Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

According to this history, OS/2 forked in 1990, and the branch that Microsoft controlled eventually became Windows NT. That page says the other branch had a new release coming in 1999.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

AgentZero said:
"Windoze XP Home Edition for under $100 as long as you keep your receipts for mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU."

For reference, you only need that information to get a free (plus S.H.) upgrade to Vista from Microsoft, as part of their "don't hate us cause we released a month after Christmas" campaign. You don't need to actually buy such hardware; you can enter whatever serial numbers you like (even 0), apparently, and still get the free upgrade.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

To get an upgrade I have to have a working OS of version 98 or later. I might be able to scrounge up a 98 install disk, but I don't have one handy at the moment.

If Microsoft was smart they'd stop making people jump through all the hoops and price their OS reasonably. I think a brand new full install of Vista might be worth 100. And maybe start discounting the older versions accordingly. If I could get a full version XP for 75-80 bucks I'd probably buy it. But for that price I only get an upgrade, and I have to have bought some hardware? That's stupid.

I got this Ubuntu downloaded and installed. I'm playing aroudn with it now. First impressions are very positive. It's pretty slick and easy to use. I haven't done a whole lot yet, but what I've done seems to work pretty well.

Have to show it to my niece and see if it meets all her needs though. Not sure if there are any apps she might want that I can't get for Linux. I might have to play around with Wine or Cedega or something before it's over. That will be another learning experience for me.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That's not what this is; it is an OEM copy of XP. It is not an upgrade copy, it is a full installer. You don't need to provide anyone any information to install or activate it. The "OEM" version simply means that its activation is tied to a motherboard, and you can't transfer the license to a new machine (like you can with a Retail full edition). When you buy the thing AZ linked to, you get a full, working copy of XP that is installed from a clean slate, not linked to upgrading any previous edition of Windows.

Where the upgrade comes into play is with Vista. In order to pacify customer complaints about Vista being delayed past the Christmas season, MS has offered discounted (or free, depending on what you have) upgrades to Vista for recently purchased OEM systems. They apparently also let system builders do it too, if they purchase an OEM (rather than retail) copy of XP. What Newegg is doing is simply providing you with information on this potential upgrade path.

==0==

When the time comes, post about any software she needs and we can probably provide a Linux alternative (unless it is a win32 only game, then you really need Wine/Cedega).

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

The problem with Microsoft is they don't have to be nice or reasonable because everyone at this point needs there OS for some reason or another.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That sounds better, but I'm curious how that works. Do I have to show proof of purchase to NewEgg(Or whoever I buy the OEM version from). How does one do that for an online purchase? Do have to fax it or something? I still think it's a stupid hoop to have to jump through. Why not simply say, "$90 bucks for a single use license." and only let you register it once. The same thing is accomplished without forcing someone to buy new hardware and turn in receipts. Hardware that isn't even being purchased from Microsoft. I must be missing something because it doesn't make sense to me.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

No, you don't have to give Newegg anything (other than money and a shipping address). You just buy it, they ship it, you install it. Nothing more. Noone is forced to buy new hardware or turn in any receipts. There are no hoops anywhere in the process (other than the Windows product activation, but that is just a trivial, automated step in the installation process).

AFAIK, the _only_ difference between purchasing an OEM copy of Windows and a Retail copy is that MS will not let you transfer the license to a new machine (defined by motherboard) down the line. With a Retail copy, you can generally get it to activate on a new machine by calling MS customer service and having them activate it over the phone.

The receipts bit is _only_ related to getting the discounted/free upgrade of Vista from Microsoft for buying an OEM PC (or being a system builder buying an OEM license) between 10/26/06 and 3/15/07. It is not the normal way to use an upgrade copy of Windows, which normally has no forms to fill out at all. That does not involve Newegg in any way. After getting the OEM copy of XP, you can apparently apply for the discounted Vista upgrade by just entering whatever serial numbers you like for the hardware, not having purchased any hardware at all, and MS will still ship you the Vista upgrade. Note that this is done on MS' web site, and is not any part of the XP installation or activation process.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Heh, sorry about the confusion, Geo. When I saw the disclaimer I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted receipts before they'd sell you an OEM copy, since nowhere does it say anything about a Vista upgrade. Thank goodness we have Fyron around to slap Newegg CS about and find out what they're really on about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Replace "smart" with "ethical", and I'd agree with you.

(My first two home computers were Amigas. I'm not allowed to have a rational opinion of Microsoft. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif)

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Well, in a suposedly free-market economy like we have I wouldn't say charging too much for software would be an issue of ethics. It's not as if there aren't alternatives, and even if their weren't it's not a neccesary item, it's a luxury. It's not like I'm starving and they are gouging me cause they are the only source of food.

It just doesn't seem all that rational. Their pricing and other business practices are doing more towards strengthening their competitors then anything else. I guess when companies get on top they lose the long term view that allowed them to get where they are in the first place.