More on Vista pricing in UK

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Gordon

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 9:29:15 AM2/5/07
to
I received this just now:
Hello Mr Burgessparker,

Many thanks for contacting Microsoft regarding the difference in
recommended retail prices between the UK and the US.

I was sorry to hear that you were not happy with the cost of the
purchase price of product here in the UK, in comparison with the cost in
the US.

The pricing model was developed using careful evaluation of the required
infrastructure, associated costs and industry standard pricing models.
Purchase prices are consistent and fair within geographic bands and
calculated using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita.

I hope this helps you understand the pricing structure.

Kind Regards,

Clint McCarthy

Response Management Team UK

Microsoft Ltd

Can anyone tell me WHAT, precisely, has GDP per capita got to do with
product pricing? I have NEVER, when employed as a Group Management
Accountant, been in ANY organisation that factors in GDP as part of it's
pricing structure.

SNAKEOIL!

Rafael

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 10:05:23 AM2/5/07
to
Gordon wrote:

> The pricing model was developed using careful evaluation of the
> required infrastructure, associated costs and industry standard
> pricing models. Purchase prices are consistent and fair within
> geographic bands and calculated using GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
> per capita.
>
> I hope this helps you understand the pricing structure.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Clint McCarthy
> Response Management Team
> UK Microsoft Ltd
>
> Can anyone tell me WHAT, precisely, has GDP per capita got to do with
> product pricing? I have NEVER, when employed as a Group Management
> Accountant, been in ANY organisation that factors in GDP as part of
> it's pricing structure.
>
> SNAKEOIL!

Perhaps, IOW, YHBT?

--
Cheers, Rafael

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 10:14:06 AM2/5/07
to
__/ [ Gordon ] on Monday 05 February 2007 14:29 \__

Maybe by GDP they means gross domestic payoff. It's quite gross. It benefits
the domestic market (America). It's also pays off because the users are
locked in anyway... why not just rip them off? I'd be angry if I was buying
some Microsoft product. That said, places where I work pay Microsoft money,
so I don't expect wages and employment figures to get any better. I'm sure
Redmond is lighting a candle and poppin' a nice bottle of champagne though.

--
~~ Best wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows XP: Dude, where's my RAM?
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 543912k used, 492272k free, 49408k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 11:28:06 AM2/5/07
to

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:3075637.Z...@schestowitz.com...

>> Microsoft Ltd
>>
>> Can anyone tell me WHAT, precisely, has GDP per capita got to do with
>> product pricing? I have NEVER, when employed as a Group Management
>> Accountant, been in ANY organisation that factors in GDP as part of it's
>> pricing structure.
>>
>> SNAKEOIL!
>
> Maybe by GDP they means gross domestic payoff. It's quite gross. It
> benefits
> the domestic market (America). It's also pays off because the users are
> locked in anyway... why not just rip them off? I'd be angry if I was
> buying
> some Microsoft product. That said, places where I work pay Microsoft
> money,
> so I don't expect wages and employment figures to get any better. I'm sure
> Redmond is lighting a candle and poppin' a nice bottle of champagne
> though.
>
>
It seems that the notion of value pricing, i.e. charging what something is
worth rather than what it might cost to produce, is lost on the OSS people.
I do not understand why that should be the case other than that they do not
recognize any value to software at all. Fortunately for Microsoft, IBM,
Novell, and even Red Hat, many people do recognize that there is a benefit
to using various pieces of software and that some are more beneficial than
others and so command a higher price. The attitude of the OSS user seems to
be that, having been told that software should be free, any charge for
software is some kind of mistreatment.

The answer to the above question, though, is simply that Microsoft's
customers recognize the value and willingly pay for the use. The
anti-Microsoft people postulate some mysterious compulsion or similar force
that is applied by Redmond to pay against their wishes, but that is inane.
However, it seems to be par for this particular course with the OSS people.


B Gruff

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 11:31:20 AM2/5/07
to
On Monday 05 February 2007 16:28 amicus_curious wrote:

> It seems that the notion of value pricing, i.e. charging what something is
> worth rather than what it might cost to produce, is lost on the OSS
> people.

It seems to be lost on you too.

Please feel free to explain to us why the price, based on GDP, is not
highest in the U.S. of A.?

Dean G.

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 11:34:47 AM2/5/07
to
On Feb 5, 9:29 am, Gordon <gbpli...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> I received this just now:
> Hello Mr Burgessparker,
>
> Many thanks for contacting Microsoft regarding the difference in
> recommended retail prices between the UK and the US.
>
> I was sorry to hear that you were not happy with the cost of the
> purchase price of product here in the UK, in comparison with the cost in
> the US.
>
> The pricing model was developed using careful evaluation of the required
> infrastructure

The required infrastructure is a DVD copier and packaging for the
retail versions, and even less for the OEM versions.

>, associated costs

Bill G's $130 million house, large bonuses and stock options for MS
executives, and of course the hundreds of millions of dollars in waste
as MS had to throw out 2 years of coding and start over due to
security issues that they still have not resolved with the final
version. Yes, you the customer are paying for this. I'd be happier
paying a company that didn't overcharge me because of their consistent
screw-ups.

> and industry standard pricing models.

MS says they are the standard, and when talking about their clientel,
they say they are going to "hit them harder". Now be a good MS fanboy
and fork the dough so bilge, I mean billg can buy a bigger yacht than
Larry.


> Purchase prices are consistent and fair within geographic bands and
> calculated using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita.

(Figures in US dollars:)
USA : GDP per capita = $41,600
UK : GDP per capita = $36,760

The price of Windows Vista in the UK is significantly higher than in
the USA....


>
> I hope this helps you understand the pricing structure.

No, of course it doesn't. What kind of fools do you take us for ?
Instead of answering the question, you have given us a response that
leads us in exactly the opposite dirrection, making our questions more
poignant.

>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Clint McCarthy
>
> Response Management Team UK

My, my, I see that some of the price for Vista is spent on a "Response
Management Team" for just the UK. Apparently MS has given up all
pretenses of supplying decent software, and now spends their money on
marketing and "response management", which seems a shallow euphemism
for FUD and lobbying. Hey, I have a new idea : software companies
should spend their money making decent software instead of lobbying
governments. MS has a different idea, apparently.

Dean G.


Gordon

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 11:39:50 AM2/5/07
to
amicus_curious wrote:

>
> The answer to the above question, though, is simply that Microsoft's
> customers recognize the value and willingly pay for the use.

You obviously have NO conception of what GDP per capita is, have you,
and absolutely NO answer as to why it should be used as part of a
pricing policy. Go read up on it, and then return to tell me, a
Management Accountant (and if you don't know what THAT is either, go and
find out) why on earth any organisation should use it as a part of
pricing, other than to justify a rip-off product price?

Gordon

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 11:58:43 AM2/5/07
to

My reply to Mr McCarthy:
Dear Mr McCarthy,

Thank you very much for your reply. I would, however, be obliged for
some clarification. As a retired Group Management Accountant, I have
NEVER worked in any organisation that has used "GDP per Capita" in their
pricing policy, and furthermore, as the GDP per Capita of the UK is
considerably less than that of the USA can you clarify how that
translates into a pricing policy that, given the current exchange rate,
and as (presumably) the Vista DVDs are pressed in Ireland as were the XP
CDs, thus having fairly inconsequential distribution costs, puts the
retail price of Vista like-for-like at almost DOUBLE that of the USA?

Regards

William Poaster

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 12:00:24 PM2/5/07
to

In short, M$ think that UK windoze sucker....er....users will pay more
for their product. Consequently they will shove the price up to what they
think the market will stand. In other words, they stick with their old
motto "Never give a sucker an even break". They're using (IMHO) flowery
language to disguise what they're up to.

If you recall, the automotive industry used to do the same thing in the
UK, which they called "Treasure Island". It was cheaper to buy a car in
Belgium pay the VAT, then ship it to the UK. You still paid the difference
in UK VAT, but it still turned out *cheaper* than buying it in the UK.
However when the EU brought in rules which allowed you to buy a vehicle
*anywhere* in the EU & ship it back to the UK (& that dealers were
*obliged* to service the vehicle regardless of where it came from) the
prices quickly dropped here.

IMO, M$ are trying to pull the same stunt.

--
Contrary to popular belief, trolls *can*
tell the difference between their arse
& their elbow.
They can't talk out of their elbow.

Gordon

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 12:07:42 PM2/5/07
to
William Poaster wrote:

>
> IMO, M$ are trying to pull the same stunt.
>

Not "trying" - they ARE!

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 12:54:06 PM2/5/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gordon
<gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid>
wrote
on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:29:15 +0000
<52ot9rF...@mid.individual.net>:

> I received this just now:
> Hello Mr Burgessparker,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for contacting Microsoft regarding the difference in
> recommended retail prices between the UK and the US.
>
>
>
> I was sorry to hear that you were not happy with the cost of the
> purchase price of product here in the UK, in comparison with the cost in
> the US.
>
>
>
> The pricing model was developed using careful evaluation of the required
> infrastructure, associated costs and industry standard pricing models.
> Purchase prices are consistent and fair within geographic bands and
> calculated using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps you understand the pricing structure.
>

Yeah, like an advertising circular helps me understand
modern supermarket pricing of fruits and vegetables. :-P

>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Clint McCarthy
>
> Response Management Team UK
>
> Microsoft Ltd
>
> Can anyone tell me WHAT, precisely, has GDP per capita got to do with
> product pricing? I have NEVER, when employed as a Group Management
> Accountant, been in ANY organisation that factors in GDP as part of it's
> pricing structure.
>
> SNAKEOIL!

Well, FWIW GDP/cap is a metric on how much disposable income the
consumers can spend on various nonessentials like computers and
Microsoft Windows Vista(tm). The trouble is that British GDP/cap
is less than US GDP/cap.

That dog can't even get out of bed, let alone hunt. :-)

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

William Poaster

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 1:52:50 PM2/5/07
to

Heh! THIS should be good. ;-)

Gordon

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 2:07:49 PM2/5/07
to

IF I get a reply......

cc

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 2:27:31 PM2/5/07
to

The reply will be:

"Who cares what we charge for our software? No one is making you buy
it, and no one is making you live in the U.K. Use another OS if it
pisses you off so bad. Freedom of Choice."


Robert Newson

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 3:13:46 PM2/5/07
to
cc wrote:

...


> "Who cares what we charge for our software? No one is making you buy
> it,

If that is the reply, then there'll be no further problems in getting a
refund for the unused Product (of Windwos) when you don't want it
pre-installed on a laptop...it would be /VERY/ interesting if that reply
came back.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 3:44:19 PM2/5/07
to

"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52p4eoF...@mid.individual.net...

There are multiple factors, of course. Contrary to popular images, the
people of the United States of America are not altogether that prosperous.
We have been asked to carry the world's burdens in terms of building up many
backward nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan and so are taxed to the
extreme. If you can get a foreign newspaper over there, you might see where
our president has asked for 2.9 trillion dollars to meet our domestic and
world obligations. That doesn't leave a lot of room for luxuries like
Windows Vista Ultimate. What little price relief Microsoft can afford, they
themselves beset with beggars, thieves, and various state's attorneys
general, is welcome by one and all over here.

Also, the pricing is based somewhat on costs of marketing, which must be
recovered if Microsoft is to maintain any profit at all. The EU has been
particularly predatory in assessing huge fines because Microsoft included
their media player as part of Windows and we all know how horribly evil and
unfair that is. To pay these fines, EU citizens need to pony up a bit
higher price to even things out worldwide. Fair is fair, I believe.


Robert Newson

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 5:02:46 PM2/5/07
to
amicus_curious wrote:

> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:52p4eoF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>On Monday 05 February 2007 16:28 amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It seems that the notion of value pricing, i.e. charging what something
>>>is
>>>worth rather than what it might cost to produce, is lost on the OSS
>>>people.
>>>
>>It seems to be lost on you too.
>>
>>Please feel free to explain to us why the price, based on GDP, is not
>>highest in the U.S. of A.?
>>
>
> There are multiple factors, of course. Contrary to popular images, the
> people of the United States of America are not altogether that prosperous.
> We have been asked to carry the world's burdens in terms of building up many
> backward nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan and so are taxed to the
> extreme. If you can get a foreign newspaper over there, you might see where
> our president has asked for 2.9 trillion dollars to meet our domestic and
> world obligations. That doesn't leave a lot of room for luxuries like
> Windows Vista Ultimate. What little price relief Microsoft can afford, they
> themselves beset with beggars, thieves, and various state's attorneys
> general, is welcome by one and all over here.

Funny that...considering that MS argued that it was the GDP/capita that
caused the price to be /higher/ in the country with the /lower/ one - or did
you miss that point? Perhaps it's MS who doesn't understand GDP, etc?

> Also, the pricing is based somewhat on costs of marketing, which must be
> recovered if Microsoft is to maintain any profit at all.

So that's why there's no Linux marketing whatsoever? (Seeing as Linux costs
£0.00 = $0.00 (exchanged at £1 = $10 ^_^).

> The EU has been
> particularly predatory in assessing huge fines because Microsoft included
> their media player as part of Windows

And here I was thinking that the fines were because MS failed to obey the EU
Laws and requirements.

> and we all know how horribly evil and
> unfair that is. To pay these fines, EU citizens need to pony up a bit
> higher price to even things out worldwide.

So that explains why a chinaman(?) has to stump up a /month's/ wages to pay
for Windwos? That'd mean I'd be paying in the region of £1000 ($2,000) for
Windwos; I don't see Americans paying a month's wage for Windwos...or /are/
Americans *really* that badly paid that they only earn $300 a month?

> Fair is fair, I believe.

Would be *IF* the price was only greater in the UK for Vista - I'm sure XP
was more expensive, 2K was, 98 was; however, I've noticed that IT stuff, not
just MS's, tends to cross the Pond at an exchange rate of £1=$1 (give or
take 1d).

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 6:14:18 PM2/5/07
to

"Robert Newson" <Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:45C7AA3A...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku...

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:52p4eoF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>On Monday 05 February 2007 16:28 amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It seems that the notion of value pricing, i.e. charging what something
>>>>is
>>>>worth rather than what it might cost to produce, is lost on the OSS
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>It seems to be lost on you too.
>>>
>>>Please feel free to explain to us why the price, based on GDP, is not
>>>highest in the U.S. of A.?
>>>
>>
>> There are multiple factors, of course. Contrary to popular images, the
>> people of the United States of America are not altogether that
>> prosperous. We have been asked to carry the world's burdens in terms of
>> building up many backward nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan and so are
>> taxed to the extreme. If you can get a foreign newspaper over there, you
>> might see where our president has asked for 2.9 trillion dollars to meet
>> our domestic and world obligations. That doesn't leave a lot of room for
>> luxuries like Windows Vista Ultimate. What little price relief Microsoft
>> can afford, they themselves beset with beggars, thieves, and various
>> state's attorneys general, is welcome by one and all over here.
>
> Funny that...considering that MS argued that it was the GDP/capita that
> caused the price to be /higher/ in the country with the /lower/ one - or
> did you miss that point? Perhaps it's MS who doesn't understand GDP, etc?
>
Perhaps you could educate them and then they would lower the price. In any
event, I was not being serious, which seemed to be obvious to me. I would
rather imagine that the explanation of GDP etc. was merely some reason to
blow off the questioner with a non-understandable excuse. That is, if it
ever actually happened that way.

>> Also, the pricing is based somewhat on costs of marketing, which must be
>> recovered if Microsoft is to maintain any profit at all.
>
> So that's why there's no Linux marketing whatsoever? (Seeing as Linux
> costs £0.00 = $0.00 (exchanged at £1 = $10 ^_^).
>

I think that there is no Linux marketing whatsoever because there is little
hope of even recovery let alone profit from an investment in Linux. The
only one that can profit from Linux is an OEM that can keep the money paid
for a package and no have to remit the license fees to Microsoft. The
opportunity is perilous, however, since there is no established demand for
Linux desktop computers. Why would an OEM take the risk for such a minor
gain?

>> The EU has been
>> particularly predatory in assessing huge fines because Microsoft included
>> their media player as part of Windows
>
> And here I was thinking that the fines were because MS failed to obey the
> EU Laws and requirements.

Well now you know. The various states that joined the DOJ in the antitrust
suit years ago were lusting after the Gates billions as well, but they never
were able to show that they deserved any of it. The EU is now trying and
the matter is going through the first level of courts, as I understand it.
The premise is rather flimsy in asserting that such ruin to competition
comes from packaging Media Player and having more facility in connecting
Windows clients to Windows servers via the publicly disclosed protocols.
You are anti-Microsoft, I am sure, so that you will not yield anything in
this opportunity to see Microsoft punished for their success, but don't
suppose that they will not get their money back some way.

>
>> and we all know how horribly evil
>> and unfair that is. To pay these fines, EU citizens need to pony up a
>> bit higher price to even things out worldwide.
>
> So that explains why a chinaman(?) has to stump up a /month's/ wages to
> pay for Windwos? That'd mean I'd be paying in the region of £1000
> ($2,000) for Windwos; I don't see Americans paying a month's wage for
> Windwos...or /are/ Americans *really* that badly paid that they only earn
> $300 a month?
>

If you bother to observe the facts, you will see that the chinaman(?) is
continually allowed to freely pirate Windows and even resell it on the
streets of Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia. I don't think that is an
accident and is simply a recognition that there is very little money to be
made in selling software in Asia at this time.

>> Fair is fair, I believe.
>
> Would be *IF* the price was only greater in the UK for Vista - I'm sure XP
> was more expensive, 2K was, 98 was; however, I've noticed that IT stuff,
> not just MS's, tends to cross the Pond at an exchange rate of £1=$1 (give
> or take 1d).
>

In my occasional trips to Europe I have often observed that the prices for
most things that I can compare directly are several times higher there than
in the United States of America. A room in a modern hotel in Amsterdam, for
example, or a meal in a quality restaurant. A pair of denim slacks with an
American brand are similarly much higher there in spite of the fact that
they are made in China. Perhaps your currency is not as valuable as you are
being led to believe. How much is a pint of beer in a pub these days?


cc

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 7:02:29 PM2/5/07
to
On Feb 5, 3:13 pm, Robert Newson <ReapNe...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>
wrote:

You don't have to buy a laptop with anything pre-installed. If you
bought one that said no operating system was installed, and they
charged for a copy of Windows and put it on there, then you should be
able to get some sort of refund from whoever sold you that laptop. If
you buy a laptop that says it comes with Windows, then it seems like
that's your problem.

AB

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 7:43:38 PM2/5/07
to
On 2007-02-05, B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> claimed:

While Bilge ][ is explaining that, maybe he can explain why it needs to
be higher or lower in various places when the overall total profit
margin is 86% on the product.

--
A Windows utility is a virus with seniority.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 7:53:12 PM2/5/07
to

"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:52p4ukF...@mid.individual.net...

I would imagine that it is the gross domestic product divided by the
population count, but you may have a different definition. I also
understand that a Management Accountant is a sort of CPA. Are you a
Management Accountant? You sort of sound like you might be.


Gordon

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 3:18:06 AM2/6/07
to
amicus_curious wrote:
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:52p4ukF...@mid.individual.net...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> The answer to the above question, though, is simply that Microsoft's
>>> customers recognize the value and willingly pay for the use.
>> You obviously have NO conception of what GDP per capita is, have you, and
>> absolutely NO answer as to why it should be used as part of a pricing
>> policy. Go read up on it, and then return to tell me, a Management
>> Accountant (and if you don't know what THAT is either, go and find out)
>> why on earth any organisation should use it as a part of pricing, other
>> than to justify a rip-off product price?
>
> I would imagine that it is the gross domestic product divided by the
> population count, but you may have a different definition.

And if that is so, there is NO commercial reason whatsoever to use it in
a pricing policy, other than to try to justify something that is
unjustifiable, mainly because most people won't know what on earth GDP
is or how it's measured.

A Management Accountant is not a CPA, it is someone who guides
non-financial managers into making the correct business decisions based
on historical data and forward extrapolation of the same, with regard to
market tendencies, new product launches, etc etc. I'm actually also a
Systems Accountant - the link between the IT dept and the Accounts dept.....

Phil

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 4:15:54 AM2/6/07
to
"amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> writes:
> How much is a pint of beer in a pub these days?
£2.42 in my local

Robert Newson

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 3:06:32 PM2/6/07
to
cc wrote:

And the Licence for Windwos says that if I don't agree with it I can return
the unused product(s) for a refund subject to the suppliers refund policies.
If the laptop is one I particularly want, but NOT to run Windwos and I
have to purchase it /with/ Windwos and the returns policy of the comapny is
that I can only return the whole laptop with Windwos and /not just/ Windwos,
then if I want to purchase that laptop, I *have been forced* to buy Windwos
- the laptop supplier *has made* me buy it (even thought I don't want it).

So if MS declares that no one is making me buy Windwos and the laptop
supplier is making me buy Windwos, the question I would want to know is why?
And more to the point, why is MS lying? Or don't they know what the
OEMs are doing? Which I can hardly believe, as it's most likely that it's
MS forcing them to sell Windwos with every laptop sold.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 5:36:35 PM2/6/07
to

"Phil" <p...@thecork.trig222.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uhctzir3p.fsf@GLKD2485705...

> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> writes:
>> How much is a pint of beer in a pub these days?
> £2.42 in my local
>
Well there you are then. In a cheap place here, say Chili's or Friday's, a
beer is $2.5 or so, half that during happy hours. So in terms of beer,
Vista is about the same price in terms of volume in the UK as in the USA.


B Gruff

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 8:47:23 PM2/6/07
to

OK - so following on from that:-

AFAIK, I am at liberty to buy as much beer as I wish in the U.S., transport
it to the U.K. (paying transport costs), import it, paying any duty and
tax, and sell it, paying any sales tax.
AFAIK there would be no price difference at source (U.S.), and no objection
to me selling that U.S. beer in the U.K.

Question: Can I buy in the U.S, transport, import and sell Vista under the
same terms?
If not, why not?

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Feb 6, 2007, 9:03:36 PM2/6/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, B Gruff
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:47:23 +0000
<52spdaF...@mid.individual.net>:

> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 22:36 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil" <p...@thecork.trig222.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uhctzir3p.fsf@GLKD2485705...
>>> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> writes:
>>>> How much is a pint of beer in a pub these days?
>>> ?2.42 in my local

>>>
>> Well there you are then. In a cheap place here, say Chili's or Friday's,
>> a
>> beer is $2.5 or so, half that during happy hours. So in terms of beer,
>> Vista is about the same price in terms of volume in the UK as in the USA.
>
> OK - so following on from that:-
>
> AFAIK, I am at liberty to buy as much beer as I wish in the U.S., transport
> it to the U.K. (paying transport costs), import it, paying any duty and
> tax, and sell it, paying any sales tax.
> AFAIK there would be no price difference at source (U.S.), and no objection
> to me selling that U.S. beer in the U.K.
>
> Question: Can I buy in the U.S, transport, import and sell Vista under the
> same terms?
> If not, why not?
>

Whyever would you want to do that? :-) Import something useful,
like Knoppix. Not only is that cheaper (since it's based in Germany),
but it might actually work.... :-)

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 7, 2007, 9:50:03 AM2/7/07
to

"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52spdaF...@mid.individual.net...

> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 22:36 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil" <p...@thecork.trig222.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uhctzir3p.fsf@GLKD2485705...
>>> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> writes:
>>>> How much is a pint of beer in a pub these days?
>>> 2.42 in my local
>>>
>> Well there you are then. In a cheap place here, say Chili's or Friday's,
>> a
>> beer is $2.5 or so, half that during happy hours. So in terms of beer,
>> Vista is about the same price in terms of volume in the UK as in the USA.
>
> OK - so following on from that:-
>
> AFAIK, I am at liberty to buy as much beer as I wish in the U.S.,
> transport
> it to the U.K. (paying transport costs), import it, paying any duty and
> tax, and sell it, paying any sales tax.
> AFAIK there would be no price difference at source (U.S.), and no
> objection
> to me selling that U.S. beer in the U.K.
>
I think you missed the point of the analogy. It was not to describe how
things may be transported but rather to illustrate how prices are
determined, which is by determining what things are worth in the eye of the
buyer. For whatever reason, it seems like the beer drinker in the UK values
the experience roughly twice as much as one in the US and prices are set
accordingly. Efficiency in production does not lower the price, it
increases the profitability. That idea is not limited to software and
obviously affects beer. If the price is too high due to production costs,
volume is limited to those who can afford the product, but the price will
stay the same.

> Question: Can I buy in the U.S, transport, import and sell Vista under
> the
> same terms?
> If not, why not?
>

I really do not know what terms and conditions might apply universally. If
you are a distributor for Microsoft, you have contractually agreed to their
policies and any restriction would be due to some policy in effect at
Microsoft. They have to balance their channels to ensure that they do not
end up in competition with themselves and that is always a complicated
process, all the more so for a worldwide operation of the scale needed for
Windows. Are there any import restrictions in UK law? If not, in the
interests of international harmony I would be happy to buy a copy of Vista
for you at a local outlet and send it to you if you would forward the
payment and shipping costs in advance.


Robert Newson

unread,
Feb 7, 2007, 3:52:47 PM2/7/07
to
amicus_curious wrote:

...


> I think you missed the point of the analogy. It was not to describe how
> things may be transported but rather to illustrate how prices are
> determined, which is by determining what things are worth in the eye of the
> buyer.

No, prices are determined by what things are able to sell for in the eye of
the seller.

> For whatever reason, it seems like the beer drinker in the UK values
> the experience roughly twice as much as one in the US and prices are set
> accordingly.

No, prices are largely set by the government taxing alcohol; even worse is
petrol (gas to you)...in the Uk, it is currently about 86p/l or roughly
£3.87 a gallon[1] ~= $5.88 a gallon[2] - is petrol really that much valued
by the UK customer, or does s/he moan about the ridiculously high price?

Further evidence of the tax problem[3] was highlighted when I last travelled
through mainland Europe. In the UK, petrol was about 85p/l, Diesel was
about 90p/l; on mainland europe, essence (petrol/gas) was about e1.20/l
(about same price) whereas benzol (diesel) was about e0.90/l (no wonder my
boss told me to fill up there - 400+l for a full tank soon adds up in costs).

[1] Inperial gallon based on pint = 20floz.
[2] American gallon based on pint = 16floz = 4/5 imperial gallon; also
exchange rate of £1 = $1.90. the US price for an imperial gallon ~= $7.35.
[3] Somewhere like 70-80% of the forecourt price of petrol is tax!

...

> I really do not know what terms and conditions might apply universally. If
> you are a distributor for Microsoft, you have contractually agreed to their
> policies and any restriction would be due to some policy in effect at
> Microsoft.

So they have artifically hiked the price to whatever the market will
tolerate and provide an incentive to copyright infringe.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 7, 2007, 7:01:40 PM2/7/07
to

"Robert Newson" <Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:45CA3CE3...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku...

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> ...
>> I think you missed the point of the analogy. It was not to describe how
>> things may be transported but rather to illustrate how prices are
>> determined, which is by determining what things are worth in the eye of
>> the buyer.
>
> No, prices are determined by what things are able to sell for in the eye
> of the seller.
>
But the eye of the seller is his evaluation of the will of the buyer. If he
guesses incorrectly, he either loses some profit or fails to sell maximum
product..

>> For whatever reason, it seems like the beer drinker in the UK
>> values the experience roughly twice as much as one in the US and prices
>> are set accordingly.
>
> No, prices are largely set by the government taxing alcohol; even worse is
> petrol (gas to you)...in the Uk, it is currently about 86p/l or roughly
> £3.87 a gallon[1] ~= $5.88 a gallon[2] - is petrol really that much valued
> by the UK customer, or does s/he moan about the ridiculously high price?
>
> Further evidence of the tax problem[3] was highlighted when I last
> travelled through mainland Europe. In the UK, petrol was about 85p/l,
> Diesel was about 90p/l; on mainland europe, essence (petrol/gas) was about
> e1.20/l (about same price) whereas benzol (diesel) was about e0.90/l (no
> wonder my boss told me to fill up there - 400+l for a full tank soon adds
> up in costs).
>
> [1] Inperial gallon based on pint = 20floz.
> [2] American gallon based on pint = 16floz = 4/5 imperial gallon; also
> exchange rate of £1 = $1.90. the US price for an imperial gallon ~= $7.35.
> [3] Somewhere like 70-80% of the forecourt price of petrol is tax!
>

I would not argue that price strategies can be destroyed by government
intervention, but that itself is a form of pricing. The government must be
concerned that the citizens will not "buy" and will evict the ruling party
to obtain some relief from the burdens. Fuels are less voluntary than beer,
though. You may have to pay for fuel to get to your job or whatnot, but you
could skip the beer if it was not worth the price in your mind.


> ...
>
>> I really do not know what terms and conditions might apply universally.
>> If you are a distributor for Microsoft, you have contractually agreed to
>> their policies and any restriction would be due to some policy in effect
>> at Microsoft.
>
> So they have artifically hiked the price to whatever the market will
> tolerate and provide an incentive to copyright infringe.
>

They have set prices at a level that have resulted in substantial profits
while at the same time been acceptable to a vast majority of consumers. No
one likes to spend money, but that is not the issue. What is required is a
price that people will pay because they would still prefer to have the
product than to keep their money.


socrates...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 10, 2007, 7:10:10 PM2/10/07
to
Hi there. I'm a Portuguese citizen and have been also concerned with
this issue. Here in Portugal the Vista Ultimate Full Version is even
more expensive than anywhere reaching the unbelievable price of 669,99
euros!!! THIS IS A RIP OFF!

I've written a post in my blog which has only been published a few
days ago because I was waiting to a response from my countrie's
Microsoft branch, but it never came where I also expose this issue ->
http://www.digg.com/software/Microsoft_does_not_like_Europeans

Now Portuguese GDP is far lower than British or USA, so I don't know
what kind of study they have made but we here are really paying a lot
more (though taxes applied are 21%, this does not account for the huge
price difference between USA - Europe that Vista's several distros are
getting. This is even more outrageous when the GBP and the EUR are
higher than the USD!

We have all to take a stand to stop these stupid price policies that
always make Europeans pay more!

Paul Bramscher

unread,
Feb 10, 2007, 7:50:45 PM2/10/07
to

I hear you -- I live in the American Midwest and find Vista/Office too
expensive myself. I can't decide whether Microsoft has priced Vista
beyond my means, or whether the entire economy has raised the bar of
"middle-class" beyond my means. But in any case, Microsoft has lost
touch with reality -- and has produced an operating system for people in
the same class as the managers that probably directed the project:
$250,000-500,000 salary/year minimum. They genuinely don't get it. As
people's real earning power and personal savings are shrinking, they
actually *raise* the cost of their products and services.

The beauty is that the shareholders will eventually get it, as consumers
vote with their pocketbooks.

I can't say I'm going to buy a Mac -- why would I buy a semi-closed
version of what I get for free, and lock myself into proprietary hardware?

But I am beginning to wonder whether this might be a good time to buy
Apple stock.

amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 10, 2007, 8:38:49 PM2/10/07
to

"Paul Bramscher" <pfbram...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eqlp8s$t2r$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...

>
> I hear you -- I live in the American Midwest and find Vista/Office too
> expensive myself. I can't decide whether Microsoft has priced Vista
> beyond my means, or whether the entire economy has raised the bar of
> "middle-class" beyond my means. But in any case, Microsoft has lost touch
> with reality -- and has produced an operating system for people in the
> same class as the managers that probably directed the project:
> $250,000-500,000 salary/year minimum. They genuinely don't get it. As
> people's real earning power and personal savings are shrinking, they
> actually *raise* the cost of their products and services.
>
Well if you insist on living in that icebox, you will never get much of a
taste for the good life. You should move out to lala land where all the
thermometers have at least two digits and get some sun on your bun and
unwind a little.

> The beauty is that the shareholders will eventually get it, as consumers
> vote with their pocketbooks.
>

You are 100% correct on that issue and so far the votes being cast are
showing Microsoft to be the undefeated champion.

> I can't say I'm going to buy a Mac -- why would I buy a semi-closed
> version of what I get for free, and lock myself into proprietary hardware?
>

I never understood that either.

> But I am beginning to wonder whether this might be a good time to buy
> Apple stock.

AAPL turns more these days on iPod than Macintosh, but go ahead if you think
they will continue upward.


DFS

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 12:38:17 AM2/11/07
to
"Paul Bramscher" <pfbram...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eqlp8s$t2r$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...

> I hear you -- I live in the American Midwest and find Vista/Office too

> expensive myself. I can't decide whether Microsoft has priced Vista
> beyond my means, or whether the entire economy has raised the bar of
> "middle-class" beyond my means.

You're not alone. I freak out at prices sometimes, too. I eat lunch out
nearly every day, and I"m seeing most non-fastfood lunches now run close to
$10.00 (Atlanta suburbs), which I think is absurd. Food is energy - eat the
cheapest you can, balancing nutrition and taste.

* last time I went into a Philly Connection cheesesteak shop they wanted
right at $10.00 for large sandwich, chips and drink combo.
* one Tex-Mex restaurant I go to sometimes will cost you just over $9.00 for
a Speedy and Coke (+tax and tip of course). Mexican food is supposed to be
cheap!
* ABC Bread Company runs about $20.00 for two sandwich/soup/drink combos.
* Thai Lotus has excellent pad thai, but it's over $10.00 with tax and tip
for lunch

No matter what, stay the f*ck away from Taco Bell, McDonalds, Burger King,
Krystal, etc.


> But in any case, Microsoft has lost touch with reality -- and has produced
> an operating system for people in the same class as the managers that
> probably directed the project: $250,000-500,000 salary/year minimum.

It's $120 for the Home Premium OEM full version - not upgrade. Or $180 for
regular non-OEM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&Description=Vista+Home+Premium&Submit=ENE&N=0&Ntk=all&Go.x=8&Go.y=33

Your cheapest bet is to buy a new PC that has it pre-installed, and buy the
Home/Student version of Office.

> They genuinely don't get it. As people's real earning power and personal
> savings are shrinking, they actually *raise* the cost of their products
> and services.

The full retail price of Ultimate - $399 - is ridiculous, I agree. But
there are lots of less expensive options.


> The beauty is that the shareholders will eventually get it, as consumers
> vote with their pocketbooks.

So you expect Vista to be a hit?

Probably. It's very nice, but it will take years for it to replace XP.


John Bailo

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 12:39:04 AM2/11/07
to
DFS wrote:

> It's $120 for the Home Premium OEM full version - not upgrade. Or $180
> for regular non-OEM.

Today's American economy and the deflation in manufacturing demands more for
less. You've paid more for less.

Paul Bramscher

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 12:46:02 AM2/11/07
to
DFS wrote:

> The full retail price of Ultimate - $399 - is ridiculous, I agree. But
> there are lots of less expensive options.

Sure, for a more crippled PC you can pay less. What kind of bizarre
logic is that? The OS should fully exploit the hardware, never
deliberately keep parts of it non-utilized.

>> The beauty is that the shareholders will eventually get it, as consumers
>> vote with their pocketbooks.
>
> So you expect Vista to be a hit?

Not remotely. Voting with one's pocketbook goes one of two ways. The
pocketbook is empty here. Vista will be a flop for reasons I could have
told M$ about 2 years ago, but they're so filthy rich that they could
care less about plebeian things like saving money.

Bill Gates

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 1:02:53 AM2/11/07
to
On Feb 11, 3:38 pm, "DFS" <nos...@dfsvista.com> wrote:
> "Paul Bramscher" <pfbram_nos...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>
> news:eqlp8s$t2r$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
>
> > I hear you -- I live in the American Midwest and find Vista/Office too
> > expensive myself. I can't decide whether Microsoft has priced Vista
> > beyond my means, or whether the entire economy has raised the bar of
> > "middle-class" beyond my means.
>
> You're not alone. I freak out at prices sometimes, too. I eat lunch out
> nearly every day, and I"m seeing most non-fastfood lunches now run close to
> $10.00 (Atlanta suburbs), which I think is absurd. Food is energy - eat the
> cheapest you can, balancing nutrition and taste.
>
> * last time I went into a Philly Connection cheesesteak shop they wanted
> right at $10.00 for large sandwich, chips and drink combo.
> * one Tex-Mex restaurant I go to sometimes will cost you just over $9.00 for
> a Speedy and Coke (+tax and tip of course). Mexican food is supposed to be
> cheap!
> * ABC Bread Company runs about $20.00 for two sandwich/soup/drink combos.
> * Thai Lotus has excellent pad thai, but it's over $10.00 with tax and tip
> for lunch
>
> No matter what, stay the f*ck away from Taco Bell, McDonalds, Burger King,
> Krystal, etc.

Communist pig. MacDonalds is the best food you can get. Most people in
the world know this. More people eat it than the crap you are talking
about. Majority is always right. Windows is best. You must use linux.


DFS

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 1:15:09 AM2/11/07
to

"Paul Bramscher" <pfbram...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eqmaig$30o$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...

> DFS wrote:
>
>> The full retail price of Ultimate - $399 - is ridiculous, I agree. But
>> there are lots of less expensive options.
>
> Sure, for a more crippled PC you can pay less. What kind of bizarre logic
> is that? The OS should fully exploit the hardware, never deliberately
> keep parts of it non-utilized.

What are you talking about? Vista < Ultimate doesn't cripple any hardware.

>>> The beauty is that the shareholders will eventually get it, as consumers
>>> vote with their pocketbooks.
>>
>> So you expect Vista to be a hit?
>
> Not remotely. Voting with one's pocketbook goes one of two ways. The
> pocketbook is empty here. Vista will be a flop

I see you're a Linux "advocate" who flaps his lips just to see them moving.

> for reasons I could have told M$ about 2 years ago, but they're so filthy
> rich that they could care less about plebeian things like saving money.

Are they so filthy rich because of all the other flops you could have told
them about?

John Bailo

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 1:19:41 AM2/11/07
to
DFS wrote:


> What are you talking about? Vista < Ultimate doesn't cripple any
> hardware.

How would you know? You never ran XP, so you didn't upgrade.


Linonut

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 9:32:47 AM2/11/07
to
After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> for reasons I could have told M$ about 2 years ago, but they're so filthy
>> rich that they could care less about plebeian things like saving money.
>
> Are they so filthy rich because of all the other flops you could have told
> them about?

No, they're rich because of two "hits" (in the mob sense?): MS Office,
and Windows.

--
"I'm going to f'in *kill* Google!"
-- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft

Paul Bramscher

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 9:59:39 AM2/11/07
to
DFS wrote:
> "Paul Bramscher" <pfbram...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:eqmaig$30o$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> The full retail price of Ultimate - $399 - is ridiculous, I agree. But
>>> there are lots of less expensive options.
>> Sure, for a more crippled PC you can pay less. What kind of bizarre logic
>> is that? The OS should fully exploit the hardware, never deliberately
>> keep parts of it non-utilized.
>
> What are you talking about? Vista < Ultimate doesn't cripple any hardware.

* DRM?
* DVD playback quality?
* How many concurrent connections are possible if I run IIS, SQL Server,
or other daemons on top of it?

Since at least NT (I was an admin over an 800-user network and several
computing labs) they've crippled the hardware -- and you've had to
purchase seat licenses to unlock it its natural cpu/bandwidth capacity.
With linux/GPL software, it's just matter of tweaking the appropriate
conf file.

> Are they so filthy rich because of all the other flops you could have told
> them about?

I've yet to meet many rich people who got to that position by means
other than exploiting others. The biggest pieces genuinely do float to
the top. In this case, they broke the camel's back. But that may be a
good thing.

Looks like a mixed blessing these past 5 years to me:
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?pg=qu&sid=3140&symb=MSFT&time=5yr&uf=0

DFS

unread,
Feb 11, 2007, 12:17:57 PM2/11/07
to
Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> for reasons I could have told M$ about 2 years ago, but they're so
>>> filthy rich that they could care less about plebeian things like
>>> saving money.
>>
>> Are they so filthy rich because of all the other flops you could
>> have told them about?
>
> No, they're rich because of two "hits" (in the mob sense?): MS
> Office, and Windows.

Yep. Last I read, those two used to account for 2/3 of MS revenue, and
something like 75% of their profit.


amicus_curious

unread,
Feb 12, 2007, 12:50:15 PM2/12/07
to

"Paul Bramscher" <pfbram...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eqmaig$30o$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...

>
> Not remotely. Voting with one's pocketbook goes one of two ways. The
> pocketbook is empty here. Vista will be a flop for reasons I could have
> told M$ about 2 years ago, but they're so filthy rich that they could care
> less about plebeian things like saving money.

Windows distribution is mostly via OEM distribution and some 200+ million
copies are being sent out into the world every year. As of a week or two
ago, all of them are Vista copies. People have had the opportunity to buy a
Linux or MacOS based computer for a long time now and nothing much has
changed in the marketplace. Nothing much is likely to change either, there
isn't anything being done to make a change.


Phillip.R...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 8:31:40 AM3/1/07
to
I can't understand why the UK is being singled out?

You don't carry the worlds burdens so shut the fuck up. You've bombed
more shit than you've saved so don't even joke.

And if you did feel you had an obligation to do with something other
than software, it doesn't justify why the UK has to be ripped off by
Microsoft.

I think we have an obligation to stop injustice like this happening in
the world.

Phill

On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, "amicus_curious" <A...@sti.net> wrote:
> "B Gruff" <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:52p4eoF...@mid.individual.net...


>
> > On Monday 05 February 2007 16:28 amicus_curious wrote:
>
> >> It seems that the notion of value pricing, i.e. charging what something
> >> is
> >> worth rather than what it might cost to produce, is lost on the OSS
> >> people.
>
> > It seems to be lost on you too.
>
> > Please feel free to explain to us why the price, based on GDP, is not
> > highest in the U.S. of A.?
>

> There are multiple factors, of course. Contrary to popular images, the
> people of the United States of America are not altogether that prosperous.
> We have been asked to carry the world's burdens in terms of building up many
> backward nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan and so are taxed to the
> extreme. If you can get a foreign newspaper over there, you might see where
> our president has asked for 2.9 trillion dollars to meet our domestic and
> world obligations. That doesn't leave a lot of room for luxuries like
> Windows Vista Ultimate. What little price relief Microsoft can afford, they
> themselves beset with beggars, thieves, and various state's attorneys
> general, is welcome by one and all over here.
>
> Also, the pricing is based somewhat on costs of marketing, which must be
> recovered if Microsoft is to maintain any profit at all. The EU has been
> particularly predatory in assessing huge fines because Microsoft included
> their media player as part of Windows and we all know how horribly evil and
> unfair that is. To pay these fines, EU citizens need to pony up a bit
> higher price to even things out worldwide. Fair is fair, I believe.


Phillip.R...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 8:33:50 AM3/1/07
to
On Feb 5, 8:13 pm, Robert Newson <ReapNe...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>

wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > "Who cares what we charge for our software? No one is making you buy
> > it,
>
> If that is the reply, then there'll be no further problems in getting a
> refund for the unused Product (of Windwos) when you don't want it
> pre-installed on a laptop...it would be /VERY/ interesting if that reply
> came back.

It's comes with most computers you twat.

The give massive discounts to retailers if they ONLY sell Windows with
their machines, hence we are forced to pay double what you pay.

It's called a lock in and I knew this shit was going to happen.

DFS

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 9:48:18 AM3/1/07
to
Phillip.R...@gmail.com wrote:


> The give massive discounts to retailers if they ONLY sell Windows with
> their machines,

How do you know?

> hence we are forced to pay double what you pay.

You're not forced to buy anything.

> It's called a lock in and I knew this shit was going to happen.

How is it lock-in if it's a voluntary purchase, and you're free to use Linux
or *BSD or any other OS you want, at any time.

Ian Hilliard

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 12:53:48 PM3/1/07
to
DFS wrote:

>> hence we are forced to pay double what you pay.
>
> You're not forced to buy anything.
>

You're quite right, don't get a machine with Windows preinstalled and you
don't have to pay for it.

The problem is finding a mainstream machine that doesn't have Windows
preinstalled. Microsoft has the mainstream OEM's so tied up that pretty
well the whole world has to pay Microsoft Tax.

Lets hope that that situation changes soon.

Ian

DFS

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 11:53:55 PM3/1/07
to
Ian Hilliard wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>>> hence we are forced to pay double what you pay.
>>
>> You're not forced to buy anything.
>>
>
> You're quite right, don't get a machine with Windows preinstalled and
> you don't have to pay for it.

Well how about that - I got one cola advocate to say something truthful.
Persistence does pay off!

> The problem is finding a mainstream machine that doesn't have Windows
> preinstalled.

After hours of excruciating searching, I stumbled upon
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/

Is www.dell.com in there? www.hp.com? www.monarchcomputers.com?

> Microsoft has the mainstream OEM's so tied up that
> pretty well the whole world has to pay Microsoft Tax.

There's no such thing, but taxing is a good way to describe the horrors of
using Linux/OSS, ie what do I do to fix this

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/Knode_slop4.png


> Lets hope that that situation changes soon.

For better or worse, it won't, especially not soon. I say worse 'cause MS
can't be the only source of a good desktop OS - they desperately need
competition.

Anyway, most people don't want PCs with no operating system. Certainly Best
Buy and Office Depot won't sell many. Most people don't care about the OS
in the first place; the computer is for running apps and games and web
surfing and email, not tinkering with hdparm and .conf files until your
fingers bleed.

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 12:16:21 AM3/2/07
to
__/ [ Ian Hilliard ] on Thursday 01 March 2007 17:53 \__

...And machines without Windows (or FreeDOS, for we shalt not permit 'naked'
boxes to run astray) can cost more than ones that have Windows preinstalled.

Antitust? Hello? Haaalllloooo....

--
~~ Best wishes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bYsxaMyFV2Y http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNb7gPA1JFk
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 472932k used, 563252k free, 56016k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages