay for it.:)

Scaramunga writes...

I thought it may interest some of you. Its just about how ridiculous the prices are for Windows 7 and how the author believes more people will make a transition over to Linux.

Yeah, its getting tough to afford Windows. We still use it a bit as an OEM setup on our computers but Ubuntu is used 95% of the time. I will probably just buy windows as OEM on my next system for development reasons and a bit of fiddling. No matter now nice it looks and how well it may work, I just feel more at home at the moment on Linux.

Brycey-Boy© writes...

Windows Xp-9 Years-$149
Linux-unlimited years-$0

Wow, get a job if you can't afford $149 for a 9 year investment. LOL.

I got Win 7 through the US pre-order. Much cheaper that way. I didn't pay for Vista (MSDN AA = win) and I wasn't planning on buying Win 7 but it's hard to pass up the offer.

randomizer ± writes...

Wow, get a job if you can't afford $149 for a 9 year investment. LOL.

I don't see what's so funny. Some people even with jobs simply don't have much spare cash to throw around. Fact of life.

Fanboi writes...

I don't see what's so funny. Some people even with jobs simply don't have much spare cash to throw around. Fact of life.

Then don't get a PC if you can't afford <$150. You can't even buy a netbook for that.

randomizer ± writes...

Then don't get a PC if you can't afford <$150.

No, it doesn't work like that. Everyone has different circumstances. You don't know how they got a PC to start with nor why. You could get a PC and then run Linux or some other free OS on it and keep running a free OS on it. And for your next point, yes you could get Windows on said PC but once that copy is no longer supported? Then what? Oh and yes, you can buy a PC for $150. No it won't be a "roxers gaming rig" but it will be a PC none the less. But as I said, it does come down to circumstances.

EDIT:- I must say that $150 PC would be perfect running Linux and running Windows on it certainly wouldn't do the job, unless it's something like Win 95, which obviously is no good anymore. So this is a another reason why people sitck with Linux – you can buy very cheap PC's (or whatever else), stick Linux on them and you have a fully functional and modern OS. You cannot do the same with Windows Vista or Win 7.

I use Linux because it is safe, clean, fast, friendly, sexy and is infinitely more productive for me than Windows. Microsoft could pay me much money to use Windows instead and I would not.

I also couldn't live without compiz enhanced zoom. I honestly couldn't. I could kiss the original developer who thought of that thing back when beryl was the new kid on the block.

paulvk writes...

People do not chose windows, it comes pre loaded on the machine if it was a fully working Linux system then they would stay with Linux.

^^^
THIS

It's unfortunate, but it's true. Most people use Windows because it's what they know, not because it's what they'd chose.

Luckily my dad has decided to convert to Linux on his next laptop purchase; currently needs to keep XP on his laptop because it's a work computer. If my mum isn't happy with Vista or her new laptop she just bought then she'll be getting Ubuntu put on it also.

In fact most people don't even associate with Windows. It's usually just assumed that if you buy a computer it will be a "PC" or it will be a "Mac". Now we all know that a PC does not imply Windows but to joe sixinch a "PC" means that the computer has fisher-price icons, a big blue 'e' thing that they use to do their internet banking and a big fugly 'start' menu used to shutdown the computer.

They also understand that they will need to be constantly on their toes about security issues and BSODs and all that wonderful jazz that is considered perfectly 'normal'.

And that's just unfortunate. Like with many problems in such an industry where the education of computer users is... poor, this will take many more years to alleviate.

Why is the education of computer users poor.
People buy computers to use as a tool to get a job done.
They dont buy a computer to get an operating system.
As long as the computer does the job that the purchaser wanted it for the operating system is irrelevant.
When you jump in your car to drive down the street do you care what operating
system runs the onboard engine management computer, or do you care what
the operating system in your mobile phone is when you make a phone call.
Of course you dont.

Exactly. And that's why it's so hard to get people to try something different, even if they are unhappy with what they already have.

mauried writes...

When you jump in your car to drive down the street do you care what operating
system runs the onboard engine management computer

Yes ;)

Garfunkel writes...

They also understand that they will need to be constantly on their toes about security issues and BSODs and all that wonderful jazz that is considered perfectly 'normal'.

You're over-estimating joe sixinch: he's more likely to ring up joe unemployed (whose expertise go as far as knowing what an anti-virus is) to fix his PC for him, or pay through the nose at some computer store, only for them to replace Joe's HDD with something crappier (pocketing the original), reinstall Windows, save none of Joe's data and charge him through the nose for it.

As for the price thing, MS aren't employing chimpanzees. When their only competitor is free, they're not going to charge anything that's going to cause massive consumer backlash. Unless they started pricing Windows at an inhibitive rate for vendors/business/gov't or outrageously enough that the general media could get a headline out of it, they've got nothing to worry about. The ignorant will continue to part with their money, MS will continue to be a roughly neutral force in the industry and at no expense to myself, my OS of choice will continue to slowly improve, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

On a related tangent, am I the only person who finds Windows threads on a *nix board unfortunate?

etnlIcarus writes...

You're over-estimating joe sixinch: he's more likely to ring up joe unemployed (whose expertise go as far as knowing what an anti-virus is) to fix his PC for him, or pay through the nose at some computer store, only for them to replace Joe's HDD with something crappier (pocketing the original), reinstall Windows, save none of Joe's data and charge him through the nose for it.

None of which they need to do if Joe Sixinch was using Linux. When I say "they" need to be on their toes, I don't mean the average person understands what is going on (that much is obvious), but most do know that these problems do occur, and they consider them 'normal'.

Isn't it Joe Sixpack?

The only thing I can think of for six inch is a little inappropriate.

Nothing inappropriate about that. The wang is a thing of beauty.

...what film am I thinking of?

Joe Sixinch sounds better than Joe Sixpack.

I have around 10+ PC's in my small business, and another 5 PC's at home.
I'd happily pay a small fee once for windoze, but NOT 10+ times over.
Thats simply out of the question, and windoze is not that good anyway.
This is the biggest problem faced by all small and medium sized businesses that get stuck in a windoze world. The windoze OS is too expensive, and they're too small to have any negotiating muscle with micro$oft.
So there's Linux, virtual desktops, and other solutions that fit within a limited budget.
Some of us are fiscally retentive by necessity.

Arkay writes...

the price of using it would still be too high

Good call.

What I've been doing with my IT support business is getting Windows using customers over to Open Source applications such as Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office, and so on.

The OS means nothing to them. That is, until I converted them over to Linux. They take notice when things run faster, when there's no need for virus scanning, spam control that actually works. No need for unnecessary third party application purchases just to make your computers "safe" from Internet nasties.

Even if Windows was free, the price of using it is still too high.

Cheers
pips

If you want to switch someone the best way is to start with the browser, the office suite, the mail client etc. If they end up liking those things (I mean come on, nobody in their right mind would prefer IE or outlook), they will probably like it when you say "Hey there is this one other really small thing I can change... It will make your computer basically unattackable AND AS A BONUS I WILL THROW IN WOBBLY WINDOWS FOR NOTHING!!!". Who could refuse!

moore2 writes...

^ You are totally right, i'm just pointing out that when people say "OMG windows is $$$!!11!!!" they dont take into account that fact it is a lasting product.

I could also say Windows XP lasts infinite years, therefore the cost approaches $0 per year.

Try reinstalling your legal copy of Windows XP on a new or upgraded PC and you will be nagged until you phone Microsoft and obtain permission. That's what I found most objectionable about Windows and the whole MS attitude to ownership. BTW, they ripped off the installation monitoring technology from its Australian inventor, just like they ripped off the wireless network technology from CSIRO for many years before they got caught!

If I buy a car and use it for a number of years, I don't have to then ask permission from Holden before transferring ownership to a buyer.

Price is irrelevant.

Computers are sold like fridges – buy it, plug it in, it works – and that's all that 90% of users know or care about. When it starts slowing down and Word starts doing odd things and their Internet connection is really slow because something seems to be using up all their bandwidth, they call in the 11 year old kid next door who installs Norton and tells them that everything will be fine now. They will not be moved by gigatonnes of evidence.

Mickeyshaft didn't become the world's biggest behemoth for nothing. They know how marketing works. They have no idea how software works, but that, like price, is entirely irrelevant.

They will go the way of all dinosaurs, but it won't be because we've converted Joe Sixinch/pack; it'll be the long, slow march of evolution.

Ive long stopped trying to convert people. Why should I care if people are stupid and want to use stupid technology and pay for it.

And its not just the pricing, its all the half baked 3rd party windows apps that comes with it. Not to mention how often these so called windows power users that load up all these cracked exes and patches to run stuff. Sure you can run a complete Windows system for free, but at the risk of playing Russian roulette.

On a side note I'm converting all my Linux systems over to freebsd, except for my htpc.

To be honest I don't think $300 -odd (couldn't find the actual aussie prices so that's a guess) for a decent, well supported operating system is unreasonable. If I'm going to be using it for three or four years, that's not too bad.

By well supported I mean a developer base and user base of knowledge that I can easily access to troubleshoot for myself.

meanwhile Mac's Snow Leopard is only $40

A 1-year subscription to SUSe Enterprise Desktop is $120

If you're going to use a free open source distro, you're using it 'as is', as far as I know. It's just fortunate that the community model means that you have the support of the user base.

I'm as much of a Linux fangrrl as anyone, I'm just sayin'....

euripides writes...

meanwhile Mac's Snow Leopard is only $40

A lot of people use Apple's pricing model as a comparison, and that is why they feel that Apple's OS is "Cheaper".... without thinking about HOW they can develop and support it at that price...

Answer: They already have your money... Look down at that shiny new Macbook Unibody which costs $1200 more than an equivilently spec'd non-Apple Laptop.

Edit: Also... look at Apple's release cycle... $40 you say?
10.0 – Cheetah March 24 2001
10.2 – Jaguar August 24, 2002
10.3 – Panther October 24, 2003
10.4 – Tiger April 29, 2005
10.5 – Leopard October 26, 2007
10.6 – Snow Leopard August 28, 2009

Yes but no one is forcing you to upgrade. You get the latest and greatest OS when u buy new hardware. I have no reason to upgrade my old macbook pro to snow leopard, it runs fine as is. Having said that $40 is very reasonable for people who must have the latest.

As for hardware, there is many benefits to proprietary systems when it comes to software integration. Id like to see anyone hibernate their windows/linux lappy as fast as a macbook pro and have it fully functional. That alone to me is worth that extra 1k.

Odium2007 writes...

Answer: They already have your money... Look down at that shiny new Macbook Unibody which costs $1200 more than an equivilently spec'd non-Apple Laptop.

Mac's to me seem way overpriced and gimmicky and appeal to those who take form over function. But these figures just make me wtf.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Awards2008/images/pcs.jpg
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Awards2008/images/laptops.jpg

From what I understand, Apple do take care of their customers, but is this just the reflection of over zealous and stubborn mac users or is there really something in those computers that justify the high price tag?

-ayeaye writes...

is there really something in those computers that justify the high price tag?

I'm IT Admin at a Business with about 10 Macbooks... In 2 years we've had 7 macbook harddrives die (another one on the way judging by the sound its making) most of these just out of warrenty period. I wouldn't say that they have been treated badly at all.

Tell you what though, in terms of reliability and ease of setup on my end of the stick, its easy as pie...

Linux Servers + Mac OS X play pretty damn well together since they are quite similar in lots of ways *runs away from all the people in the Linux/BSD forum who are preparing their pitchforks and flaming torches*

Once I can play games I want to play on Linux I might think about switching.

I have tried linux a couple of times and found it slower and a lot buggier than windows. (can you stay try to install flash onto firefox, almost impossible on linux, one click install on windows)

I didn't upgrade to Leopard, I'm still running Tiger on my 2005ish Mac. I didn't really see the point in upgrading since it's always run just fine. Only starting to be an issue lately. Oh and I did need a new hard drive, and the current one sounds a wee bit crook.

I'm a little dubious about the release cycle issue since you don't HAVE to upgrade.

FreddyP writes...

Computers are sold like fridges – buy it, plug it in, it works – and that's all that 90% of users know or care about. When it starts slowing down and Word starts doing odd things and their Internet connection is really slow because something seems to be using up all their bandwidth, they call in the 11 year old kid next door who installs Norton and tells them that everything will be fine now. They will not be moved by gigatonnes of evidence.

Most of the time, I see people just throw the whole computer out and buy a new one. I pick them up, format them, and donate them to the local church group. (Which are largely maintained by pro-Linux folks).

The only way to convince someone anything, is to let them try it for themselves.

Mickeyshaft didn't become the world's biggest behemoth for nothing. They know how marketing works. They have no idea how software works, but that, like price, is entirely irrelevant.

Their strength is in OEM agreements of software licenses. Kill this core ability, and they are stuffed in the long term.

They will go the way of all dinosaurs, but it won't be because we've converted Joe Sixinch/pack; it'll be the long, slow march of evolution.

The key deficiency in Linux is applications that people need. When you match/exceed a competing solution, its inevitable that you will win under the open source model. No business can compete with $0 and a community of world wide programmers.

MS's monetary resources is massive, but its no infinite...They have shareholders to content with. We don't.

pipsqeek writes...

What I've been doing with my IT support business is getting Windows using customers over to Open Source applications such as Thunderbird, Firefox, Open Office, and so on.

The OS means nothing to them. That is, until I converted them over to Linux. They take notice when things run faster, when there's no need for virus scanning, spam control that actually works. No need for unnecessary third party application purchases just to make your computers "safe" from Internet nasties.

Exactly. Let them try it out and experience it on their own accord. There's no need to open one's mouth if you let the code speak for you.

Even if Windows was free, the price of using it is still too high.

Indeed. Its the long term deficiencies and consequences you have to face when selecting that platform.

Yobbo writes...

can you stay try to install flash onto firefox, almost impossible on linux, one click install on windows

You're trying to use Windows habits on Linux, and then complain about how Linux doesn't work for you...It doesn't work that way. It isn't Windows.

You want the package manager to handle all the install/uninstall/updates for you. This stream lines maintenance of a system. The package manager is your friend.

Example: Arch Linux
=> pacman -S flashplugin
Done.

Think about every time you need to keep track of a new Flash update (or whatever other third-party app you've installed), under Windows.

You have to manually go to a website, and update each app. Some apps don't have auto update or they just don't install the very latest one. (Like Java Runtime Environment 6 update 15 doesn't see update 16...It reports its up to date!)

Example: This is how an Arch Linux user updates their WHOLE system.
=> pacman -Syu
Done.

See that? Direct and clean.
(It should be fundamentally similar for other distros.)

Yobbo writes...

(can you stay try to install flash onto firefox, almost impossible on linux, one click install on windows)

Ubuntu

Start Synaptic (GUI Package Manager)
Search Flash
Tick
Press Apply
Done

I have tried linux a couple of times and found it slower and a lot buggier than windows.

Unless you have benchmarks to prove this, then the actual benchmarks all over the web would suggest that both OSes have their strengths and weaknesses when executing applications.

The only time I have had major problems installing flash was on vista. This was a major problem getting it to work with IE. Ended up installing Firefox and flash with no problems.

sp1k3 writes...

The only time I have had major problems installing flash was on vista. This was a major problem getting it to work with IE. Ended up installing Firefox and flash with no problems.

I had major problems on Win 7 with flash in Firefox but I'm pretty sure that it worked OK in IE so go figure computers eh.