I have a copy of all four major versions of Windows Vista (producing more
than one version is of course just another Microsoft "scam") but all of them
are inferior to Mac OSX in a number of very important respects, and all of
them are horrendously overpriced, especially here in the UK where Microsoft
seem to be attempting to almost commit a robbery! VB6 was, for me, the only
"killer application" that forced me to remain with Windows, and now that
Microsoft have effectively killed both XP and VB6 there is nothing left to
keep me here. So, it looks as though I will soon be moving over from Windows
to the Mac and from VB to RealBasic. Sad, really. I was having such fun
here, and now it seems it is all but over. I can console myself only with
the fact that Vista appears to be the biggest "flop" in the history of
Microsoft. I hope it dies the death it deserves.

Mike

Mike Williams wrote:
I can understand why you might easily forget one *obviously* bigger flop.

And you can perhaps understand why /I/ haven't:



    Bob

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:21:09 -0800, Bob O`Bob wrote:

IMHO the .NET flop was bigger under a technical aspect. Fincially, and
concerning their general reputation, the Vista flop will hit them
harder.

Rise and Fall of the House of MS ... we had the opportunity to witness
this impressing story, at least. ;-)

Cheers,
Wolfgang

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:35:01 +0100, Wolfgang Enzinger
<spamsink-8514@centermail.net> wrote:
in <br64u210p0u53laq02bd3pkl21hti6d***@4ax.com>

Yes sir, it's been interesting to say the least.  There's really no room
in our current economy for anyone who doesn't realize the value of the
customer.  When microsoft is forced to compete on an even playing field
they will inevitably find that "The customer is always right" is
actually a tried and true axiom that has shaped everyone's experience.

~If~ they are lucky enough to ditch baldy and his hostile attitude they
may be able to salvage their business from the bottomless spiral it's
apparently in at the moment.

If not, well - there are fortunately other alternatives.  :-)

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:36:03 -0800, Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote:

¤ Yes sir, it's been interesting to say the least.  There's really no room
¤ in our current economy for anyone who doesn't realize the value of the
¤ customer.  When microsoft is forced to compete on an even playing field
¤ they will inevitably find that "The customer is always right" is
¤ actually a tried and true axiom that has shaped everyone's experience.
¤
¤ ~If~ they are lucky enough to ditch baldy and his hostile attitude they
¤ may be able to salvage their business from the bottomless spiral it's
¤ apparently in at the moment.
¤
¤ If not, well - there are fortunately other alternatives.  :-)

You still here?

If you were all that happy about "other alternatives" I doubt that you would be all that
pre-occupied with what Microsoft was doing. Certainly wouldn't be here.

Must be tough to get over it and move on. ;-)


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

"Paul Clement" posted...
<g> I love VB6. I'm not speaking for anyone else. It's definitely
hard to get out of VB6. But there's some really cool assembly
language IDEs coming into fruition...

URI[1]: http://www.easycoder.org/English/GoTools.htm
URI[2]: http://www.easycoder.org/English/Download.htm

Give thanks to Ramon Sala...
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?board=28.0
http://www.manoscoder.gr/mbbs/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=22

They look alot like VB4/5/6 (VB4 IDE looked like the VB5 and
VB6 IDE, right?) I went from VB3 to VB5, never ever saw any
VB4 IDE. So correct me if I'm wrong, please. Post a VB4 IDE
picture if it doesn't look like VB5?

Jim Carlock <anonymous@localhost> wrote:
No, VB4 looked like VB3.  The main difference was it used the system colors and "3d"
detailing.

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote:
Must be.  What's your excuse?

¤ >
¤ > If you were all that happy about "other alternatives" I doubt that you would be
¤ > all that pre-occupied with what Microsoft was doing. Certainly wouldn't be here.
¤ >
¤ > Must be tough to get over it and move on. ;-)
¤
¤ Must be.  What's your excuse?

I'm not the one with the issues. Care to speak for yourself?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote:
I'm good, man.  No regrets.  But you, well, you keep proclaiming to the world your
joy with "other alternatives" to the topic this group is devoted to, and yet, here
you are.  Thus prompting my suggestion for introspection on your part.

¤ > ¤ > If you were all that happy about "other alternatives" I doubt that you would
¤ > be ¤ > all that pre-occupied with what Microsoft was doing. Certainly wouldn't be
¤ > here. ¤ >
¤ > ¤ > Must be tough to get over it and move on. ;-)
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Must be.  What's your excuse?
¤ >
¤ > I'm not the one with the issues. Care to speak for yourself?
¤
¤ I'm good, man.  No regrets.  But you, well, you keep proclaiming to the world your
¤ joy with "other alternatives" to the topic this group is devoted to, and yet, here
¤ you are.  Thus prompting my suggestion for introspection on your part.

I'm not using "other alternatives" to the Microsoft products in question. The reference was to
Stefan's statement concerning Microsoft and the non-Microsoft products that he now embraces.

You say you're good and yet you continue your rants about Microsoft, here in a Microsoft newsgroup.
I'm not sure how you deal with the conflict of supporting customers who continue to use Microsoft
products. Perhaps you could explain?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteObviously a raging case of denial.

You confuse loyalty to a soulless corporation with altruism towards other humans.

¤ > ¤ >
¤ > ¤ > I'm not the one with the issues. Care to speak for yourself?
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ I'm good, man.  No regrets.  But you, well, you keep proclaiming to the world
¤ > your
¤ > ¤ joy with "other alternatives" to the topic this group is devoted to, and yet,
¤ > here
¤ > ¤ you are.  Thus prompting my suggestion for introspection on your part.
¤ >
¤ > I'm not using "other alternatives" to the Microsoft products in question.
¤
¤ Obviously a raging case of denial.

Then you're welcome to explain what Microsoft alternatives that I am using.

¤ > You say you're good and yet you continue your rants about Microsoft, here in a
¤ > Microsoft newsgroup. I'm not sure how you deal with the conflict of supporting
¤ > customers who continue to use Microsoft products. Perhaps you could explain?
¤
¤ You confuse loyalty to a soulless corporation with altruism towards other humans.

That's your conflict, not my confusion. But I respect your choice of altruism in support of their
product despite the fact that it's in conflict with your anti-Microsoft sentiments.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Would that be VB.NET or DOS 4?

Show quoteHide quote

Robert Morley wrote:
Re-read it carefully.  Punctuation is no accident.


Show quoteHide quote

Not sure what you mean...there was no punctuation, other than a period at
the end of the sentence.  To me, both VB.NET and DOS 4 were big flops for
MS.


Rob

Robert Morley wrote:
You quoted it just fine.  Sorry you seem unable to read it.


    Bob

I've re-read it over and over... and can see no significance...

Show quoteHide quote

Here's bob's post again:

"I can understand why you might easily forget one *obviously* bigger flop.

And you can perhaps understand why /I/ haven't:



Bob"

Notice the colon at the end of the second sentence and Bob's name on the
next line? I believe he is referring to a project called "Microsoft Bob".
From wikipedia:

Microsoft Bob was a product released by Microsoft in March 1995 as an
entirely different adventure game-like interface/Shell for performing tasks
on one's computer. Despite its ambitious nature, Bob failed to penetrate the
market and is considered Microsoft's worst program, and their largest
failure. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer named Bob as one project "we [had]
undertaken ... where we decided that we have not succeeded and let's stop."

Michael

Well that would explain it then.  In the font that I'm reading the message
in, the top point of the colon merges in with the "t" before it.  It looked
like a "t" followed by a regular period to me.  So perhaps before assuming
that people are idiots who can't read (which is particularly offensive to
me, since I've done professional editing before), Bob should have simply
explained what he had meant and perhaps considered that there was a reason
some of us weren't getting it.


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

That would have taken out all the fun though. :-) With your professional
editing skills maybe you should have tried a different font, especially
considering bob did say to check the punctuation.

Michael

We were mostly proof-reading on paper, since it's easier to mark things up
that way...changing the font isn't something that would've been "the norm",
so it wasn't something I ever considered.  Besides, even if it had occurred
to me, cutting & pasting it to a different app to change the font (since I
don't want to change my newsreader's font) would have been rather annoying
and would only have answered the question for me.  There are now two other
people who've said they didn't get it, despite re-reading several times, so
me changing the font on my end wouldn't have helped them in the least.


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

On Feb 25, 10:46 pm, "Robert Morley"
<rmor***@magma.ca.N0.Freak1n.sparn> wrote:
*raises hand* I didn't get it either....

Interesting, I do some editing now. Just finished Mark Scwarzer's World Cup

Show quoteHide quote

Would this be something about MSDOS 9x being replaced with NT  ?

Oh I see. Very subtle. Sure mystified me. Thanks for that very full
explanation. I can hardly see the colon on the screen here!

Show quoteHide quote

I didn't at first either but I didn't really try at first.

Michael

.... insert obligatory proctology joke here ...

<G>

Could you spell it out for us, then, since I'm obviously not the only one
who isn't getting your point.  You say there's one *obviously* bigger
flop...what is it that you see as the flop?


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

Robert Morley wrote:
Aware or not, /that's/ funny.  Thanks.


    Bob

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:06:59 -0800, Bob O`Bob
<filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Somehow the 'Toon' interface passed me by

Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Cracked me up!

I still recall, *vividly*, wandering into the Company Store, and every clerk wearing
those stupid smiley t-shirts...  Oh man, was that ever a setup doomed from the
get-go!

"Robert Morley" wrote...
Microsoft never gave me a free version of MS-DOS 4. I
got a free copy of Windows NT Workstation 4 though. I'm
not sure that FREE always means bad. It can mean a new
product is getting ready to be released and they hold onto
a large overstock of the older items.

Hope this helps.

Jim Carlock wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteOh, if only we had recognized the opportunity to stock up on copies of VS6EE!



    Bob

If I remember correctly, I seem to recall Michael Kaplan doing that very thing back
in about 2000.  Shortly thereafter he went to work for Microsoft.  I wonder if those
events are related....

<g>
LFS

<eg>

Saga

Show quoteHide quote

DOS 4 was exactly what I was thinking of. And judging by the Word newsgroup
Office 2007 might be heading that way. Anyway, I don't trust them anymore.

Show quoteHide quote

Having now understood that you were referring to Microsoft Bob, I'd have to
disagree, though admittedly it's more semantics than anything else.  Bob
wasn't a flop on the level of Vista or .Net or DOS 4 in a sense.  By that I
mean that all of the other three were tried and reviled; Bob simply never
got tried...practically nobody ever actually bought the thing!


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

What are they?

The basic OEM version should be around 40 pounds for those still using last
century's money.

Have sales figures been low?

Michael

<SNIP>

Actually there's been a flap over UK pricing since Vista's been released.

You'll find 1000's of hits.

Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteOne report I read said that a major store in a major metropolitan area
called in staff for all-night sales, but the only people who came in
after midnight were homeless looking to get out of the cold.

I don't know if that's exaggerated, but I also don't know /anyone/ who
was in any hurry to buy it.




    Bob

Bob O`Bob wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI was certainly in no hurry to buy it, I was also in no hurry to buy my
new laptop, so unfortunately when i got around to doing that all the
laptops in the store came with vista. (All XP ones sold out)

Having used it for just over a week now - I really can't see this 'Wow'
factor that macrosoft keep advertising.. it looks pretty much exactly
like XP except that it has funky bubbles for a screen saver and a
3-dimensional version of alt-tab.

Down under in australia a new copy of vista home basic costs around 400
dollars, up to about 8/900 for the ultimate version - a significant
waste of money if you ask me. Fortunately the laptops come with
weenblowz pre-installed so we don't have to spend that much money to get it.

I'll be giving this another couple of weeks for the novelty of the
bubbles and 3-d window switching to wear off and then i'll wipe it and
put XP on it.

Having said this, I've copied all my VB6 development stuff over to my
vista laptop and haven't had any issues so far with compiling/running my
software - at least not after I turned off User Account Control....

Personally though I think M$ peaked at W2K and since then it has been a
downhill slope... Can't wait for the next release in 2010!

Regards,
Paul.

Paul Lambert wrote:

Couldn't agree more.
The main reason I still have this one XP box is it has never acted up.
I wouldn't hesitate to throw W2K on if it had.



    Bob

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:22:24 +0900, Paul Lambert
<paul.lamb***@autoledgers.com.au> wrote:
in <45e22a55$0$16377$88260***@free.teranews.com>

And you, of course, couldn't escape the sales pressure.  Fortunately,
there are still honorable retailers who realize that XP will be
supported by microsoft until 2012-2013 and that it is still the most
reasonable choice for an OS unless you're a gambler...

Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote:
Problem is, "they ain't makin' anymore of 'em."  When the current inventory is gone,
it's gone, I'm afraid.  That's sure the story I'm hearing.  I have some number of
friends, panicked taht they may not be able to buy another XP system.  (They're even
more scared to wipe, install fresh, I'm afraid.)

Karl E. Peterson wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteThat's correct.

Initially I purchased a Compaq Presario which had XP on it - it was the
last one in stock with XP, all the new ones coming in were prebuilt with
vista.

Shock horror though, as Compaq's are prone to do - this one died after
less than a day, so I took it back and my only options for replacement
were Vista models since all the existing XP stock had sold out (with the
exception of a couple of $4000 models - a bit more than I was prepared
to spend) so I swapped for a Toshiba with Vista.

Paul Lambert <paul.lamb***@autoledgers.com.au> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote<groan>

I've heard that Dell was doing this, with some repair jobs, too.

in <eYJ2cxfWHHA.***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>

Show quoteHide quoteWell, I'd agree that it looks like it's getting down to the short
strokes.  Provantage shows 1354 full product and 2581 upgrades in stock.

Dell is still selling XP Pro with a redemption certificate for Vista. I
just bought two for my wife and I will be temporarily installing Vista
on one to ensure that my software works and then it will be back to XP
Pro or more likely Ubuntu for some serious migration testing.

Next year's Dell however, will come pre installed with Ubuntu.  :-)

Do they even have an inkling that the "developers, developers,
developers" are leaving in droves?  Do they even care?

---
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and no guarantees either express or implied.

Stefan Berglund

Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote:
I've been busy building new VMs for the last week or so.  I think I'll just do all
my testing in those, from here on out.  Haven't taken the plunge to build a Vista
one yet.  Can't seem to get motivated.

No, they don't care.  We're the new threat.  (Probably, because we're leaving in
droves. <g>)

But who buys the retail version anyway? You can get the ultimate version OEM
for $275 and the cheapo version is $132. And please don't tell me you'd have
trouble finding someone to sell the oem version without a PC.

I disagree. There are some good features in XP and win2k is Slooooow. I
booted a w2k machine up the other day and was reminded just how amazingly
slow it was.

Michael

In article <uA#PYCVWHHA.4***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, nospam@nospam.com
says...
Show quoteHide quoteBoot time has little to do with how fast a machine executes code.  My XP
machine gets to a logon prompt in a hurry, but it takes at least another
minute before I can actually do anything useful, because not everything
has finished initializing by the time I get the prompt.  I'd much rather
have a system where it's really ready to go when I get a prompt, rather
than leaving a bunch of stuff to finish up in the background.

David Kerber wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteFWIW, my W2K system boots to a login prompt quicker then my WXP system,
both have similar hardware configurations and the same software installed.

I do find overall the 2K system works better, faster and is more
reliable than the XP system, but to each his own - it's all based on
personal experience.

P.

XP is good to go the moment you log in. It's the virus scanner or other
software that causes the minute or so delay. My machine used to delay at
least 3 minutes but after uninstalling MS defender and mcafee it had an
instant response.

Show quoteHide quote

Well ... that comparison is a bit unfair. When W2K shows the login
prompt after bootup, it has already finished initializing all
components like NIC and so on. XP, in contrary, skips almost
everything only to be able to show the login prompt fast. Lots of work
is left to do in this stage, however.

I have both W2K and XP machines, I really can't say W2K is slow.

Wolfgang

Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
I definitely find 2K faster on the *same* hardware.  Easy enough to time, using
Virtual PC.

Try it on a real PC.

Michael

Michael C <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Life's too short.  Anecdotally, when I wipe a 2K box, and install XP, it *seems*
slower.  I'll have to try it the other way around, someday, just to self-validate.
<g>

A couple of things I wanted to add:

1) All new OSs from MS appear pretty much the same when you first get them.
It's only after a while that the true value becomes apparent. This wasn't
true of 98 or ME IMO, though it was true for win2k and XP.

2) I don't think MS want to add all the wanky features, I think they are
forced to in order to keep up the wanky features that apple and linux have.
If you look at that toolbar on apple where the icons get bigger as you mouse
over them, I don't think MS would ever willingly implement a feature like
that. The wanky features that MS implement are usually much more subtle like
a shadow on the mouse etc. So it's a bit of a stretch to turn that around
and start criticising MS for adding these features.

Michael

Michael C wrote:

I disagree with respect to WinME.
I found it apparent immediately that it was a POS,
literally a step in the *wrong* direction from 98SE.



    Bob

True, some versions of Linux have "all the wanky features"; however,
they're quite easy to turn off, and it's equally as easy to get a
version that doesn't have them--all in all, the graphics in Linux
generally don't detract from the functionality of the operating
system, nor do they, for people like myself, add much (the first thing
I do is turn all that crap off).

OS-X has all these crappy graphics because, well, if I may be so bold,
Apples are shiny little playthings for kiddies and grandmothers.
They're not made to do anything useful, nor is OS-X to be considered a
real operating system.

If Microsoft was simply doing what the Linux folks did, providing the
graphics as an extra little add-on to help Windows appeal to the kiddy
and grandmother audience, I doubt there would be any objection. But
that's not what they're doing--instead they're doing what Apple did,
focusing *only* on developing crappy graphics and meanwhile tossing
the functionality of their operating system out the window. Strange
how Microsoft likes copying Apple so much...

My only hope out of all this is that Microsoft is digging itself a
deep enough grave among its professional userbase that, in time, no
one will use Microsoft components to do anything. You gotta admit,
using GPLed software is a hell of a lot cheaper than the arm and a leg
Microsoft charges, and if Microsoft's not going to be able to offer
anything that's at least halfway as decent as other software you can
get for free, then I think it's entirely conceivable that M$ might
fall right off the face of the Earth. Time will tell I suppose...

Doesn't matter that you can turn them off, they still exist and compete
against windows wanky features (or lack of previously).

I doubt they've actually removed functionality (except maybe a sh1tload of
speed).

It will never happen. The only reason I use MS products is because everyone
else does. The day linux or apple get 51% of the market i'll switch. I
suspect many others have the same thinking.

Michael

released on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:07:59 +1100 bearing the
following fruit:

Show quoteHide quoteI want wanky features. Truth is most of the time my PC does
not utilise half it power - I find Vista very pleasing to
use.

Maybe I'm a geek but I experienced pure joy the first time I
sat back and spoke to my computer - and it doing exactly
what I wanted (well most of the time)






Jan Hyde (VB MVP)

Voice recognition is not a wanky feature.

Michael

Exactly. Microsoft are doing some serious "ripping off". In the USA the
typical price of a full version of Vista Ultimate is around $350 (350 US
dollars). Here in the UK it costs about £350 (about 700 US dollars)!!!

I read somewhere that a senior person at microsoft was asked why this should
be the case, and he said that customers did not like prices fluctuations,
and that if they sold the product for the proper price in the UK (which
would be about £175 instead of £350 if the conversion was performed at
approximately the "going rate") then there might from time to time be slight
fluctations in the selling price due to fluctuations in the exchange rate!
I've never heard such a silly argument in my life! What a load of rubbish!
Does he seriously think we would prefer to pay £350 rather than have a price
that fluctates between perhaps £170 and £190 !!!!! In any case, exchange
rate fluctuations are the norm in all forms of World trade. Everybody else
has to "set a price" and cope with them. Why are Microsoft unable to cope
with such stuff! There is no valid excuse for what they are doing. They are
ripping us off !!!

Mike

As I said, I just don't trust them. And yet there is (or was) such talent
there. The Office products (2000 version) and vb6 are absolutely brilliant.
Such a pity about the arrogant ethics.

Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote For once Mike I agree with you (who would have thought!). I read in a mag
recently that the above reason along with local customisation issues are
claimed to cause the higher price but both have been proved to be false.

Michael

Show quote Hide quote My guess is Microsoft it punishing the European Union countries for that
anti-trust abuse settlement case they lost a couple or three years ago.

Rick

Yep. That's probably true. But in the end it will be us that is punishing
them. People know that Micro$haft is treating its existing customers and its
potential customers with contempt and their sales over here will suffer
badly because of it, except for the "new system purchasers" of course, who
will not feel the full force of this customer abuse because of the
thoroughly nasty and underhand OEM deals Billy Boy has secretly done with
some of the major system builders in an attempt to unfairly retain its
market share. Hopefully, one good thing might come out of it if enough
people begin to realise that there are alternatives to Micro$haft.

Mike

"My guess is Microsoft it punishing the ..."

Saga




Show quoteHide quote

Are you sure it's only once? Didn't you agree with me once before, about six
months ago? And again, about two years ago? I reckon this is the third time.
You're going to have to watch yourself, Michael. It's becoming a habit ;-)

Mike

Yes, the "once" was a bit tongue in cheek :-)

Michael

You're just noticing that? <g>

Exchange rates don't fluctuate that much.  If an exchange rate fluctuates
200%, then something catastrophic happened to someone's economy.  Maybe
Microsoft has some "insider info". ;-)

Bob O`Bob <filter***@yahoogroups.com>'s wild thoughts were
released on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:00:50 -0800 bearing the
following fruit:

Show quoteHide quoteI think any store that did that would be foolish - it's an
OS not a PS3 ;-)



Jan Hyde (VB MVP)

You can't legally buy an OEM version unles you're an OEM!!!

Mike

Yes you can:

http://www.betanews.com/article/MS_Its_Okay_to_Buy_Vista_OEM_Software/117010
0341

   The OEM license just requires that it come with
hardware. I seem to remember that MS actually took
that to court at one point and lost. In any case, they've
publicly acknowledged that OEM is legal. The difference
to them is that 1) You can only install on 1 machine and
2) MS provides no tech support because that's supposed
to come from the OEM.
   In the US, OEM CDs come with something like an old
RAM stick to make it officially legal.

   It's hard to believe the situation has come to this.
MS is holding hundreds of millions of people hostage
with their Mickey Mouse monopoly licensing, most
of which is probably illegal to begin with. Yet the whole
world is letting them do it! ...Complaining all the way to
the store. I heard that people in England are petitioning
Tony Blair to do something about the pricing.

  I don't know how many people have seen the EULA.
It's an interesting read:

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_En
glish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf

  Much of the Vista license reads as a list of Microsoft's
rights rather than the customer's rights. (Their right to
send out Media Player to hook you up with music stores...
Their right to shut off your DRM'ed media...Their right to
run clandestine spyware...Their right to ban people from
running in a VM... etc.)

Yes, I know all the various methods of obtaining OEM versions. But that is
not the point. The point is that most "punters" want to walk into a shop and
buy something. They don't want to have to jump through various hoops and buy
themselves a piece of hardware first, or at the same time. In fact most
ordinary people in the street would not even know about such things, which
is of course what Micro$haft is banking on! In any case, the licence of the
OEM version is extremely restrictive, as you of course already know.

No matter which way you look at it, there is no valid excuse whatsoever for
Micro$haft to attempt to charge twice as much in the UK and elsewhere as
they do in America for exactly the same thing, especially since most of the
European copies are probably made at Micro$haft's plant in Ireland anyway!
Take the full Vista Ultimate version. That thing costs the equivalent of
about 700 US dollars over here in the UK, which is about 350 US dollars
*more* than it costs in America. As far as creating disks is concerned,
they're only "stamping out" copies. Does it really cost more than 350 US
dollars extra just to stamp a disk in Ireland! I sincerely hope not, or the
film and the music industry must be making a massive loss! How come they can
sell a DVD for just a few tens of dollars, and often less, and cover their
entire production costs, including the authoring of the complete project and
stamping and distribution, if it costs them more than 350 dollars just to
stamp the disk!!!! There is no other possible answer. Micro$haft are ripping
us off!!! Even if all copies started off in America (which of course they
don't) Micro$haft could ship them over here one at a time and give each
individual copy its own seat on the aeroplane and a steward to attend to its
every need and dust it every now and again and they would still be able to
sell them for less than they do!!! In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some
of the copies you buy over there is the good old U S of A for half the price
we can buy them for over here are made in Ireland!!! Please stop ripping us
off, Billy Boy!!!

Mike

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:10:58 -0000, "Mike Williams"
<M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote:

I think that it is a bit more subtle than a straight rip off.

My take is that MS expect to sell very few copies of Vista to the
great unwashed, but they want to 'establish' its 'value' in the eyes
of the punter.

That way when a punter looks at a new machine at £400, they will
supposedly say 'gee and Vista alone is worth £350'

Personally I think it is pretty dumb.
But as I've always said, in companies sh/t floats, as smart people
wander off leaving the drongos to inherit the shop.

I suppose there might be something in that, but if it was their main purpose
then surely they would do the same thing in America? Basically, they are
just "ripping us off" over here. Well they won't ever get any more money out
of me, that's for sure!

Mike

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:05:55 -0000, "Mike Williams"
<M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote:

Without joking, I think it might be something as simple as the art
work. Making little changes like $ to £ is easy, but actually getting
someone to come up with an exchange rate conversion means that you
miss the print slot.

It is difficult to find people who will make decisions in large
companies, so I would not be at all surprized if the pricing was set
by a graphics designer and MS are sort of bullsh/tting about the fact.

When I first saw the ad for Vista, I thought no way am I going to pay
that when I can get a new box with it installed for the same, after
reading your post I started thinking
   'well now what price should it be ?'

  As Jan Hyde pointed out, things *are* more expensive,
generally, in the UK. I don't see it being very different in
the US. The very cheapest prices now are in the low
$300s for a new PC. The prices for Windows have gone
up considerably from XP, not including the new hardware
requirements. Obviously there's no justification. And obviously
MS has very little overhead, despite their absurd claim of
spending a half-billion dollars in R & D on everything they do.

  MS has also, already, lost several US court cases where they
were accused of overcharging. But it never amounts to anything.
In my own case, as a Massachusetts "consumer", I think
I have a right to a $7 coupon toward a future purchase if I
can present all of the documentation for my Win98 CD
purchase. That's the result of our lawsuit. It's not punishment.
It's state-sponsored marketing. And whatever Microsoft
didn't pay in coupons was due to be given to schools, in
the form of Microsoft software. (If I remember correctly.
They might have also been required to give away some
Windows PCs.)

    A more relevant issue in all this, though, seems to be why all of
it is allowed. I don't know about the UK, but things have changed,
generally, in the US in recent years. It used to be that tax codes,
instigated after the "Great Depression", prevented people like
Bill Gates from building monopolies and bilking the general
public. But we seem to be returning to the days of J.Paul Getty
and Rockefeller, with unfettered robber barons now admired as
clever businessmen, and able to buy their own regulations
through political lobbying.
   I read recently that Microsoft is currently one of the most trusted
companies in the US. People think Bill Gates is a hero because
of the Gates Foundation!

    I'm actually surprised at the level of negativity expressed
here toward Vista. I think XP is bloated, crap, spyware. And
I dread the day when I might have to use it. But I think I'm almost
alone in that feeling. :) With Vista, it sounds like the vast majority
of people want no part of it.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:50:42 GMT, "mayayana"
<mayayan***@mindspring.com> wrote:

<snip>

We are not really representative, so what we say is of little matter,
and the great unwashed public has no idea of what they are buying.

What intrigues me is that MS has not understood that hardware is
getting so cheap that multi-user workstations are completely
pointless.

They have also not figured out that Mr and Mrs Joe Average and their
1.6 kids are going to want to use the same screen and keyboard at
exactly the same time.

If I were Bill Gates I would be seriously looking at 'drone' machines
that have nothing inside them, but become useful when they get a disk
on key brain.

Selling a clone of DEC's VMS to Joe Public is pretty stupid.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:42:23 GMT, erew***@nowhere.uk (J French) wrote:
in <45e3d0cc.2808***@news.btopenworld.com>

A most apt and succinct surmisal sir!

Show quote Hide quote Mike, it's the added cost of translating the entire OS from English to
English <g>

It takes a lot of effort to put all the extraneous 'u's into all the words

Don't forget changing most of the "ize" endings to "ise" (i.e., "neutralize"
to "neutralise").  At least that's one we don't have to worry about here in
Canada, where both are considered correct (though "ize" is more common).
And speaking of z's, you have to change the voice recognition and speech to
recognize (or recognise) "zed" instead of "zee".  So it's not ALL about the
u's, you know. <eg>


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:20:31 -0500, "Robert Morley"
<rmor***@magma.ca.N0.Freak1n.sparn> wrote:

Actually, according to the Oxford English Dictionary 'ize' is the
correct spelling in British English for things like realize

- unfortunately this is not widely known

You're right...I just checked my Collins (also a UK English dictionary) and
it confirms that either "ize" or "ise" is considered correct now, so I guess
that's one less thing MS had to change.  Thanks for pointing it out.


Rob

Show quoteHide quote

  Interezting. I didn't knouw that.

Show quote Hide quote Well Mike, fwiw I just spent the last few days putting together / loading a
brand new machine.
Intel Core 2 Duo.
NVidia 7300GT video card.
Dual 160gb WD Sata hard drives.

Now I'm setting here with every MSFT OS including Vista, and every version
of VS from 98 to 2005.

Guess what I installed??
XP Pro and VS98 / VB6.0
Am I enjoying it??....  Yep
;-)

imho, VB classic is far, far from dead.

For those who didn't see the slashdot link,
there's a very entertaining and beautifully
written page here about a first encounter
with Vista:

http://chalain.livejournal.com/43015.html

were released on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:16:46 -0000 bearing the
following fruit:

Show quoteHide quoteI'm using Vista and VB6 and I'm happy with that.



Jan Hyde (VB MVP)

¤ I have a copy of all four major versions of Windows Vista (producing more
¤ than one version is of course just another Microsoft "scam") but all of them
¤ are inferior to Mac OSX in a number of very important respects, and all of
¤ them are horrendously overpriced, especially here in the UK where Microsoft
¤ seem to be attempting to almost commit a robbery! VB6 was, for me, the only
¤ "killer application" that forced me to remain with Windows, and now that
¤ Microsoft have effectively killed both XP and VB6 there is nothing left to
¤ keep me here. So, it looks as though I will soon be moving over from Windows
¤ to the Mac and from VB to RealBasic. Sad, really. I was having such fun
¤ here, and now it seems it is all but over. I can console myself only with
¤ the fact that Vista appears to be the biggest "flop" in the history of
¤ Microsoft. I hope it dies the death it deserves.

Nothing wrong with Mac. If you're a hobbiest programmer then the platform is probably fine for
whatever programs you create. You're not likely to make a living developing applications for it
since the market is so small.

Not sure why you think Vista will be a flop, although I seem to recall people saying the same thing
about Windows XP because they thought that Windows 2000 was sufficient. How wrong did that turn out
to be?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Well, there's always hope. :)

   I realize you have a strong aversion to perceiving
anything in conflict with your views, but this is going
a bit far. XP was a stupendous flop. The only reason
it's ubiquitous now is because it's been out for 5 1/2
years.... and the majority of the Win9x and Win2000
PCs have died.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5121458.html

   More than 2 years after it came out, only 6.6% of
business machines were running XP, according
to the quoted study. XP was a success only in that
it eventually managed to spread product activation,
DRM and restrictive operation throughout most of
the Windows "ecosystem". Recently, Steve Ballmer
excused the poor Vista results by saying something
to the effect that not all MS products are meant to be
profitable. I suspect he had the same idea in mind with
that statement: He knows that nobody wants Vista.
But in 3-5 years most people will have it and that's
what matters. Eventually Windows will be as closed-off
as MacOS.
----

   There's also an interesting story behind that study
linked above.
   It appears to have been a flim flam operation carried
out by a Microsoft front. AssetMetrix, the company
that did the "study", was actually in the business of doing
XP upgrades for companies. They released their study
as a PDF with much fanfare (CNet seems to print any
sort of press releases sent in by corporate buddies.
They almost always have something current running from
Microsoft in their news, with headlines like, "Microsoft
announces plans to announce something within 3 months".
The current non-news headline is that MS is "looking into" IE
and Vista bugs.)

   If you read the AssetMetrix study, which makes a big deal
about Win98 being unsafe, it turns out that the study consists
of saying that people should upgrade to XP because
Win9x is unsafe. The evidence that Windows 98 was unsafe
consisted in the fact that it was about to go unsupported.
(This was all before Microsoft extended Win98 support.)

   In other words, the AssetMetrix "study" was a pile of
nonsense sent out as a press release to drum up XP
sales, 2 years after XP's release. Microsoft was later
kind enough to buy AssetMetrix. (You can never have
too many people on staff who are skilled at drawing colorful
graphs and making half-wit nonsense look like science.)

I can't vouch for anywhere else, but this certainly holds true in our
organization (of about 50,000 employees).  XP was almost unheard of as the
installed OS for our users until about 1.5-2 years ago.  Even now, I'm
running on a 2K machine, though I'm due for a replacement PC in a few weeks
that'll be coming with Windows XP and Office 2003 (which has only started to
show up within the last few months).



Rob

I wonder why you say that. I had terrible problems with W98 but I have found
XP Home to be solid and reliable.

Aalaan <veryinva***@invalid.com> wrote:
If you moved from 98 to XP, you never new the "Joy of 2000" -- probably the best
mixture of stability and functionality Microsoft ever shipped.  True, NT4 was even
more stable, and 3.51 more stable than that.  But I found 2000 to be just the right
fit.  XP was definitely a stumble in the wrong direction.  Less stable, again, and
more "crap" to deal with.  A real step away from simple, for most.

In article <OFXA2z4WHHA.1***@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, k***@mvps.org
says...
Yes, 3.51 was the most stable OS that M$ ever made, but had very poor
performance.  NT 4 was almost as stable (unless you were messing with
video drivers), and a lot faster.


Yep.

    I explained why I said it: Because very few
people ever chose to move to XP. 6.6% usage
in businesses more than 2 years after release implies
that only necessary new PC purchases were XP.

   I wasn't addressing whether XP was a flop as an
operating system. (It is to my mind, but I don't doubt there
are people who like XP... And I also don't doubt that
there are people who *think* they like XP because they've
been reading positive press releases for years.)

    XP was a flop in the sense that people didn't go
out to buy it. Before ME/XP people used to buy
new Windows versions even though they didn't
need to.

¤ > >... XP was a stupendous flop...
¤ >
¤ > I wonder why you say that. I had terrible problems with W98 but I have
¤ found
¤ > XP Home to be solid and reliable.
¤ >
¤     I explained why I said it: Because very few
¤ people ever chose to move to XP. 6.6% usage
¤ in businesses more than 2 years after release implies
¤ that only necessary new PC purchases were XP.
¤
¤    I wasn't addressing whether XP was a flop as an
¤ operating system. (It is to my mind, but I don't doubt there
¤ are people who like XP... And I also don't doubt that
¤ there are people who *think* they like XP because they've
¤ been reading positive press releases for years.)
¤
¤     XP was a flop in the sense that people didn't go
¤ out to buy it. Before ME/XP people used to buy
¤ new Windows versions even though they didn't
¤ need to.

This is largely anecdotal. You're going to sit there and tell me that it was a flop because everyone
wasn't moving to it upon its release? It's the most widely used operating system by far so how can
you say it's a flop?

You know as well as I do that business don't readily adopt new versions of operating systems upon
their release. There are good reasons for that and in many instances there has to be a significant
perceived advantage to doing so with significant planning required.

I suppose XP SP2 was a flop as well because for the most part the business community didn't install
it shortly after it was released.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:25:32 -0600, Paul Clement
<UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote:

<snip>

Widely used by wallies - it is what comes with the box.

Businesses divide into two categories - idiots and very cautious
- if I had not been around to sort out problems and a (yes!) bug in XP
then one of my former clients would still be running an earlier
version.

Look at the takeup of DOS 3.2, DOS 4.0 and DOS 5.0

Businesses know when something is good - people like us tell them.

Curiously the business takeup of Win95 was slow, despite the fact that
programmers loved it - probably the legacy (aka stuff that runs your
business) software problem.

Show quote Hide quote     No, I know better than to try to tell you anything.
You'll argue 'til the cows come home about anything
and everything. I was only posting the "anecdotal"
facts about actual XP uptake, to clarify your implication
about the success of XP.

Inline Assembly In VB6
Database connection problem on VB6.0
There seems to be a bug in Vista's file sharing that causes the ADO Database open command to hang if
Localized Error Messages
Shell on Vista
MS Winsock Control ports don't free up
VB6 DLL Assembly Compile Link how???
How to open a CMD Line exe as hidden and wat for it to finish
Have a problem that is stumping me.
Full Control to Users programmatically