The Cost of Bug Fixes 181
Well, I try to avoid posting MS stories unless they're kinda
large, but about 50 people have submitted a CNet story that
proclaims that MS might be charging as much as
$89 for a Service Patch to
Windows 98. I guess I'd try to come up with an appropriately
witty comment, but I'm at a loss for words here.
Update: 04/07 03:27 by CT : apparently Cnet is screwed up a bit here, and
CNN has a more accurate
story. Read it.
Competition in every segment? (Score:2)
Okay, if you have looked at all the graphs of OS use, tell us what Microsoft's competition is on Intel PCs in the home. Or on Intel PC desktops in corporate use?
Lets see. Linux? Hardly. BeOS? Again, I really don't think so. OS/2? Whatever. Where's the so-called competition?
People who insist that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly are just fooling themselves to believe whatever comes out of Microsoft's mouth. The fact of the matter, Microsoft soft wields tremendous market power. Regardless of whether Microsoft has a literal monopoly, they are abusing their market power to the detriment of society. That is why they must be stopped. The reason people say that Microsoft is a monopoly, is because it's alot easier to say than "The wield near-monopoly market power." (Like the whole Linux, GNU/Linux thing).
Even AT&T had competition, as did standard oil, and they were monopolies by every sense of the word.
Ever heard of Monopolistic competition? (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is, if Microsoft decided to charge $200 for the upgrade, most people would pay for it rather than explore alternatives, simply because there aren't really any alternatives.
Huh? (Score:2)
*I'm* being dense? (Score:2)
Try again?
Upgrade Tax(tm) again (Score:1)
I'll pay $100 if it removes IE4 ;) (Score:1)
say what? (Score:1)
Look on the bright side, they're probably saving up for when they lose the DOJ trial. :-)
It's all good.. (Score:1)
This is of course, sarcasm.
TOTAL DAMN ARROGANCE - an alternative on the ... (Score:1)
"[P]assable (not preferrable) alternative
The real kick in the ass is... (Score:1)
Don't despair. This is a good thing...everytime they pull this stunt, they piss off a few more people who begin looking elsewhere.
Their day of reckoning is coming, and foolishness like this only accelerates their demise. So please MS...keep doing this and raking in the bucks...'cuz soon its going to sneak up and bite you in the ass.
Digging holes (Score:1)
I wonder why MS keeps insisting on diggging holes for itself. I know, they can't afford the anti-trust case against them anymore, they have to
Ah, what a wonderful world it could be...at least if the world would be running on Linux.
Paying and stuff (Score:1)
Well they've paid for Hotmail and that's still running on a Unix-based system. It makes you wonder, nah.
First step to subscription based licensing (Score:1)
If you think paying for bug fixes is bad, you haven't seen anything, yet. There were articles during the trial which revealed that MS's plan is to try to move Windoze licensing to a subscription based model. Since too many people refuse to buy upgrades, the solution is to make them pay more than once for the same software by having the license expire.
This is merely a first attempt at moving toward that goal.
--
Don't fear the penguin.
Re: (Score:1)
This may be linux's chance to take the desktop (Score:1)
Well, I'll admit that while KDE is not quite as easy to use as Windows 9x, it is a great step forward. This most recent pricing fiasco may be just what KDE/Gnome/etc need to push their way into the desktop mark and make linux a legitimate desktop OS for John Q. Public.
I personally refuse to pay to FIX an OS that Microsoft and Dell FORCED me to buy with the equipment I purchased.
Can you imagine what would happen... (Score:3)
I guess MS can get away with this, since their software has no warranty. So much for the theory of suing MS if something goes wrong.
TedC
They're evil, but not stupid. (Score:1)
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153
The bug fixes will be free, in the form of SP1, downloadable from the MS site. In addition to that, there will be multiple versions of the newer Win98 (with new features), including a nominally-priced upgrade for people who paid the full retail price already for W98.
The $89 price willl be for a new full retail install, it looks like.
I'm no lackey, but it doesn't look as bad as it looks.
Well.... (Score:2)
Now, I could slap RH Sparclinux on this puppy, but that is not my decision to make. I can't use the free Solaris 'cause this is for business use. My point is that I should not have to go through an upgrade/replacement because the os is doing just fine as it is. Am I pissed? You bet.
MS is good for Businesses. (Score:1)
Other people's businesses.
I see this as a business opportunity. The forward looking company will realise that by stepping off of the MS treadmill and installing ANY competing OS (Linux, *BSD, BEOS, etc), they can operate at lower margins than the competition which routinely looses productivity and shells out cash for bug fixes that introduce as many bugs as they fix.
For small businesess, standardizing on MS can cost enough to make the difference between a small profit and going into the red. While Linux and co. may be more difficult for a novice user, at least the problems CAN be overcome. With MS, the novice buys it on the promise that it's so simple their parakeet can use it, and ends up with a killer bug that nobody can fix for them at any price.
"apple charge for upgrades" (Score:1)
BTW: The new 8.6 nanokernel is a BIG improvement! It supports REAL preemptive multitasking and a better memory manager called Guard Pages. Not as good as Linux or MacOS X Server, but much better. Also there is REAL SMP. My friend loaded beta4 on a 9500 with a dual 604 @ 200MHz and the speed is 60% faster overall. That means no more MP-enabled apps are needed to take advatage of dual processors. In fact up to 64 processors are supported (theoretically) although the most ever tested in beta was 12 (604e). I am using 8.6b4 and have yet to crash my system under 8.6 (in 2 months.)
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
89 bucks for a bug fix? (Score:1)
Not technical superiority, I dare say that's been tried. When customers perceive that they're being gouged, simply because they have no choice of where to go, they do begin to get a little pissed off.
In practical terms what does it mean? We'll probably see slightly higher sales for Apple, coming mostly from the point and drool crowd. Be may see a little more action from media types (not sure about this), and free OS's will probably get a boost from fed-up users who consider themselves technically proficient.
The sad part is, all of the migration will probably be too small to be noticed, except by the gaining communities.
At least until the next bug fix.
paying for bug fixes (Score:2)
And the article didn't say the 'service pack' wasn't free - it says the upgrade wan't free.
claiming the SP isn't free is hysterical scaremongering.
What was that quote from Gates? (Score:1)
I'm so happy (Score:1)
I'm just rolling in the dough!
You'd think..... (Score:1)
If they don't manage to sell *something* new this year -- since we all know that Win2K is going to be delayed -- there's going to be a lot of annoyed share-holders.
New MS Buisness model... (Score:1)
How about this for a conspiracy theory:
Windows 2000/NT 5.0 whatever the hell they decide to call it will cost you $0.00 to upgrade.. yup that's as in:
MS: See we have a "FREE" OS too!
Then charge $89.95 for your first bug fix 19.95 for each additional one. Sounds like a plan to me!
-Ex-Nt-User
Sorry bud, they ARE a monopoly (Score:1)
Just because there are alternatives does NOT mean that they are not a monopoly. Look at the law! There have been cases where a company with only 70% of the market were judged as a monopoly. It's not as black and white as you think.
And the way the DOJ/MS case is going, I expect our courts to agree with me as well.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Why this will work for Microsoft (Score:1)
However here is why Microsoft will make this work. Becuase many many businesses use almost exclusive Win98 networks with a spattering of WinNT and Win95. The techs at these places usually hate having to deal with the BSODs and lockups that 98 creates. Therefore they will be able to convince the people with the money to upgrade the systems to "increase productivity".
In addition to this, Microsoft also will force PC OEMS into upgrading their licenses to ship the Win98-2ed, if they don't then they will be selling an "inferior product". Many times this leaves businesses with copies of Win98 that are never really used.
What makes the situation even worse is suppose you have a computer that has Win3.1 on it right and just suppose you can actually upgrade it to Win98 (I've seen places where they have pII-300's doing win3.1). You can't use the copy of 98 from the old computer! Why? Because they upgrade license agreements are written in such a way that all of the software must be installed on that machine. As a result there are some machines, my parents included that to use win98 must be upgraded in this order: Dos 5.0, Dos 6.2, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98-2ed. Thats an awful lot of time wasted because of poor licensing, but I guess thats the power of a monopoly now isn't it?
What's worse? (Score:1)
May the Source be with us.
I'll pay $100 if it removes IE4 ;) (Score:1)
What's a free country? (Score:1)
Where do you live?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Not so. (Score:1)
According to US antitrust law, more than 50% marketshare in a given market is sufficient to call a company a monopoly. Standard Oil was broken up when it had only about 50-60% market share.
Reason being is that you don't need 100% market share to be capable of bending the market to your will.
Rockefeller had exclusive agreements with railroads so S.O. got a kickback even when it was his competitor's oil that was being transported, just like Microsoft gets paid by OEM's even if a PC is sold with a competing OS, or with no OS at all. 50% market share is more than ample power to negotiate such agreements, because the monopoly can easily kill the OEM or the railroad by refusing to do business with them.
So to say that MS (or Intel, or IBM) is not a monopoly is merely quibbling over semantics and dictionary definitions. Antitrust law exists to protect against anticompetitive exclusive agreements.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Subscriptions are out of the question. (Score:1)
That isn't to say that Microsoft wouldn't love to do that, but the smart move is to get offices to upgrade by (a) purchasing new equipment from OEMs and/or (b) bundling "upgrades" with new software.
-----
Is it a bug fix? (Score:1)
paying for bug fixes is BS (Score:1)
When will BG be assassinated?
Try OS/2 (Score:1)
Just cuz the computer press denounces it(perhaps for fear of losing micro$oft ad money?) doesn't mean it's not a viable alternative to windows. After all, if it wasn't useable, you wouldn't see things like:
A quick look at the Large OS/2 Customers List [netsurf.de] shows a lot of banks. Banks can't afford for their systems to be down as customers tend to get rather irate if they cannot access their money.
As far as updates, IBM is still releasing free fixpacks for Warp 4.0 as well as 3.0(released in 94). If you'd rather not download the fixpacks, OS/2 Super Site [os2ss.com] offers them burned on a CD for about $15. Current device drivers can be found at IBM's online Device Driver Pack [ibm.com]. In the past 30 days 2 new drivers have been added and 264 drivers have been updated.
For typical office needs, Staroffice [stardivision.com]can handle current MS office documents and is available for OS/2, Linux, and even Windows.
OS/2 even provides for a Y2K compliant Windows 3 environment.
What other everyday needs do you have? Perhaps people can send you suggested replacements. For a ready made list of comparable applications for OS/2, check The OS/2 Alternative [tstonramp.com] site.
You're part of the problem if you just let micro$oft keep screwing you over.
Why not just make it Windows 99 (Score:1)
or
they are just confusing people with names so people think about "why not windows 99? why not windows 98.1?" not about "is it upgrade? is it patch? why does it cost 89$?"
it makes you wonder? (Score:1)
regular users just pay attention to "brought to you by microsoft"
do anyone saw SUN logo on hotmail?
so what's monopoly? (Score:1)
for me, monopoly is when i have no choice but buy one think otherwise others wont accept me
so try to send for example StarrOffice document (in native S.O. format) to someone else and see how they will be hot to talk with you; try to use pine and try to explain others that HTMLed or WORDed emails are causing you problems; try to buy some cool hardware and then ask vendor to provide you with driver for some other OS than windows; try to explain to your boss that when you say "i need computer" you do not mean "i need PC with windows"; etc., etc., etc.
for me, that's monopoly
and that's why i also consider this patch pricing as extortion; and extortion is bad even (or also?) in democracy
question to mr. Bill Gates (Score:1)
i also hope, that mr. gates considered threat of macro-viruses (i.e. lack of usefull protection againts such intruders) in office family as "essential bug" which affects "significant number of users"; i'm not affected, i just want that poor common users not to risk heart attacks, head-aches, ... for those things
underestimete ourselves (Score:1)
car vs. OS (Score:1)
this whole thing with charged bug-fix is like buying a car with airbag and then after (maybe successfuly) using it for year you "can" buy and "upgrade" of your car which fixes airbags (it do not works this whole year) and makes your car burn +1 liter per kilometer just to makes you think this "upgrade" is improvement and you need it and it is OK to pay for it
what a pitty that car comes with some warranty so you can get fixed airbag for free and you do not have to buy new engine to get airbag fixed
Internet Connection Sharing (Score:1)
|I've managed to use to convince a friend or two
|to install Linux with. Very smart
|for MS to do this.
My wonderings are:
* Do all the client boxes have to be Win98?
* How well does the MS solution work? Better than Wingate and/or Linux's IP Masq? At any rate, people selling Windows IP Masq solutions are now going to be in a world of hurt, even if they *do* work better than this new 98 feature.
* Does anyone else get the screaming heebie jeebies at the idea of a Windows 98 box as a firewall?
You are right... (Score:1)
>>Arrghh! Why do people insist on treating this as if it were settled and byond debate?
Because it is settled and beyond debate. Glad to help.
screw the customers (screw ourselves) (Score:1)
In the end, they screw themselves; people will look for (and find) better alternatives.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
Gates' philanthropy (Score:1)
Why not just make it Windows 99? (Score:1)
"The Constitution admittedly has a few defects and blemishes, but it still seems a hell of a lot better than the system we have now."
Truely ridiculous! (Score:1)
Why no warranty? (Score:1)
I mean if you let your horde of trained mammals loose, I'm sure one can _prove_, using elementary mathematics, whether a given program is bug-free or not.
Of course as the codebase gets bigger and bigger, this requires more of an effort, but that's what QA is for, isn't it?
So how come the software companies can have no warranty at all, and noone's complaining???
Heck, even I could sell you WinExtra++ 53.953 for only $500. What? You got an empty floppy disk? Sorry, read my disclaimer and non-warranty fine print...
Read the article. (Score:2)
Regards,
and the Plus pack... (Score:1)
I always thought these were the real rip-off, but no-one ever remembers to factor in these costs.
MS started charging for IE in the same way about a year ago, you got "IE Basic" for free, but they released an "IE Plus Pack" (I forget the exact name, Gold Edition or something) for about $80 that added not very much, but gave you a nice box.
The problem with creating an idiot proof systems.. (Score:1)
Cost of Windows 98 vs. RH Linux 5.2 (Score:1)
2. Why did you have to repartition to install it? Win95 didn't support FAT32 until osr2.5. All it would require is at least deleting some program directories and at most a reformat.
3. Who'd you find dumb enough to pay you $340 to install win95 on something? I'd sure as hell like to find some people like that.
4. You indicate that upgrading to win98 takes 4 hours. Since when? On average, it takes me 20-30 minutes to install it. Even installing from disks wouldn't take 4 hours.
5. I'm asuming that the refusal parts after win98 means you didn't install 98 on the computer. So, why did you include the cost of win98 installation in your tco?
Bill Gates: MS software essentially bug-free (Score:4)
--
98lite URL (Score:1)
Bait and Switch (Score:1)
Or would it be switch and bait? M$ is working to get everyone all worked up so we'll be all happy when they announce their subscription program and the associated *savings*. What they really want is an annual fee from all of us to cover their *development* costs.
Ever heard of the (sic) Open License [microsoft.com]?
How long until they charge for IE? (Score:1)
They got away with it before (Score:2)
Anyway, there are no bugs in any Microsoft products, just "issues".
What was that quote from Gates? (Score:2)
He based this on the fact that a low percentage of people call the tech support numbers and say "hey, I found a bug!" Of course ignoring the fact that most MS users are not technical enough to know when they've found a bug, they assume that they themselves are doing something wrong.
Is this StepUp or SetUp? I'm confused. (Score:1)
Great News :-) (Score:1)
Way to go MS, keep it up
Macka
You are deluded... (Score:2)
So could any RDBMS vendor - the cost of switching systems is so prohibitive, most users would gladly pay $100 more than switch, even if the cost was unjustifiable.
So does that mean that Informix and Sybase are both monopolists?
Your rules don't apply to software, where any installed software has a stickiness, especially if apps have been built around it.
Example:A RDBMS vendor who has 1% market share can change prices at will for a present customer that has built a number of apps based on that RDBMS - the customer simply cannot afford to reeengineer the code. So could any vendor. So are they all monopolisits?
It does apply, look at utilities... (Score:2)
But then virtually every software platform vendor is a monopolist. At best, you need some new rules to govern platform builders (OSs, RDBMSs, etc.). Calling each one a monopoly isn't going to be very constructive in the long run.
It does apply, look at utilities... (Score:2)
But then virtually every software platform vendor is a monopolist. At best, you need some new rules to govern platform builders (OSs, RDBMSs, etc.). Calling each one a monopoly isn't going to be very constructive in the long run.
Ever heard of Monopolistic competition? (Score:2)
This applies to Microsoft too though, blowing your argument. Really, most serious data wharehouses are more closely tied to their RDBMS than their OS.
Oracle users, for example, can move between HPUX and Solaris and still use OCI. Moving away from Oracle would be far more costly than switching OSs.
TOTAL DAMN ARROGANCE (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
linux is the fastest growing server OS right now.
the biggest selling home pc is the iMac.
how much more obvious do you need it?
You are right... (Score:3)
Arrghh! Why do people insist on treating this as if it were settled and byond debate?
Microsoft is NOT A MONOPOLY. Look at any graph of OS use - Microsoft has competition in every segment. In the server OS segment it wasn't even the fastest growing product this year.
Microsoft abuses contracts, attempts to impose its will where it shouldn't and uses some questionable bundling practices. But these are NOT tantamount to a monopoly.
Please people, we just make ourselves look silly when we believe our own BS and throw around terms like this as if they were resolved historical facts.
TOTAL DAMN ARROGANCE (Score:4)
Then how about Oracle, IBM, Sybase, Sun, Informix, etc. who release
I just wish there was some *usuable* competitive OS
If you don't want to use Linux, the MacOS is a passable (not preferrable) alternative to win95/98.
Its a free country... (Score:5)
Really. If Microsoft can get people to fall for it, then why not?
Honestly folks, every piece of software is a fix, upgrade, or amendment to something that has come before, so I don't really see a logical reason why a pricetag can't be put on the upgrade.
There were no claims that the original piece of software was defect free, and no one is claiming that users must purchase the upgrade.
I fervently disagree that the government must "do" something about this as other knee-jerk responses above have stated. Software vendors do this all the time. Database vendors, for example, typically roll out
This really isn't that abnormal.
The monopoly lock on Office forces the upgrade (Score:1)
Usually, Office bugs are far more important to day-to-day users than Windows bugs (see Melissa).
It always worked like this. They will release the Win98 upgrade now. Some months after that an Office upgrade will come out, but this upgrade will only work with the Win98 upgrade in place.
Other companies usually can not use this kind of tatic because they only cover a segment of the market. If I use Oracle, I can keep using it without problems if the bugs corrected by a given upgrade are irrelevant to me.
In all fairness... (Score:1)
In short, saying that you have to buy the Win98-2 upgrade to have a current Windows setup is like saying that you have to go to the store and buy the latest boxed version of Red Hat (approx $45) every time a new kernel or other major feature is available.
TOTAL DAMN ARROGANCE (Score:1)
However, I would prefer its put out of business. Any company as stupid as this, meaning lets show what a monopoly can do while we're in a trial about acting like one, does not deserve to be in business.
So now I have to PAY to get the fixes that were promised in the MS literature when I paid to get my 98 fixes to 95!
Screw them.
They're screwing us.
I just wish there was some *usuable* competitive OS. (Be and Linux just don't work for everyday needs I have)
.
$10-20 is STILL TOO MUCH - SHIPPING/MFG ONLY! (Score:1)
I do not see why owners of 98 should pay for more than shipping/manufacturing of the CDs. Furthermore whats the point of Windows Update? Gather marketing information?
Attempt to make quick cash before settlement????? (Score:1)
Y'know - a last ditch effort to make some hard cash.
I thought Balmer had a new vision (Score:1)
To Sum Up... (Score:1)
Leilah
Blame FASB at least as much as M$ (Score:2)
My employer is faced with the same ugly dilemma. We are also making awful, contorted product release and pricing decisions based on idiotic accounting BS. My very limited understanding of the new rules goes something like:
- Company ABC spends a year and $10M developing the next release, Rn, of their cash cow product BigBucks2000
- The schedule gets grim, so they cut feature Y from the product a few months before FCS and redirect the Y team to get the release out.
- A month later, they have bugs that need to be fixed in the field, so they spend $.1M fixing them and release an update, Rn.1
- Feature Y is now complete and ready to include in the update.
At this point they are caught on the horns of an accounting rule. If they add Y to Rn.1, the accountants will claim the Rn.1 is different from the original Rn. If it is ruled a different product, and they do not charge for it, all $10M of the R&D expenses for Rn must be booked against the one month where Rn was sold. The $.1M R&D expenses associated with Rn.1 would be booked against Rn.1 revenue. If they charge for Rn.1, they can continue spreading the Rn R&D expenses over the full selling cycle of Rn & Rn.1 while booking the update expenses against the selling cycle of Rn.1. If they charge, their books look good. If they don't, they crater the first quarter and their stock tanks. I tried to dig up URLs on this stuff, but so far I've come up empty.Its all BS. MS customers are about to get screwed by it. But the problem is not specific to MS and may not be entirely MS's fault. Like I said, we have chosen to withhold enhancements from updates, charge separately for new stuff, or only ship new stuff to subscription customers based on this FASB idiocy. Perhaps MS could have made different product packaging and delivery choices that would have given the W98 customers free bug fixes. But my guess is that would have distorted IE5 and the tight coupling of W98 & IE in ways that were just too painful.
Its bad enough that public corporations live and die based on quarterly results and market expectations. Compound this with bean counting straight jackets and the result is that software consumers are getting screwed for no good reason.
Cost of Windows 98 vs. RH Linux 5.2 (Score:2)
Very interesting - where did you buy 95 OSR2? It wasn't for sale to the public.
(The "O" is OEM.)
--
Not True - Check PCWeek's Latest (Score:2)
Thanks for debunking this, Mr. Objectivty. Microsoft has *never* charged for a service pack (except for Win98, which is essentially as service pack!), so the news would be suprising, if true.
Microsoft is probably trying to avoid the Win95 fiasco, where the retail upgrade version didn't change one iota in 3 years, while they had slipstreamed in several "OEM Service Releases" onto new computers that had things like USB support. This made it troublesome for small shops and individuals to get all the bug fixes.
Note that big site licenced corporations DON'T PAY for upgrades at all from Microsoft. They get their stuff on a subscription basis.
So now you go to the store and buy Win98-SR1 instead of Win98. Big f*ing deal - think RedHat 5.1 -> 5.2. Yet there's 100s of posts bemoaning the horrors of this action from people who supposedly aren't Microsoft customers.
--
What was that quote from Gates? (Score:3)
There's a different mind set at work here than unix admins probably have. When Sun came out with Solaris 7, production administrators did not run out to CompUSA to stand in line. No, they carefully examined the fix lists, contacted their other vendors, ran a test machine and so on.
People who run out and buy the latest Microsoft product are kinda like people who trade in their 1997 Mustang for a 1999, becuase there were cosmetic changes. They don't care about techncial improvements or bug fixes, they just want the latest and greatest.
Of course these people don't call in with Bugs. Do you think they would actually go through the systematic routine to try to reproduce a bug? On the other hand, corporate IS departments do report bugs to Microsoft -- their just not very receptive, so I doubt the bug reporting from the technically adept customers is as good as it could be.
--
You are right... (Score:2)
However, what makes me frustrated is that every wierd thing MS has ever done suddenly becomes the norm. Users just eventually accept that this is the way things are supposed to be. MS has been moving towards a subscription based pricing model for a long time and I only see this as another step towards that goal.
re:Databases. In the cases of Oracle, Sybase, etc... their software is fairly specific. The chances of having a seriously fatal bug are fairly rare, and if you are a large enough customer they will usually send you patches anyway. Charging for an upgrade makes a little more sense in this case. Many customers won't upgrade and others will. It just depends on how it affects the bottom line. Some deals like these are still done on a handshake. It is viewed like an almost custom "service" in that case. For a service, you expect to keep paying.
In the case of Windows, this is a little more intangible. A user will upgrade because there is a momentum that has been created. There is almost no relationship between cost and revenue other than a manufactured marketing message. MS is trying to make people think of the OS as a service. This is a little scary.
It is a free country and if they can get away with it then fine. I again have to wonder how far their cockiness will take them.
The fact that they've been promissing a free upgrade only to turn around and charge for it is also a little frustrating. I know at least a few people that only upgrade to Win98 because they knew a patch was forthcoming. The worst part is that they now just shrug and say, "Oh well." This means that this idea is already starting to feel normal to some people.
If they didn't have monopoly status, then I'm sure none of use would care at all. It is, after all, a free country. I can say, though, that it would be more fun to watch if I wasn't sitting right smack in the middle of it.
Long Time Coming... (Score:5)
I just have to wonder if their cockiness will eventually be their downfall or will it just continue to work in their favor because they are who they are.
Conspiracy theorists will of course say that this is just an excuse to obtain peoples' personal information since it looks like Win 98.1 can only be bought through their web site. This means that they will be able to associate your name, address, and credit card number to your system GUID. Theoretically, they could also use this information to build a huge database of any web sites you've visited that use Link Exchange (since they own that too). Is MS going to become the largest marketer of personal data?
Realists know that this probably isn't going to happen. An NT server could never handle the data load we are talking about. I seriously doubt that MS would actually pay Sun Microsystems money for one of their huge data mining machines. Imagining the internal psychological struggle that Bill must be going through on that one is sort of funny.
Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a Jon Katz article so I'll stop now while I'm ahead.
-Paul (pspeed@progeeks.com)
Not True - Check PCWeek's Latest (Score:3)
Subscription-based pricing? (Score:3)
Let's all suppose that MS is limited by regular economic laws for a minute and say that they can only charge what the market will bear. Let's also say that they thought about this before arriving at the prices for their Operating Systems.
Price for Windows 95: $89 (9/95)
Price for Windows 98: $89 (11/98)
Price for Windows 98 update: under $89 (6/99)
As PC Week says, the update for Win98 users will be substantially less than $89. What does that mean? We'll estimate it at half that, or about $45.
Assuming that the Win98 SE is the first rollout of their new pricing model, and assuming it's this year's only update, this means MS means to charge about $45 a year to use their OS. This compares to $89 for three years of using Win95.
But wait, they just charged $89 for Win98 last year, too! Since they deliver a new OS every three years or so, we'll assume that they'll continue to do this and charge about the same for it.
Will consumers really pay $89 every three years for a new OS, plus $45 a year for updates? I know I sure wouldn't! That's quite steep indeed!
Or maybe this is MS' way of getting more money out of the vast majority of people who get their Windows from an OEM with a computer purchase.
This makes much more sense. Assume that they give away windows for free (which they don't) and then charge $45 per year for updates. Over the three-year lifespan of a machine, this is almost $150, or a 50% increase on the price of Windows!
I always believed that the secret to MS' success was piracy. They turned a blind eye on pirates
in order to gain market share. This has worked
incredibly well for more than 10 years.
If they used subscription pricing, they would have to try to crack down on Pirates. If instead they invent a new update to charge for every year, they can let the pirates work and cement their market share, and still get a little money back... Would they really kill their golden goose by moving to a subscription model? I think not.
Stephen
Milking the Y2K cashcow, once again. (Score:2)
They believed it will be y2k tolerant.
what they got is nothing except being forced to use IE4.
Yet again, they continue to amaze me.
They call it "second edition" when it's not even a bugfix.
what it does? this time it forces IE5!
(yet again making people think it is y2k tolerant)
people pay MORE MONEY to get LESS CHOICE.
they expect people to pay by an interval of 1 year.
"Just rent the goddamn thing!!!!"
but, they're shooting into they're own ass.
people will think: "If I have to upgrade (and obviously i do, since MS is admitting that windows98 is incomplete) I'll just upgrade to Linux, or BeOS!"
---
They're planting bugs! (Score:2)
I can imagine a conversation at Microsoft right now:
employee 1: "So, are we going to fix XXnastyBug?"
employee 2: "Ok, let's go"
gates: "STOP! Let's save some bugs for windows 98.3"
Think about it.
they have thousands of employees and billions of dollars.
they can afford to fix all these bugs IF THEY WANT.
are they fixing them?
do they care?
they get more money for upgrades,
and spend less for debugging.
btw,
the goverment didt care that win98 is just a bugfix,
they cared that it bundled internet explorer.
---
Win2001 (Score:2)
very close to ms-bob? (toaster-os thingy).
try to view it on john dvorak column on pc magazine. (now zdnet)
quite funny.
click here [zdnet.com]
---
You are deluded... (Score:2)
Are you looking at percentage growth? That is a misleading figure. If only one person uses my server, and another uses it next year, I have 100% growth. Whoopee. 12% growth for NT amounts to a HUGE number of new machines running NT.
A higher percentage growth can still take a long time to overcome overwhelming odds. If Linux and Windows keep the same growth rate, it will take about 20 years for Linux to surpass Windows. How many people actually believe that today's growth rates will be the same in two years?
Also, the economic definition of a monopoly is that it can raise prices at will. Ignoring the 90% market share, MS has demonstrated that they can charge whatever they want to hardware manufacturers and large corporations. At least end users are showing some sense with slow adoption.
What, pray tell, would be their competition for end-user desktop OS? BeOS maybe? Or perhaps you are still a GEM user?
...and a troubling mind set. (Score:3)
However, what I find MOST troubling is that most of those who purchase software (in the windows realm) aren't the least bit suprised when it has bugs in it. Or to find out that tech support can't help them because there's not a fix for it. They may be a little miffed, but they just accept it even though there is *rarely* a money-back guarantee.
I mean COME ON! I don't expect a $1 razor to be defective, but I'll return it if it is and get a new one that *works* or get my money back. Isn't facinating how a most of the software vendors for windoze put disclaimers on there software that states there is no guarantee with this software at all what-so-ever? Isn't it more amazing that those users just sit and take it?
Micro$oft has really poisoned the water of expectation that their customers have for the platform and the software that runs on it.
Point by point answers to Q's about TCO for Win98 (Score:2)
- You are correct about the OSR2 CD not being an "upgrade." I was not clear in my use of the word, and yes, it is an OEM CD. I had to "upgrade" to OSR2, as will be explained in item #2.
- The "new" hard disk was originally sold with Win95 pre-installed, however, because of some undocumented detail which I no longer remember, the motherboard required OSR2 to function correctly. I had alreadly reloaded my data directories, etc. into secondary partitions. OSR2 refused to install to anything other than a completely unformatted, unpartitioned drive. This requirement was also not documented, by the way. Which is why it took way too long to accomplish. M$ poor phone support wasn't any help either.
- You missed my point. My time as a programmer bills out at $85 an hour and up. Which means that I could have earned $340. during the amount of time I spent dinking around with buggy old Win95 and buggy new Win95.
- Again you're right -- clean installs are much faster. That said, every time I've been involved with a major Win9X or NT upgrade at a client site I feel damn lucky to get the first one done in under 4 hours because of way too many poorly documented and often stupid changes between versions, without giving us power users / developers / installers an opportunity to select what we want. At least in Win3.X M$ gave us more choices during installation.
- I included win98 in my TCO because based on prior experience, I would expect similar worst case time scenarios to take place.
Which is why, in my book, Linux still wins.Cost of Windows 98 vs. RH Linux 5.2 (Score:3)
Win95 OSR2: $89 Install: $340.
Win98 $89 + $340? (refused to install it)
Win98 $89 + $340? (will not install it)
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) --not counting down time in the mean time due to OS bugs-- estimated at $1287* for one year. Who says Windows is not abusing their near monopoly? DOJ, are you listening?
Cost of Linux, including latest bug fixes: $60.
Time to Install, including Backup: 4 hrs $340
TCO = $400.00. For those purists, yes, I will have to spend additional time once the 2.2X kernels are fully incorporated into an RH release.
My point?? Linux Wins!!!
Database vendors and upgrades which cost (Score:4)
Secondarily, most corporations have SLA's (service level agreements) with Oracle covering upgrades, etc. The TCO for an Oracle database is usually spread across many, many users, vs. M$ which has a high TCO on every machine. [think: vulnerability due to Word Macro Virii, downtime on NT servers, etc.]
So if a corporation with 1,000 deskktops connected to the database paid $89 for every machine upgraded to Win98-Second Edition, plus the time to perform the upgrade, we're talking potentially many hundreds of thousands of dollars additional cost here, without (IMHO) a fully spec'd out list of improvements and bug fixes.
Thanks but no thanks. Up with Linux!
Well, I'm not at a loss for words... (Score:2)
Let's see, W'98(2) -- is that what they've been talking about when they've been saying "Windows 2000"?
Put another way, it will cost as much to upgrade from the current version of Windows 98 to the fixed version of Windows 98 as it will to go from Windows 95 to Windows 98.
Windows 98: A bug-fixxin bargin at only $188!
(That's an exclamation point at the end of the previous line, not the symbol for factorial. I thought I had better clarify it.)
In many cases, bug fixes are posted for free by software companies.
In many cases, people give their whole damn product away for free. But Bill's is still well behind on that road.
Windows 98 Setup has grown from a collection of bug fixes and application updates to include Internet Explorer 5 and other features
Ummm, wait a minute there. I thought the original W'98 was a collection of bug fixes, updates, and a new integrated Explorer. Wouldn't it have been better PR to call this W'99 ?
Or should we say, the've hardly wiped Netscape's blood off their hands, and now they're back to charging for the browser that's supposed to be an integral part of the OS?
Thank you, Linus, oh, thank you!
It does apply, look at utilities... (Score:2)
Oracle's evil, but for a whole different set of reasons. : )
I'm in disagreement (Score:2)
As one person said before, I can understand a charge for a maintenance release/upgrade of a major program such as Oracle, Sybase, and even major applications specific to an industry or custom programmed. But, often times, if you're a large enough sale/account, a representative from the company will come out and ISSUE the bugfix/update FOR YOU.
Microsoft is off base here. I doubt this will last long once the mainstream print and television media catches on.
I also find it quite humorous that not only are they fixing bugs with this "Second Edition", but they're "..adding new technologies and expanded driver support." I think the only driver that I use on my 95 system that *CAME* with 95 is the Microsoft Serial Mouse driver. I don't need to pay $89 to have MS download the latest driver(s) for me and then, as they like to say so much, 'seamlessly integrate'-it into the Windows Hardware list.
Sheesh.
-Chad
Shhh! Don't say that so loudly! (Score:2)
OMFG! (Score:2)
I'm at a loss for words...
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
IE5 (Score:2)
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
Not True - Check PCWeek's Latest (Score:2)
Look at it this way...
Win98 Upgrade = $89.00
Win98 SE = $89.00
Win 98 Upgrabe and SE CDROM = more than $89.00
How does this work again??
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"