Is Windows Worth $45?

bgelb writes "This article from the Wall Street Journal questions whether Microsoft really innovates enough to justify the enormous amount of money (nearly 10% of the cost of every PC!) it takes from consumers each year. Hard drive and chip makers innovate constantly, but what about Microsoft?"

Who actually pays?

I'm not a Windows user, but all of my friends in my networking class pirate, even the ones who are Windows enthusiasts. Of course, they all build their PCs, I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.

Re:Who actually pays?

What do you mean by "pirate"?

Is this the Microsoft definition that says that since I don't have a license for each and every CPU that I am "casually pirating" their software?

That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate? Once it gets through my door I should be able to use it as I please just as any other form of "Intelectual Property."

Wow.. fair use really must be dead as the corp guys said...

Re:Who actually pays?

That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate?

Same reason people who download an MP3 of a song that plays on the radio every other hour get called "pirates".

Not that I agree with it, that's just how it is...

Re:Who actually pays?

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Why shouldn't one be allowed to use that license on different PCs in their home?

Because the license stipulates one machine only.

Why should dowloading a song freely available to anyone with a tape recorder (or a good memory) be illegal ?

After all...one is not restricted to listening to music on any one particular device.

Heh. Yet.

The difference is that OSs typically require an install and therefore cannot be easily moved from system to system like music can (Knoppix is an exception but perhaps should be the norm).

There is no difference. The law stipulates what is protected by copyright and how. Break that law and you will be labelled a "pirate".

Re:Who actually pays?

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

The point being is that he (presumably) doesn't ever use more than three computers at once.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free. Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need? Remember that windows NT4.0 came with a 4 cpu licence, but a hyperthreaded P4 uses up all of XP's (2) processor licences, and if you want to run even a dual processor motherboard its deemed a server. Even if it was on the same hardware. Can you install a copy of office on your laptop as well as your office machine (Sometimes you can). Oh, and yes, lets not forget the debacle of licensing 6.0 for business users, or how open source software is making microsoft drop its prices for no apparent reason.

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright. Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac. If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

My 2c

Michael

Re:Who actually pays?

I remember reading in an interview with Billy G, and he said Microsoft would not go after people that used the same license on two computers, as it would give them too much bad PR(not that it really matters, they are a monopoly, and I don't think there would be a mass switchout of Microsoft products if it did happen, people are too lazy to change). Even though they aren't getting paid for that fourth computer, they are atleast benifiting from it running Windows and expanding their dominance. It would probably cost too much in legal fees to go sue each and every user RIAA style, and there is really no way to tell who is an isn't, people who pirate software usually aren't dumb when it comes to covering their tracks by stopping the computer from phoning One Microsoft Way. More importantly it might just invalidate click-through EULAs if they took them to court, which ofcourse they couldn't afford to loose, it's what gives them leverage above the user.

Re:Who actually pays?

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap

The biggest hint that windows is priced much higher than production cost would be MS's cash reserves and the number trailing zeros in Gates' net worth.

That being said, what you pay for a product only has something to do with production cost when there is real competition.

Re:Who actually pays?

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

That's a different situation. The software is licensed to be installed and used - roughly speaking - on one PC at a time. I'm pretty sure the fine print allows for the movable install you described initially and may even allow for multiple installs (as long as only one is ever active at once).

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free.

IE has always been available for free.

Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need?

Licensing applies to physical CPUs. The problem is that earlier versions of Windows can't tell the difference between logical and physical CPUs. It's a technical issue, not a licensing one. You are licensed to use XP Pro on a dual HT CPU machine, even if it appears to the OS as four logical CPUs.

Microsoft's licensing is really no more arbitrary than any similar company in the industry.

But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

*Re*production costs (ie: banging out CDs) are very cheap. *Production* costs (ie: developing the software) are very high.

Again, Microsoft "changing the price" arbitrarily is really no different to anyone else in the software industry - pretty much everyone charges per CPU, by usage type, by support details, etc. Indeed, pretty much *any* industry that derives money from "intellectual property" does this, as it's the best way for them to milk as much money as possible out of the consumer.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

It's the *copyright system* that leaves the average user in that position. Microsoft (like everyone else) are merely taking advantage of the system.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright.

Copyright causes the problem. Not Microsoft.

Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac.

How is trading Microsoft for Apple going to make the situation any different ? They behave in exactly the same way.

OSS operating systems are, of course, different as their development generally doesn't need to be paid for by money.

If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

This particular issue has zero to do with whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. Pretty much everyone licenses software like Microsoft.

Re:Who actually pays?

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

Ooo! Ooo! You opened the Can of Worms!

What exactly are "the machine they were sold with"? If I change my mouse, does it invalidate the licence? What about the harddrive or the video card? The motherboard (or maybe just the CPU)?

EULAs are nothing but attempts to indimidate and control. They have managed to twist the meaning of "copy" so that the use of the software is a "copy" (from medium to ram) claiming then that their right to limit copy is in force.

Let's hope someone does bring an EULA to court someday in front of a judge that can understand that a "copy" necessary in order to use something is not the kind of copy meant to be limited by copyright law.

After all, when I read a book, I make several intangible copies. Light reflected off the pages create a copy on my retina. My brain processing that image certainly makes many symbolic copies. I might even retain a long term copy for future reference (it's called, you know, memory).

Obviously, the copyright holders shouldn't be able to sue me. Those copies were necessary and unavoidable to even use the book to begin with. Why should software be any different?

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Some time in the past, some evil business-type paid some lawer-type to go and confuse a non-tech savvy judge that being able to use what you buy is making a copy because of some technical detail. That judge got swindeled and we are paying the price.

Let's hope nobody goes to a judge explaining the evil copy that we make optically every time we read (or indeed look) at something.

-- MG

Re:Who actually pays?

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Maybe this is precisely what needs to happen to highlight the stupidity of it all. Write a book that has a EULA on the front cover, and take someone to court over it. It puts the law into the realm of the understood, instead of allowing lawyers to 'abstract' it convincing a judge it's something other than what it is.

Re:Who actually pays?

Is he using all 4 PCs simultaneously?

That's how I read it (note that for an OS, "using" = booted up).

If he isn't, and the licenses aren't OEM licenses (which are tied to specific machines) then I believe he is allowed to use the same copy on more than one machine as long as no two copies are active at the same time.

He doesn't say, but I rather doubt so. Unless he's running a data centre out of his basement, I think he's morally, if not legally, justified to think he's paid for what he's using.

No argument there. Personally I think just about any non-profit oriented "copyright violation" is moral.

Re:Who actually pays?

What I am saying is why can't he purchase one license and use it on all the PCs in his home?

We're not talking music, we're talking software. The difference is in the terms. If the license says "buy one license per CPU", then you can either agree to it and do just that, or you can return it on the grounds that you disagree with the license. If everyone would simply decline the licensing scheme that systems like Windows / Oracle / etc. use, they'd go away. But, people apparently keep buying multiple licenses for multiple machines and so they stay because they're obviously making money (I'm not counting the one-license people who get OEM copies).

And, if you "pirate" the software, all you do is silently add another Windows box to the statistics without making it known that you've declined the license, which just helps Microsoft and the licensing scheme.

Unfortunately I fear this may be the case. I refuse to use any paid music download service if it restricts my right to play the music on any device that I deem appropriate.

Same here, mate. Good policy. I use MMJB to play the radio at CD quality and commercial free and that's it. Vote with your dollars. If they can't sell crappy licensing schemes and "protected" (broken) content, they won't try (or, they'll die off and get replaced by less assinine companies.

Re:Who actually pays?

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine. You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree to it. You should recognize that failure to comply with it is misappropriation of intellectual property.

I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs. Just imagine people saying, "I have the code, I can do what I want with it, even distribute binary only!" and the uproar begins.

Re:Who actually pays?

I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs.

Because the GPL is not an EULA. It is totally different from an EULA.The GPL is targeted not at the End User, but at the "Intermediate Developer".

The GPL gives you new rights that you didn't have before (thus it can be considered a valid contract, because you get something out of it).

Some EULAs claim they take away rights that you already had. There is no reason for a customer to agree to that license, because he gets nothing out of it (and he already had a legal right to run one copy of the software as soon as Microsoft handed him a cdrom)

Re:Who actually pays?

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for

Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.

Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.

1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?

2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.

3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.

Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.

But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.

Re:Who actually pays?

You're thinking of ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com].

Re:Who actually pays?

They're the copyright owners they stipulate how it can be distributed or whether it can be copied to multiple copy's. People get pissed when large companies break the GPL why shouldn't microsoft get the same people being irate for them? Don't give me that whole microsoft is monopoly deal, morals are morals. If you think its wrong to break the gpl don't go doing the same for windows.

Re:Who actually pays?

It's also morally wrong to use your "Intellectual Property" as a sword and not a shield... and it's also morally wrong to use your "I.P." to fleese every nickel out of someone for a product that has already legally paid for. If YOU are in favor of the GPL you will already know that the reason it even exists.

The GPL has neither one of these problem, thank you. I have paid for windows, and, for your information, I have a legal association with a university with an extended site license so EVERY copy I have is legal and I can run it where I want... LEGALLY.

Re:Who actually pays?

Excellent point. By the way, I'm the copyright owner of this comment, and by reading it you agree to pay me $1000. If you think it's wrong to break copyright, then please don't read this comment, but since you already have, I'll take the full amount in $20's please.

Re:Who actually pays?

Take copyright and turn it around...

Right to copy.

Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify. This is why we get all into talking about fair use etc. What constitutes copying? Partial copying, quoting with attribution, backup copy for personal use?

Anyone know what the default copyright's are? Are all rights reserved by default? What rights are granted by not explicitely stating what the right to copy is.

And in closing, I think copying a slashdot comment will more likely get you bitch-slapped than sued... but that's just my two cents.

Re:Who actually pays?

Good clear examples! You have the right to use your refrigerator any way you see fit, even making back up copies (which would be prudent). The only legal problem comes if you should try and distribute copies of that refrigerator. What we need is a GPL refrigerator. GNU/Frigidaire anyone?

Re:Who actually pays?

It wasn't worth time I spent reading it, so I'm filing a claim under my state's lemon laws. Oh, yeah, I've also called the BBB about shoddy merchandise. I will be filing a class action lawsuit next week on behalf of all /. readers who may have reason to believe they were harmed emotionally, mentally or intellectually by your comments.

I've also called Random House and Webster's. Their lawyers may want to speak to you about the usage of various of the following words:

Excellent point. By the way, I'm the copyright owner of this comment, and by reading it you agree to pay me $1000. If you think it's wrong to break copyright, then please don't read this comment, but since you already have, I'll take the full amount in $20's please

Have a nice day.

Re:Who actually pays?

Bullshit.

With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today. Microsoft is a sandbagger that adopts technology and sound engineering practices only when they face threat of imminent mass end user revolt. Otherwise they just abuse their captive audience.

Re:Who actually pays?

With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today.

I'm not supporting the current state of Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft DOS had a critical role in the development of the modern PCs. We all owe it a lot.

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

MS DOS allowed Compaq to clone the IBM PC, which introduced real price competetion into the world of PC hardware, and eventually gave us the fast cheap machines we all use.

If IBM hadn't sub-contracted out their OS work to another company, computer technology wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast. (That company didn't necessarily have to be Microsoft, anyone could've done it, but Bill Gates lucked out)

Re:Who actually pays?

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

CP/M [wikipedia.org] ran on the Zilog Z-80, Motorola m68k, and Intel 8080 and 8086 architectures -- on microcomputers not manufactured by CP/M's publisher, Digital Research. MS-DOS copied many features from CP/M, and several early MS-DOS programs such as dBase and WordStar were ports from CP/M.

Neither Microsoft nor IBM invented the idea of a microcomputer operating system separable from a particular manufacturer's hardware. Indeed, several of the first IBM-clones (by which many would ironically include the IBM PCjr) were notoriously buggy, and many MS-DOS programs would not run on them. (CP/M programs were generally compatible on the same processor.)

As usual, the Microsoft-based copy of someone else's idea was much poorer. However, the Microsoft marketing machine -- and, more importantly, the willingness of the computing world to forget or deny the better options not taken -- have come into play.

Re:Who actually pays?

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

MS DOS allowed Compaq to clone the IBM PC, which introduced real price competetion into the world of PC hardware, and eventually gave us the fast cheap machines we all use.

If IBM hadn't sub-contracted out their OS work to another company, computer technology wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast. (That company didn't necessarily have to be Microsoft, anyone could've done it, but Bill Gates lucked out.

Your reasoning is correct but one niggly fact was wrong. You talk about OSs only being sold by the hardware manufacturer and you say "Microsoft changed that". But CP/M predates MS-DOS by a very long time and it was available on many personal computers from many vendors. You could even get CP/M for the Commodore 128.

While I agree with you that divorcing hardware from the software was important for the growth of the IT industry, Microsoft wasn't the first company to do it. Even UNIX could be properly seen as divorcing hardware from software; you could run UNIX on dozens of different minis (not PCs) well before Microsoft even existed.

Re:Who actually pays?

Sorry, not to be a Microsoft apologist, but if you bought that license with your machine, you didn't buy a full license, you bought the OEM license, which is intended to be used on that machine and that machine only. Because of this restriction, you did not pay the full retail price of Windows.

Many people pay much more then $45 dollars for their OS, hell, even Mandrake and Suse cost more then that if you buy it.

Nobody forces you to buy a computer with Windows on it, yet. If you don't like Microsoft's practices, buy a computer with no OS, or build your own. The vast majority of people would rather pay extra and not have to worry about loading the OS manually. And those who know how to load an OS also usually know where and how to build or buy a system without an OS.

Re:Who actually pays?

This violates the Fair Use and First Sale doctrines. Corps make it common practice to toss legal language into contracts knowing that it can't/won't be enforced. This is one way those with a clue like to abuse those without one.

Don't take is the next gospel just because it's in a contract or license.

Re:Who actually pays?

No, but Microsoft's terms with hardware vendors have, for years, assumed that all machines sold by said vendors would have a Microsoft OS on them. Consequently, even machines which did not ship with Windows already had a Microsoft license paid for. That was one of the big deals at the antitrust trial, as a matter of fact, given that it discourages hardware makers from supplying alternative OSes (why pay twice?) So, in effect, Microsoft DID force users to buy computers with Windows on them, even if they didn't have Windows on them. Those agreements may still be in effect, I don't know.

Re:Who actually pays?

Funny, the college I work at has the Academic Alliance thing... so our students get like just about anything MS has for $25 total, but only if they are majoring in the ITE fields.

Re:Who actually pays?

Their differential pricing model in general hints at monopoly abuse - by this I mean the fact they can charge different prices for 7 different versions of Windows (XP Home, XP Pro, the various Server 2003's), which ultimately aren't very different under the hood, combined with the fact that they'll practically give software to anyone with a good enough excuse (governments, universities, the third world...). Clearly their mark-up on Windows is pretty huge, given that they don't need to be making lots of money on every single copy.

Re:Who actually pays?

That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Practically every hardware/software vendor in the world does the same thing.

Sun and IBM, for example, price their hardware and software all over the map depending on what type of customer you are. Everyone gets a different level of "discounts" or slightly different SKUs, depending on the audience/purchaser, even though it's all the same under the hood.

Re:Who actually pays?

That's how it works with everyone. I needed to buy a Dell server once. They only one they had that they would spec with the hardware I wanted was a job that had lots of unnecessary shit, like support for 4 processors. So I faxed the quote to Gateway along with what I wanted. Gateway was happy to design me one with the same specs, but not all the extra shit for a grand less. This then went back to Dell with a note that I'd buy it if they didn't do better. Turns out Dell COULD actually accomadate my needs with a lesser server and get everything I wanted in it, and at about $300 less than Gateway.

It's also interesting how nice Microsoft is to us where I now work. It's a university engineering department and as such has lots of UNIX in additon to Windows. MS gives us excellent terms on all their software, with compilers and the like being free provided they are used for research only.

Likewise Sun is very competitve price wise as both IBM and Dell have been frequent to point out how they could not only meet our Windows needs, but our Solaris needs too, and one system can run both OSes.

It is simply the way of a capatalism.

Who actually pays? We do.

> That has nothing to do with being a monopoly.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't know if its that clear cut. For instance, three weeks ago I was talking to one of our NOC guys at school and essentially they're going to phase out Novell because MS is giving them so much free software (upgrades to XP and server2003) they can finally shift to AD and drop Novell.

Now how is MS able to pay for this generosity?

1. They abused their monopoly and are arguably paying for this kind of thing with their ill gotten gains.

2. They're just a good company. *snicker*

I'm leaning towards 1. Novell has money and doesn't want to lose customers either, but they can't afford to supply an entire 20,000 person campus for 2 or 3 grand.

Re:Who actually pays? We do.

They can afford to give it away. As someone else wrote, it is also a tax break for them.

But it is also advertising. Students at the school don't see novell at all anymore, they see Windows and AD. They get used to this, they learn it. When they graduate, they know it. They go other places and ask why it's not there or help to bring it there because they know it.

With the Microsoft Campus Agreement, campuses license Windows and Office at a flat fee based on the Full-time enrollment equivalant. At our campus of 6000 students, it works out to cost about $8/student/semester. That $8 gets then the OS installed (9x/ME/2k/XP), and the Office Suite, and a couple of other things, like Visual Studio. When they leave the school, they get to keep it as well. Yeah...we pay for it, and the students pay for it, but for what is basically $16 a year, they get the OS and office suite with free upgrades. On the other hand, the amount the campus pays has gone up a couple times.

Re:Who actually pays?

Indeed, and I have long publicly held that $45 is right about the fair price for the retail version of the "greatest" version of Windows. Rather less for the "lower orders" and OEM versions.

Particularly over the past few years when the legal street price for a functional OS has been $0. All Microsoft is really selling these days is value added above that which is available for free, and that added value shrinks daily.

The same goes for pirated versions as well, were XP Pro $45 retail and XP Home $25 I dare say you'd see 90% of the pirate market dry up over night and Microsoft revenues either hardly dip at all, or perhaps even rise slighttly.

Those who would still pirate it at those prices are those that will pirate it anyway, notwithstanding price.

Any company that can, at those prices, cry that they're only making about 90% clear profit on their wares had best not cry to me. I shall likely be entirely deaf to their entreaties, knowing, as I do from personal experience, that squeezing 20% overall profit from commercial trade is doing rather well, both by one's self and by reference to the profit margins of others.

Take GM, for instance, who must deliver to you a car for the same profit margin that MS makes on Windows+Office, and who must invest billions of dollars in research, regulation compliance, manufacturing facilities, distribution channels, liablility etc, in order to deliver that car to you.

Microsoft's vauted "R&D" costs are peanuts compared to what it takes to make a simple change to an existing auto design, let alone the cost of designing and certifying a wholely new model. Their manufacturing costs are virtually nil, as are their distribution costs.

This is why they have been able to gather their unparalleled vast fortune in only a couple of handfuls of years, and why they must now resort to extraordinary actions to maintain their sales, even though their vast fortune would allow the company to live quite securely ad infinitum without conducting any overt commercial trade whatsoever.

Yes, for Windows XP Pro $45 seems fair, to a bit less than fair, as a retail price.

Let's say $19.95 for Office.

KFG