Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Eldmannen

Windows trial versions?

Recommended Posts

tease , tease , tease that's the giant corporate conglomerate way. nothing for free just bring plenty of this$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to Microsoft then we will grant you access to the software. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can actually legally install vista for 30 days without entering a key code. At least thats what they were saying at launch, now whether or not you can find a legal/virus free download of it is another story.

I'm actually pretty intrigued by a public beta for windows 7. MS cant possibly let their reputation slip anymore than it has by releasing another turd on launch day. (who knows though.. maybe they can)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tease , tease , tease that's the giant corporate conglomerate way. nothing for free just bring plenty of this$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to Microsoft then we will grant you access to the software. :P

Well, developing software costs money. Hiring employees costs money. If Microsoft can make money selling Windows, then thats great for them.

Public beta for Windows 7 rumored Jan 5th, 2009.

I heard it will be available today January 9.

I think you can actually legally install vista for 30 days without entering a key code. At least thats what they were saying at launch, now whether or not you can find a legal/virus free download of it is another story.

I'm actually pretty intrigued by a public beta for windows 7. MS cant possibly let their reputation slip anymore than it has by releasing another turd on launch day. (who knows though.. maybe they can)

Thats an interesting statement. Yes, I think I have read something like that too, that you can install it without entering a key, and have it legally installed for 30 days.

As I understand it, when you purchase a copy of Windows, you buy the software, you purchase a license to use it. So if you purchase Windows, you can only install it on one computer, because you only purchased one license, and its limited to one computer. If that is correct, then shouldn't I just be able to download Windows from any site, or get it from a friend and legally use it as long as I either do have an own valid license, or install it as a 30 day trial?

About Windows 7, there were a site claiming it to be faster than both XP and Vista. However, no real benchmarks were given (think it was due to that Microsoft don't like benchmarks). XP was good, but now feels old. Vista brought some new stuff, some nice stuff, but overall I didn't really like it. Everyone hopes that Windows 7 is better than Vista, and for Microsoft's sake, it better be.

I think it will be better than Vista, I am think they fixed somethings from Vista. I didn't like the user-interface in Vista, I found it to be difficult to use and confusing. From what I've seen of Windows 7 the user interface is like Vista, but also resembles KDE a bit. I've heard many people that say that they seen some similarities with KDE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, developing software costs money. Hiring employees costs money. If Microsoft can make money selling Windows, then thats great for them.

So you're not pro free software (I assume as in speech, but not in beer). I personally see the need sometimes to need to charge, but not at the extortionate prices Microsoft give. And personally, I have only ever twice have found paid software that is better than the free/freeware options (micorosft office and convertxtodvd).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, developing software costs money. Hiring employees costs money. If Microsoft can make money selling Windows, then thats great for them.

So you're not pro free software (I assume as in speech, but not in beer). I personally see the need sometimes to need to charge, but not at the extortionate prices Microsoft give. And personally, I have only ever twice have found paid software that is better than the free/freeware options (micorosft office and convertxtodvd).

I am pro free software (as in speech), and if its free (as in beer too), then thats really great and and a huge convenience.

But I am fine that Microsoft charges for their software. They need to make money too. I don't think the prices are too high, it costs about the same as a CPU, graphics card, motherboard, RAM or hard disk. The EULA is really bad though, since it forbids you from installing it on more than one computer.

If you don't like Microsoft or the prices of their software, then there you are free to pick any of the alternatives. I wouldn't object to Microsoft raising their prices, it would just make the alternatives even more attractive.

If you find free software of high quality that you think is better than or a good substitute for commercial software, then that is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, developing software costs money. Hiring employees costs money. If Microsoft can make money selling Windows, then thats great for them.

So you're not pro free software (I assume as in speech, but not in beer). I personally see the need sometimes to need to charge, but not at the extortionate prices Microsoft give. And personally, I have only ever twice have found paid software that is better than the free/freeware options (micorosft office and convertxtodvd).

I am pro free software (as in speech), and if its free (as in beer too), then thats really great and and a huge convenience.

But I am fine that Microsoft charges for their software. They need to make money too. I don't think the prices are too high, it costs about the same as a CPU, graphics card, motherboard, RAM or hard disk. The EULA is really bad though, since it forbids you from installing it on more than one computer.

If you don't like Microsoft or the prices of their software, then there you are free to pick any of the alternatives. I wouldn't object to Microsoft raising their prices, it would just make the alternatives even more attractive.

If you find free software of high quality that you think is better than or a good substitute for commercial software, then that is great.

I disagree. They dominate the market and charge a fortune for software. I think its wrong. What would be the point of charging for it anyways when you cloud install it over and over again on different PC's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, developing software costs money. Hiring employees costs money. If Microsoft can make money selling Windows, then thats great for them.

So you're not pro free software (I assume as in speech, but not in beer). I personally see the need sometimes to need to charge, but not at the extortionate prices Microsoft give. And personally, I have only ever twice have found paid software that is better than the free/freeware options (micorosft office and convertxtodvd).

I am pro free software (as in speech), and if its free (as in beer too), then thats really great and and a huge convenience.

But I am fine that Microsoft charges for their software. They need to make money too. I don't think the prices are too high, it costs about the same as a CPU, graphics card, motherboard, RAM or hard disk. The EULA is really bad though, since it forbids you from installing it on more than one computer.

If you don't like Microsoft or the prices of their software, then there you are free to pick any of the alternatives. I wouldn't object to Microsoft raising their prices, it would just make the alternatives even more attractive.

If you find free software of high quality that you think is better than or a good substitute for commercial software, then that is great.

I disagree. They dominate the market and charge a fortune for software. I think its wrong. What would be the point of charging for it anyways when you cloud install it over and over again on different PC's?

Well, its not a fortune, its the about the same price as many other components in the PC.

If you think the price is too high, then get alternative software.

It is good if they get money, then they can employ people and pay their salaries.

But yeah, I disagree with the draconian EULA which prevents you from installing it on more than one computer.

I think that if you bought it, you should be able to install it on all your computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. They dominate the market and charge a fortune for software. I think its wrong. What would be the point of charging for it anyways when you cloud install it over and over again on different PC's?

They dominate because they have the best OS going. It has all the best software, and hardware support and compared to Linux or other free alternatives it just works. You could say "but what about OSX" well if you like spending over a grand for a slower computer with an even more closed OS then go for it.

I gave up on linux when I discovered the Load_Cycle bug that basically destroys laptop hard drives(All laptops HDs not just some). Plus I've never had a default linux install get all of my hardware working right. I would rather pay for windows(even though the computer comes with it) then be stuck with anything else.

Not everything is free, and some things are worth paying for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. They dominate the market and charge a fortune for software. I think its wrong. What would be the point of charging for it anyways when you cloud install it over and over again on different PC's?

They dominate because they have the best OS going. It has all the best software, and hardware support and compared to Linux or other free alternatives it just works. You could say "but what about OSX" well if you like spending over a grand for a slower computer with an even more closed OS then go for it.

I gave up on linux when I discovered the Load_Cycle bug that basically destroys laptop hard drives(All laptops HDs not just some). Plus I've never had a default linux install get all of my hardware working right. I would rather pay for windows(even though the computer comes with it) then be stuck with anything else.

Not everything is free, and some things are worth paying for.

Some thing are worth paying for. But the prices MS charge just for an Office Suite is ridiculous. The basic concept of capitalism (although I'm a socialist) is that companies are constantly competing against one another to get the best of what is available. However, as you pointed out, microsoft is certainly the most well-used, and so they can charge massive prices and get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They dominate because they have the best OS going.

That is arguable.

The dominate it for many reasons;

* The OS market is extremely difficult to enter, so competition is low.

* The use of closed APIs prevent interoperability from the competition.

* The use of anti-competitive business methods such as preventing resellers to sell software from competitors, etc.

If all software were cross-platform and worked on all operating systems, Windows would be far less dominating on the market.

Yes, with Mac you need to buy an expensive overpriced computer. I dislike Apple. But looking at Mac OS X, it might technically be a better OS than Windows.

Some thing are worth paying for. But the prices MS charge just for an Office Suite is ridiculous. The basic concept of capitalism (although I'm a socialist) is that companies are constantly competing against one another to get the best of what is available. However, as you pointed out, microsoft is certainly the most well-used, and so they can charge massive prices and get away with it.

Well a anti-virus suite often goes for like $40, and Windows goes for like $100.

With Windows you get a whole operating system, its a big piece of software that includes a media player for audio and video, a text editor, a document editor, a graphics software, a web browser, etc.

An operating system is a big and complex piece of software, so of course it costs more than other smaller commercial software such as a file archiver, backup software, etc.

I don't think Windows is really expensive, I think that it has a fair price.

Adobe has much more hefty prices, Photoshop is really expensive.

I think that Windows has a fair price, and that people should either stop complaining about it, or go for alternatives from the competition. :P

There is a lot of things I dislike about Microsoft, they have used many abusive business practices and done shady stuff and unethical stuff, some even illegal. But I think pricing is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is arguable.

The dominate it for many reasons;

* The OS market is extremely difficult to enter, so competition is low.

* The use of closed APIs prevent interoperability from the competition.

* The use of anti-competitive business methods such as preventing resellers to sell software from competitors, etc.

If all software were cross-platform and worked on all operating systems, Windows would be far less dominating on the market.

Yes, with Mac you need to buy an expensive overpriced computer. I dislike Apple. But looking at Mac OS X, it might technically be a better OS than Windows.

It is that list that make me dislike Microsoft even more.

Well a anti-virus suite often goes for like $40, and Windows goes for like $100.

With Windows you get a whole operating system, its a big piece of software that includes a media player for audio and video, a text editor, a document editor, a graphics software, a web browser, etc.

An operating system is a big and complex piece of software, so of course it costs more than other smaller commercial software such as a file archiver, backup software, etc.

I don't think Windows is really expensive, I think that it has a fair price.

Adobe has much more hefty prices, Photoshop is really expensive.

I think that Windows has a fair price, and that people should either stop complaining about it, or go for alternatives from the competition. wink.png

There is a lot of things I dislike about Microsoft, they have used many abusive business practices and done shady stuff and unethical stuff, some even illegal. But I think pricing is fine.

Yes there is a lto of stuff on there. I have to amdit, I'm not too worried about the OS as such, as generally you get it free with most PC's. Still, it costs a fortune (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Windows-Vista-Home-Premium-Service/dp/B0013O54OE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1231675929&sr=8-3). What I really dislike is the price for their office.

And you can't just choose to go somewhere else. Ubuntu is in my opinion the best alternative, but from what I've seen is far harder to configure and work hardware wise. So then you have to use MS like everyone else, who in turn because of that charge a fortune. Same goes for their office (OpenOffice just doesn't have as many features etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They dominate because they have the best OS going.

That statement assumes that the best OS is the one that gets the largest userbase, which is incorrect.

Minix, AmigaOS, BSD, Sun OS were superior to DOS.

OS/2 were superior to Windows 3.11.

BeOS were superior to Windows 95, 98, ME.

It is that list that make me dislike Microsoft even more.

Yes, it is things like that which make me dislike Microsoft. Their actions, not their pricing.

Being a monopoly and abusing it to lock out competition is being a bully.

http://vendors.bluwiki.com/#Microsoft

I don't like how they use EEE practices, to Embrace a standard, then Extend it with their own proprietary extensions, then Extinguish the standard. I don't like how they bribed people when ISO ratified OOXML, saying to people "If OOXML goes through, I have an consult spot open for you which pays $500/hour".

Yes there is a lto of stuff on there. I have to amdit, I'm not too worried about the OS as such, as generally you get it free with most PC's.

That is a popular misconception.

You do pay for it, but often consumers are unaware of that, because the price is included in the advertised price of the computer.

Still, it costs a fortune (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Windows-Vista-Home-Premium-Service/dp/B0013O54OE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1231675929&sr=8-3). What I really dislike is the price for their office.

Yes, I think that £148.92 is a bit too much.

$100 would be nice.

I don't like to pay more for the software, then what I would have payed for a hardware component.

I wouldn't pay £148 for a hard disk, a motherboard, RAM, case, power supply or a graphics card.

And you can't just choose to go somewhere else. Ubuntu is in my opinion the best alternative, but from what I've seen is far harder to configure and work hardware wise. So then you have to use MS like everyone else, who in turn because of that charge a fortune.

All my hardware works out of the box on Ubuntu.

I spend less time configuring, updating, and maintaining Ubuntu than I do with Windows.

By the way in 2008, AMD, Intel and VIA have been helpful in releasing hardware documentation and source code for device drivers for their graphics chips.

Atheros have been helpful with providing source code for their Wi-Fi chips too.

I eagerly await Ubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty Jackalope" to come in April.

Same goes for their office (OpenOffice just doesn't have as many features etc).

OpenOffice.org does have enough features for me.

95% of the people only use 10% of the features. (Numbers pulled out of my a**)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is things like that which make me dislike Microsoft. Their actions, not their pricing.

Being a monopoly and abusing it to lock out competition is being a bully.

http://vendors.bluwiki.com/#Microsoft

I don't like how they use EEE practices, to Embrace a standard, then Extend it with their own proprietary extensions, then Extinguish the standard. I don't like how they bribed people when ISO ratified OOXML, saying to people "If OOXML goes through, I have an consult spot open for you which pays $500/hour".

I hate their actions and their prices.

That is a popular misconception.

You do pay for it, but often consumers are unaware of that, because the price is included in the advertised price of the computer.

Then I dislike them more so.

Yes, I think that £148.92 is a bit too much.

$100 would be nice.

I don't like to pay more for the software, then what I would have payed for a hardware component.

I wouldn't pay £148 for a hard disk, a motherboard, RAM, case, power supply or a graphics card.

Its stupidly priced. As they lock out competition, they charge what they want. That's wrong. For working/under classes it is a lot of money. That is just wrong.

All my hardware works out of the box on Ubuntu.

I spend less time configuring, updating, and maintaining Ubuntu than I do with Windows.

By the way in 2008, AMD, Intel and VIA have been helpful in releasing hardware documentation and source code for device drivers for their graphics chips.

Atheros have been helpful with providing source code for their Wi-Fi chips too.

I eagerly await Ubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty Jackalope" to come in April.

I take back what I said, to an extent. I personally am going to install the latest version through Wubi when back at university, as wireless is provided there. Here at home I have to carry out all sorts of configurations in order tp plug into the internet through my modem and wired line. Something I wouldn't have to do in Windows.

OpenOffice.org does have enough features for me.

95% of the people only use 10% of the features. (Numbers pulled out of my a**)

It doesn't have a crop feature in Writer, and I hear that it isn't 100% compatible with .docx? Still, if I can get Ubuntu working well, than I plan to install it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a popular misconception.

You do pay for it, but often consumers are unaware of that, because the price is included in the advertised price of the computer.

Then I dislike them more so.

You didn't really think you got it for free, now did you? :P

Yes, I think that £148.92 is a bit too much.

$100 would be nice.

I don't like to pay more for the software, then what I would have payed for a hardware component.

I wouldn't pay £148 for a hard disk, a motherboard, RAM, case, power supply or a graphics card.

Its stupidly priced. As they lock out competition, they charge what they want. That's wrong. For working/under classes it is a lot of money. That is just wrong.

Ah, you do make a good point.

Now I can see that it is very arguable that the price is wrong.

Locking out the competition then setting a price, makes it possible to set the price too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't really think you got it for free, now did you? wink.png

No, but cheaper, maybe cos its OEM.

Ah, you do make a good point.

Now I can see that it is very arguable that the price is wrong.

Locking out the competition then setting a price, makes it possible to set the price too high.

Exactly. That is what I'm getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple charges about 100 to 150 dollars for each upgrade to their os. Thats about the same as windows and seeing as how these are the only two competing I don't think the price is anti-competitive. The other companies are giving away their software in hopes that you will pay $60 dollars for 30 days of support, to me thats even worse. MS at least gives support for any updates that they release that may screw stuff up, the others just say oh well.

When you think about it windows is a relatively small price in the total when you get a new pc. You can get computers with it for like $300 and lower pre-installed, now of course if you build your own you pay more but its still a relatively small price. Newegg system builders vista home is $100, for what you get thats pretty cheap. You know it will be supported for years with no additional costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...