Windows XP: Prices, And One Reaction 598
Jim42688 writes: "Looks like the prices Amazon was reporting for Windows XP a while back were right. On the back of today's ad for CompUSA, it lists the prices to preorder. Home Full, 199.99, Home Upgrade, 99.99. Professional full, 299.99, Professional upgrade, 199.99." Perfect timing -- Fwis writes: "Use your power as a consumer to Boycott XP.
The site is now functioning smoothly, and we invite you to log in and
participate in discussions, polls, and news stories related to Microsoft's release
of the XP line of products." There are some interesting links on this page if you (or someone with purchasing power at your company) is considering XP.
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:3, Interesting)
When I, as a home user, wanted an actual stable Windows OS, I went to Windows 2000, as did quite a few people I know. We did lose some legacy and DOS-based support but AFAIK Windows XP loses most if it as well (I understand that there is some kind of DOS compatability mode, but I don't know all of the details) and after getting used to Windows 2K, I don't see a need to switch just to get the little extra that XP offers. Also, XP Home Edition doesn't even have all of the features supported in Windoes 2000 (off the top of my head: advanced security features and SMP support) -- to get a 'true' replacement we would need to upgrade to Windows XP Professional. Again, why go to the expense and performance hit of an XP upgrade when we already have most, if not all, of what we want anyway.
.
One thing I do think about sometimes. A lot of linux distibutions come with various programs already on them that do things like cd burning and such. Now Windows comes along with new things built in.
Well...yes, but my understanding is that a number of third-party apps that people used to use for these purposes are crippled or non-functional. Apparently it's a 'bug' with the upgrades that XP has (and not an attempt for MS to force you to use their apps exclusively). Most of my friends with CD-R drives already have the software they need and they know how to use it -- it's pretty standard to get software with the drive. Maybe it's convenient for MS to offer seamless CD burning options integrated in the OS, but I could do without the overhead (and the crippling of my other choices).
For that price... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, are we approaching the day that windows will cost more than the computer it runs on for most people?
I'd love to see (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Basic OS/Gui.
2. Directx 8
That's it. I don't want a media player, a browser, or all of the other stuff. If they had this out, I'd pay $30 for it, and be perfectly happy. If I wanted the other pieces (browser, chat module, blah, blah, blah), I could choose whether to buy them from MS, or go and use something else (so an extra $15 for MS Explorer, or I could put Mozilla on the box).
Now everybody wins. MS is happy because it gets $30 from me (and the potential of more money if I choose to pay $99/$199 if I want all the bells an whistles), the DOJ is happy (because it makes a truly level playing frield, since other companies can compete with the other add-ons (at least in theory)), and I'm happy because I can review my games.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Transparent Encryption? (Score:2, Interesting)
I realize it's not likely to be really strong, but if it's decent (and not critically flawed in implementation), it might be an incentive for me to upgrade eventually. I've never seen a good encryption scheme for Win that wasn't a major hassle. If you know of one I'd like to hear of that too.
I can't escape Windows because I write software for it occasionally, and need the ability to work with Word/Excel/Access file types.
I heard somewhere (but have no idea if its true) that the encryption requires a different file system be implemented (NTFS vs FAT32, IIRC). How would this affect an upgrade?
Ridiculous upgrade restrictions….rape you 4 $$$ (Score:2, Interesting)
I finally installed Windows 2000 on my work PC and was - for the first time in the history of Windows - actually impressed with its performance and stability. For the first time ever, I wasn't rebooting my PC five times a day (which is a frustrating contrast to some of my Linux boxes that are approaching 1 year of uptime). I was so impressed with 2000's stability, that I installed it on my home PC and my girlfriend's laptop, which was experiencing the good old Win98 10-a-day reboot exercise.
So this article got me wondering if there was anything that XP would offer me in the future that just might coerce me to upgrade in the next year or so. So I found a link on MS's site that let me "Check my upgrade options" [microsoft.com]. I was shocked to see that the only upgrade path from Win 2000 is to the XP Professional Edition, which costs $100 more than the Home Edition.
Why is this the case? Isn't XP Professional is nothing more than the XP Home Edition with a few more add-ons? Anyone have any insight as to why MS restricts you from upgrading 2000 to XP Home Edition?
My money is on the fact that they figure only business and power users are using Windows 2000, so they just want to rape people for the extra $100. Upgrading my three Windows 2000 PCs to XP would cost me $600.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I shell out another $600 to MS.
Home Market Irrelevant: MS Secret Plan (Score:1, Interesting)
businesses using Windows NT (possibly 9X) to XP, by using a similar tactic they used with Office XP. Businesses will either have to upgrade (by my best guess June 2002) or loose the upgrade pricing. MS will also announce that they are dropping support for WIN NT. This will box businesses into a corner, but it will make Win XP a financial success.
I don't know of any business (and I work with some of the biggest) who want to upgrade. Most of the Fortune 100 has not upgraded to Win 2K, and are quite happen remaining with NT since it has become fairly stable for a Desktop OS. Microsoft has already stopped releasing Service Packs for NT and its only a matter of time before support for NT is dropped. For instance SP 7 for NT was to be release in May. It never happened. Now you have apply individual hotfixes to patch NT.
Boycotting is irrelevant because it won't affect MS's bottom line. Your probably not going to have a choice with in a year anyway, because you won't see any driver updates or patches released for the older OS's. It won't surprise me if Windows ME/2000 contains timebomb bugs in them so that in 2003 all kinds of bugs start appearing in system. Since no one except for MS has access to the source code, how can you proof it?
At this time, the MS OS have matured to a point where it has just about ever feature imaginable. The only way MS can continue its revenue stream is either by FORCING customers to upgrade or by a subscription service.
Our best option is through support for Open Source Projects to provide an alternate to MS. Support can come in many, many ways. For instance, donations of cash or even equipment to Open Source projects can help. Don't tell me you can't afford to send in $25 or $30 a year for a donation. You don't have to be a programmer to help out either. Can you do art, create audio effects, or write documentation? Don't waste your time boycotting, when you can support your favorate Open Source Project!
Thanks for reading this!
What's the alternative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, ask anyone... Using Linux probably has never been easier. I, for the first time, installed Red Hat 7.1 a few weeks ago... Until then, I had been a diehard Windows user... Not because I wanted to be, mind you, but because I didn't think I could use Linux, or that it could replace my desktop.
So I yanked out my Windows HD, put in a clean one, and installed Red Hat. Hell, it astonishingly simple. The biggest problem I had was KDE or Gnome? But then I started using it...
I'm not a completely naive Windows user... I mean, I read Slashdot, right? But when you have to spend 75% of your time reading websites and manuals and going back and forth to websites and trying to figure out the terminal, and... Well, it's frustrating. Too frustrating.WindowsXP makes things easier for the average, not so bright computer user. People won't have to upgrade, they'll buy new PCs with XP already on it. And they won't even bother to ask "Can I get Red Hat, or Mandrake, or Slackware on that?" And the reason is simple. Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith, along with groupls like the MPAA and the RIAA and others who eat away at people's freedoms (to choose, to speak, whatever), they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice. And until someone designs a new operating system, one that can run Windows programs, and offers the ease of use that Windows does, you'll never have a real alternative to Windows.
I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.
I'm going to keep using Red Hat. Not full time, not even half time. But I'm going to try to learn to be proficient on something that isn't Windows, so I don't have to use Windows. But in the end, it's just a hobby, and I'll keep coming back to /dev/hda1, where I keep Windows.
-Josh
Re:Transparent Encryption? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I'm curious how XP's encryption works in a file server environment, where multiple users or applications are shuffling bits on and off the disk using SMB or NFS, for example. It might be very useful.
There have been far too many cases of data hijacking these days and I suppose it would be advantageous to have a central file or database server encrypt data on disk, regardless of whether the client is a user or an application. There is an overall lack of regard for storing data in an encrypted format today, even though this is the place where the bits will live the longest (as opposed to the network, per say).
Re:Transparent Encryption? - E4M (Score:3, Interesting)
Not totally transparent, since you have to "mount" the drives (actual partitions or just a virtual drive saved in a file), but E4M [e4m.net] is a wonderful (free, OS) encryption scheme that works across all windows versions (although win98 has a shutdown bug).
Price is right, and it works fine for me. Although NTFS has a built-in encryption on its filesystem that is truly transparent, but since I can't see the code behind it, I don't trust it.
XP support for copyright 'protection' BAD (Score:5, Interesting)
SAP - Secure Audio Path, adds static to music if not 'authenticated.
WPA - Windows Product Activation - can deativate software if it thinks its running on the 'wrong' computer.
No Java, MS takes its toys home
Built in support for Passport - let the spam begin.
Before the Hard-drive manufactures came to their senses it was rumoured that XP would fully support the 'copyright' protection scheme IBM thought up for HDs. Anyone have info?
For more info see these fun loving fanatics:
XP and Privacy/Copyright [rajivshah.com]
prices from June 1990 (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 3.0 retail: $150
Price of a Dell 386 with color monitor and 40mb hard drive, 512K, 16MHz, a midrange system for running Windows: $2,399
Price of a 25MHz 486, a high-end system: $5,295
No conclusions but I thought maybe somebody would find this interesting!
The Pinnacle (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And so it begins.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the new hardware requirements are due to the new GUI, don't like it? It can easily be switched back to "classic" mode from the start panel. Thus XP will require similar hardware requirements as Win2k.
And as for the Home edition connectivity issues, Client for Netware is not included on the home edtion, but Client services for MS networks is. Beta versions of XP Home DO allow you to access resouces on a domain, just as 9.x clients. But they can't "join" the domain like win2k or XP pro clients...meaning no Group Policy, etc.
They had to give big business a reason to spend $ for the Pro version.
Windows is easier to use than Linux...or something (Score:3, Interesting)
To be sure, whenever Slashdot has a story that involves M$ products, everyone gets hot and rustled with the age old "Why the hell do people still use Windows" thread. Primarily I see two arguments that surface:
Windows has better/more software for my needs.
(I would argue with 'better', but point taken).
Windows is and will always be easier to use than Linux.
I am sick and tired of hearing that excuse. And before you mod me down for being a snobbish troll, consider my reasoning first.
Barring great paradigms such as Graphical vs. CL interfaces, I don't believe that there is such thing as a 'More intuitive than another' OS. Obviously Linux has got GUI covered. Face it people, you are good at what you know. The reason that windows users don't think that Linux is easy to learn is because it isn't Windows . When you have spent maybe 10 to 15 years using M$ operating systems, you have grown very used to the way things work there. eg., I want to know the filesize of this document, I rightclick, and select properties. Does anyone really think that a person who has never used a computer before (after learning what a mouse is and does) is going to think "Oh, I think I'll right click on that icon and select 'Properties!" ? Like C++, swimming and Italian cookery, using a particular operating system is a learned skill.
Case in point? I hear that the Macintosh is supposed to be the end-all be-all of OS simplicity and intuitive design. *Yeah Right.* Just ask any windows/other user that is inexperienced with MacOS, and they'll tell you that it is a bloody nightmare. I work in IT at a University and I see this all the time--we have a small enclave of Mac users who are unbelievably frightened of PCs and our PC users are afraid to touch the Macs in fear that they'll cause the dreaded 'OsError' Bomb to come destroy the machine in spite. Not to mention the 'Boop of Death'. (True script involving my friend Renee at the library)
Renee: Ok, I'll just click the...
Mac: 'Boop'
Renee: Ahh! Ok, how about...
Mac: 'Boop'
Renee: Aiee!! I'm trying to close you! Stop Booping!
Mac: 'Boop Boop Boop'
What I'm getting at (and there is a point I suppose), is that making any platform shift is shaky at first. Linux comes naturally for me now, but I spent a good long amount of time in confusion. If we want people to understand computers better and have the ability to make these kinds of migrations painlessly, then they need to be educated about the abstracts of how computers interact with humans, and not through a computer literacy course that deals strictly with an OS. Maybe then
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
In Linix, the /dev/hd* files represent the hard drives. /dev/hda is the first drive, /dev/hdb is the second drive, and so on. The number at the end is the partition, for example /dev/hda1 is the first partition of the first hard drive and /dev/hdb3 is the 3rd partition of the 2nd hard drive.
I agree that the way Linux accesses devices is outdated and unintuitive. This is something devfs [csiro.au] is working on.
Re:Windows Xp May Be Ok (Score:2, Interesting)
So in reality, Windows app compatibility remains a problem. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of custom and small 3rd-party apps out there designed for the Win3.x/9x (non)security model. These apps are a pain to integrate properly into WinNT/2000/XP. For a lot of them, you either have to run as Administrator, or loosen up filesystem permissions one by one. Pick your poison.
Re:What's the alternative? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got to agree with the previous poster - Unix is in no shape to be used by mere mortals. However, I don't really think that it can be saved.
This isn't to say that I'm a big fan of anything else currently on the market - everything sucks. But it is far far better to develop a system where usability is a core concern from day one than to keep trying to add a facade onto Unix, or worse yet, just giving to people as is. The former option, if solidly built, if designed to have a compatability layer through which it can still run Unix software, strikes me as being a far far better option.