Quote :

"When I was at the Apple Store yesterday, one of the people at the Genius Bar told a woman that her copy of CS2 wouldn't work on her new Mac. I was legit shocked that she didn't stab someone then and there."

lol. Sucks for her...someone should introduce her to torrents jk. I don't want Noen breathing down my neck for a simple joke.

Quote :

"if windows doesn't support an old application its microsoft's fault. If osx doesn't support an old application, its an opportunity to purchase a better computing experience."

Sounds like the issue is in the Windows user camp then.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2010 12:05:55 PM

Quote :

"Sooner or later he's going to realize I was trolling him. That's my hope, at least."

haha, i, too, like to pretend it was all a joke when someone calls me out for being stupid

3/2/2010 1:01:49 PM

Welp, guess he won't.

3/2/2010 1:23:33 PM

^it's almost entirely because of the complete lack of personal integrity by people like yourself that Microsoft moved to the hardware bundling model. It's virtually the only way to get the average PC consumer to pay for anything.

This is why Windows Home Server is impossible to buy off the shelf and it's why there are rarely promotions of boxed retail copies. Because Microsoft knows (this is a guess btw) that the consumers who actually PAY for their software will bear the retail cost, often for business reasons. They know that consumers will never bear the cost, so why lower their MSRP anyway?

Also, to give you some idea of the "cost" of a release of Windows, take 10,000 employees X 200,000 in salary&benefits X 3 years + 50,000,000 in capital costs.

You get 18.5 billion dollars just to "produce" a single release of Windows. All of these numbers are fudged, but they are all definitely in the ballpark. So quit with this bullshit fantasy that somehow Microsoft makes free money from everything they sell. Investing 20 billion dollars in a product is insane, and asking someone to pay for $200 a copy in return isn't at all unreasonable.

3/2/2010 1:29:13 PM

if i didn't get it for free, i'd get something else

3/2/2010 3:20:10 PM

If 20 billion dollars is in fact that cost of developing Windows 7, then it's their own fault for spending way too much in order to marginally improve a product. What's more likely, is that my $170 would be going to subsidizing Bing and other failures.

$170 just isn't worth it. Period. In these days of disc-laden parks, companies can't milk us for ones and zeros anymore.

Quote :

"the complete lack of personal integrity"

If a product is worth the money, I buy it. I've not pirated a game since the days of 3.5" floppies. $50 is worth many hours of entertainment, and my Steam account shows it. But I'm not going to pretend that downloading a torrent of a product I wasn't going to buy anyway is coequal with theft.

And for the record, I think being a shill for a monopolistic billion-dollar corporation says a thing or two about personal integrity, too.



[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2010 3:21:29 PM

hey neon how many of them arcade roms did you legally own in that old cabinet of yours

3/2/2010 3:25:04 PM

Quote :

"But I'm not going to pretend that downloading a torrent of a product I wasn't going to buy anyway is coequal with theft. "

Your intentions don't have fuck all to do with it. You obtained a product without paying for it. It is theft plain and simple.

Your opinion on its worth, content, quality, functionality, etc don't matter fuck all either, by the way.

And yes, I have pirated software many times. I don't anymore now that I have a job and can buy what I want, and pass on what I don't. I was never under some moronic delusion that what I was doing wasn't theft just because I had no intentions of buying it one way or the other.

give me a fucking break

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : *]

3/2/2010 3:27:03 PM

We can play semantics over the meaning of the word "theft," but the fact is that I take nothing from Microsoft when I use a Windows 7 CD I find in the park.

3/2/2010 3:29:28 PM

yea. its not theft if you stole something you dont think is worth buying. right on.

3/2/2010 3:30:50 PM

If that copy was a legit copy that was originally purchased by someone and they are no longer using it and you find it and use it, then I agree with you.

3/2/2010 3:31:43 PM

yo what if i'm gonna pay for it

3/2/2010 3:32:14 PM

If Windows 7 isn't worth paying for why even go through the effort of using it?

If you think its value is 0 then it sounds like its worthless. I believe they have an OS for that...

3/2/2010 3:34:45 PM

Quote :

"If 20 billion dollars is in fact that cost of developing Windows 7, then it's their own fault for spending way too much in order to marginally improve a product. What's more likely, is that my $170 would be going to subsidizing Bing and other failures. $170 just isn't worth it. Period. In these days of disc-laden parks, companies can't milk us for ones and zeros anymore."

Your ignorance of the cost of software development doesn't make it "their own fault". And it doesn't matter where the money goes, the point here was COST. It may not be worth it to you, but that is qntmfred's point. Your VALUE doesn't change the PRICE.

And I would argue it's absolutely worth it, or at least 80%+ of the world seems to think so. Your personal ROI over a free alternative (linux today) is about 20 hours. That's pretty damn good

Quote :

"$50 is worth many hours of entertainment, and my Steam account shows it."

This is a completely flawed argument. Because without that $170, you'd get 0 hours of entertainment. This is like saying "I refuse to buy an xbox because its not worth 200 dollars, but the games are TOTALLY worth 50 dollars each". You forget that the PLATFORM enables you to produce, be entertainment, and learn. Yet I'd bet you wouldn't walk into a Walmart and steal an xbox to play those games, the same way you would for windows.

Quote :

"And for the record, I think being a shill for a monopolistic billion-dollar corporation says a thing or two about personal integrity, too. "

please. You rationalizing theft doesn't make me a shill. My public record refutes your stupidity, but nice try.

3/2/2010 3:34:46 PM

^^^well then its cool. I do that all the time with small time musicians. I could buy their music, buuuut i dont like it that much. I'd much rather steal it and maybe if they get better i'll buy a copy or something.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ^^^]

3/2/2010 3:34:58 PM

although i'd never buy something from a major label. I always steal that music cause i like to stick it to the man

3/2/2010 3:36:18 PM

Quote :

"hey neon how many of them arcade roms did you legally own in that old cabinet of yours"

About 40 . Unlike Boone (and like Lokken) I was never under the delusion that what I did in the past was somehow righteous or justified. As I could afford the software I needed, I paid for it. By the time I was two years out of college, I was completely legit.

Also, speaking to romz, I do now own every game I actually play

I can understand the plight of the broke ass student, of the struggling young professional. I don't have any empathy for the douchebags who steal everything they can to pay for more WoW.

3/2/2010 3:40:01 PM

Quote :

"We can play semantics over the meaning of the word "theft,""

"Theft" has a pretty clear-cut definition.

I'd also like Noen to apologize for improperly ^-ing me either. Otherwise we're going to be playing semantics over the meaning of the word "assault".

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2010 3:41:04 PM

Semantics is not a game.

3/2/2010 3:43:32 PM

Quote :

"And I would argue it's absolutely worth it, or at least 80%+ of the world seems to think so."

1. What percentage of that 80% got their copy of windows at a steep discount because it was bundled with their PC? The $50-$90 or whatever that MS charges me for buying a new PC with Windows on it is plenty worth it to me as well.

2. Not really, as most of the world is still using XP, which was significantly cheaper than 7.

Quote :

"This is a completely flawed argument. Because without that $170, you'd get 0 hours of entertainment."

It's absolutely true-- they do have a near-monopoly, and I am forced to buy their product to play games. MS's monopoly doesn't cost them any money, though.


^

Quote :

"We can wage semantics"

FTFY

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2010 3:47:10 PM

Quote :

"MS's monopoly doesn't cost them any money, though."

Uh... yes it does.

3/2/2010 4:01:28 PM

Its a monopoly due to lack of competent or willing competition. PC Gaming, as much as im down with it, is dwarfed by the console gaming market. Most pc game developers are either doing multiplatform releases that run on 360/pc and ps3 or they do mac releases as well (blizzard). To say you must have a windows pc and (windows 7 specificly) to play games is not true, nor does is justify theft.

If you dont want to pay for windows 7 stay on xp/vista or go to osx (more expensive) or linux (lmao). Either way the monopoly they have the in the pc world is not because of games, nor is it from anti-competitive practices that you could use to justify your theft. Windows is the #1 os because the competition is either terrible (linux) or more expensive and less functional (osx).

You could probably argue that their monopoly on good developers is a problem, but you'd have to attack google (and maybe apple) on that point.

3/2/2010 4:04:33 PM

^^net?

Quote :

"nor is it from anti-competitive practices"

lmao

Quote :

"If you dont want to pay for windows 7 stay on xp/vista"

I totally did, but then I found a copy of Windows 7 lying around in the park.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2010 4:04:37 PM

Quote :

"^^net?"

Was that a full thought or did you get cut off?

3/2/2010 4:13:07 PM

I'm asking if you believe that their monopoly is a net loss for them.

3/2/2010 4:16:36 PM

I'd love to hear what halfbrained things you think are anti-competitve. The simple fact is no one comes even remotely close to the complete windows feature set. OSX may be great at some things, but their enterprise support and management is total shit. linux is a joke

3/2/2010 4:19:30 PM

Quote :

"OSX may be great at some things, but their enterprise support and management is total shit."

lolz

3/2/2010 4:20:40 PM

Quote :

"1. What percentage of that 80% got their copy of windows at a steep discount because it was bundled with their PC? The $50-$90 or whatever that MS charges me for buying a new PC with Windows on it is plenty worth it to me as well. 2. Not really, as most of the world is still using XP, which was significantly cheaper than 7."

1. It doesn't matter. You can go get your $50-90 copy of windows attached to a $300 computer too. Those people are still PAYING for the product. It still gives you no legitimate reason to justify theft.

2. No, they aren't. And no, it wasn't. Windows XP Home Retail was $199, Windows XP Pro Retail was $299. That was 9 years ago. You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Quote :

"It's absolutely true-- they do have a near-monopoly, and I am forced to buy their product to play games. MS's monopoly doesn't cost them any money, though."

You aren't forced to buy anything. You can play tons of games without Microsoft. Arguably you can play MORE games with non-MS products than with. It's a joke to even suggest they have a monopoly on GAMING. Seriously dude, what the hell are you smoking?

And you want the cost of a perceived monopoly? Remember the HUGE antitrust suit that Realplayer won, forcing Microsoft to create the "N" editions without media player? To give consumers more "choice" and make a more balanced and open marketplace?

Microsoft got 1,500 orders for the "N" editions of Windows. Because people didn't give a shit. The only people who care about it were the small fry companies who made garbage products that WMP beat out. If you'll notice that over time, the better products won irrespective of Microsoft's practices (good or bad). Winamp dominated in the offline days, and iTunes dominates today. WMP became the also-ran without any government intervention.

I think the same can be said of a number of products and "dominant" market companies, not just Microsoft.

3/2/2010 8:17:58 PM

I get the idea people think Win 7 is too expensive at $170 because of exactly what quagy is talking about, the value.

I'd say XP was a pretty big step up from 98 (which itself was an incremental step up from 95) as far as usuer experience goes. Vista was a horizontal step from XP which is why it flopped and why no one will argue that it was overpriced where it was. Win 7 to me still feels incremental compared to XP and if I didn't get it via MSDN through school, I wouldn't have bought it.

Hell, I was quite content with XP and was hoping 7 would be a nice speed boost but I didn't notice really anything different.

I probably represent a vast majority of non power using computer users. If I paid $170 for this piece of software over XP I'd have SEVERE buyers remorse.

If it took 10,000 developers 3 years to make this, I have to wonder what the fuck is going on in Redmond.

3/2/2010 8:59:36 PM

1. So if MS can make a profit selling 95% of its product at sub-$100 bundled/discounted prices, it tells me that they're selling OEM CDs to PC-builders for $170 simply because they think they can. Enter piracy.

2. Regarding share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_system_usage_share.svg

Regarding price, the XP license was good for three PCs. 7's license is only good for one.

And as stated above, Vista to 7 is nowhere near 2000/Me to XP. Windows 7 is horse armor, as far as I can see.

Quote :

"Arguably you can play MORE games with non-MS products than with. It's a joke to even suggest they have a monopoly on GAMING."

Non-console? Please.

I'm not blaming them for dominating, though. They halfway deserve it, and it was mostly done fair and square.

But I still have no other viable options for gaming on my PC.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2010 9:27:31 PM

$170 is less than 50 cents a day over the course of a year for a piece of software you will use every time you sit at your computer.

After using XP for something like 8 years, and knowing I'll probably use Windows 7 for at least 5, I don't see how even at $170 it's a poor value.

3/2/2010 9:29:45 PM

Maybe they should have charged $30 for Vista users to upgrade.

3/2/2010 9:30:54 PM

Quote :

"Maybe they should have charged $30 for Vista users to upgrade."

Technically the only people who could use the "Upgrade" that was sold to students were Vista users.

You can't upgrade from XP to Win7.

3/2/2010 9:34:00 PM

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM. Reason : holy double posts batman]

3/2/2010 9:34:00 PM

Quote :

"$170 is less than 50 cents a day over the course of a year for a piece of software you will use every time you sit at your computer."

I've already spent $99 to get XP on this PC (and it came with three licenses).

Why would I want to spend nearly twice as much as my original operating system to take an incremental step forward? It's like they're charging $99.99 for an expansion pack to a $59.99 game.

3/2/2010 9:44:43 PM

Quote :

"Technically the only people who could use the "Upgrade" that was sold to students were Vista users."

But more than just students have/had Vista, no?

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2010 9:45:06 PM

Quote :

"Why would I want to spend nearly twice as much as my original operating system to take an incremental step forward? It's like they're charging $99.99 for an expansion pack to a $59.99 game."

I don't know, why would you go out of your way to "find it in a park"?

It had enough features that you wanted it, so it seems silly that you're trying to slam it as an "incremental step forward".

3/2/2010 9:57:25 PM

^^^ while i understand your point especially about pricing, it's not very accurate.

your point would be valid if you were talking about paying for vista, then paying again for 7...but not xp to 7. that's a pretty giant freaking leap there...far from a simple "expansion pack."

3/2/2010 9:59:37 PM

I dropped $199 for Windows 7 Premium and was satisfied. I was going from a homebuilt 32-bit desktop to a 64-bit i7 setup. I certainly don't feel buyers remorse on it at all.

BTW, with both the 32 & 64-bit OS disks included, are those disks each good, or is only one able to be activated? I would like to use the 32-bit OS on that old box so my kids PC is running 7. It ain't a major deal, but was just curious. Much like was said above where XP was a 3 PC license.

3/2/2010 10:06:29 PM

^ cant hurt to try. if you have 2 keys then you're golden, if not then YMMV.

3/2/2010 10:13:40 PM

^It's two licenses if you buy the retail CD. One 64 and 32

FYI, the REAL difference between the 60 dollar OEM license you get with a computer, and the 170 dollar retail copy is SUPPORT and TRANSFER. If you have a retail copy of Windows, Microsoft will support you. If you have an OEM copy, you have to go through your OEM (Dell, HP, etc).

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/14019 click on support options for your version, and you will get your problem fixed by a real, live, Microsoft employee. I think that's probably worth 100 bucks for any power user. It sure as hell beats waiting an hour on the phone with Dell to talk to Mr. Rogers in some call center who tells you to reset your router for 45 minutes.

3/2/2010 10:43:36 PM

As a power user, why would I need support for my OS?

3/2/2010 11:06:51 PM

Quote :

"I don't know, why would you go out of your way to "find it in a park"?"

All money issues aside, It's much less of a hassle for me to stroll through a park than it is for me to buy it at a brick and mortar store.

Quote :

"your point would be valid if you were talking about paying for vista, then paying again for 7...but not xp to 7. that's a pretty giant freaking leap there...far from a simple "expansion pack.""

I'm sure you're right. But for my use, there's nothing I do on my 7 box that my wife's XP box can't do, except handle more than 2 gigs of memory. I'm unsure if I like the dock-bar any better than the traditional taskbar, and... what else was there again? The snap feature is cool... and I like that they bundled the WMC in all versions.

Quote :

"As a power user, why would I need support for my OS?"

Really. I'm sure all those people buying OEM sleeves off of Newegg are always calling Microsoft tech support.

3/2/2010 11:25:55 PM

Quote :

"All money issues aside, It's much less of a hassle for me to stroll through a park than it is for me to buy it at a brick and mortar store."

Its more scenic at least.

3/2/2010 11:27:31 PM

Quote :

"As a power user, why would I need support for my OS?"

yeah that's what i was about to post. i've never had to call microsoft (short of calling to activate crap), and probably never will.

Quote :

"there's nothing I do on my 7 box that my wife's XP box can't do, except handle more than 2 gigs of memory"

that's fine, then don't pay the $alaska to upgrade any of your boxes then. no biggie.

and your "point" about memory has nothing to do with windows xp vs windows 7, but 32 bit windows vs 64 bit windows. i put "point" in quotes because 2gb is not the upper limit of windows xp as you're making it out to be...if you have windows xp 64 then the upper limit is 64gb-128gb of memory

3/3/2010 12:04:47 AM

Man, what park are you guys talking about? I need to go there. I had to illegally download my copy off the internet.

3/3/2010 12:32:16 AM

Pullen Park. There was quite a few copies in the drained pond the other day.

3/3/2010 12:55:04 AM

Quote :

"Really. I'm sure all those people buying OEM sleeves off of Newegg are always calling Microsoft tech support."

There's a couple of hundred threads on this forum alone from users of this board who would call themselves "Power Users" that could have been easily answered by Microsoft support rather than floundering around the internet. The reality is that power users really are the ones who can use real product support. It's all the mom's and dad's out there that only need level1 oem call center support. As I said before, how many times have you guys cringed having to escalate a technical support issue through the web of bullshit?

The older I get, the less I rely on Google to answer my problems and the more I rely on other people. Because my time becomes more valuable, and people answer questions a lot faster than my own skill in searching.

3/3/2010 1:35:23 AM

Quote :

"I've already spent $99 to get XP on this PC (and it came with three licenses)."

Stop fucking say this. Unless you bought a Volume License Key (which usually activates more than 3 copies of XP and costs way more than 99 bucks and is not available through retail channels) or you bought a 3 pack of XP OEM that came with 3 licenses or you have some obscure available only to you, you do not have 3 licenses.

The XP Retail key is good for 1 computer at 1 time. You can transfer the license, but you're supposed to uninstall XP from the other computer.

The XP OEM key is good for 1 computer only. There is no license transfer.

http://social.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/genuinewindowsxp/thread/036f8cd0-eb64-402f-b0f3-7f1d0a410230

The guy asked about XP Home. It is the same for Professional as well.

From the Retail XP Pro EULA:

Quote :

"Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device (“Workstation Computer”)."

I don't know where the fuck you're pulling the "3 licenses" from, but it sounds to me like you've fallen victim to the many myths about XP licensing.

Quote :

"It's two licenses if you buy the retail CD. One 64 and 32"

FALSE! You get one key. One key = One license. However, unlike Windows XP, the key is not locked to being 32 or 64-bit. So if you bought Vista and it only came with a 32-bit disk, you can still re-install Vista with a 64-bit disk (you'll have to get one yourself) and use your key that you got with Vista 32-bit.

There is a family pack available IIRC for Windows 7.

3/3/2010 3:52:08 AM

Quote :

"FALSE! You get one key."

I never said you get more than one. I could totally be wrong, but for some reason I was under the impression that you can install BOTH editions (though maybe it's limited to a single computer, aka dual boot)

3/3/2010 4:56:28 AM