How Much Does a Vista Upgrade Cost?

dptalia writes "Microsoft has rolled out its Vista upgrade program, where people can buy a qualifying PC with XP today and upgrade to Vista later for free. This article talks about what free really means. Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home. And then comes the question of actually trying to upgrade your computer... Is "free" really worth it?"

Cue standard slashdot responses:

[dada21 (163177)]

1. Does it run Linux?
2. It'll cost me nothing because you can't upgrade *nix to Win*
3. Profit!
4. I already read this on digg.
5. ...as in beer.

Cue standard slashdot responses:

[aussie_a (778472)]

1. Making lists of what the standard slashdot responses are.

You forgot the ponies

[leamanc (961376)]

What about OMG Ponies!!!!?

Re:

[bangenge (514660)]

You forgot the chairs and the exploding laptops. ;)

One glaring one you missed:

[The Wooden Badger (540258)]

6. Imagine a Beowulf clus- Oh, crap. Nevermind.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why are Slashdot folks, and why is IT in general, so negative and pessimistic?

Answer: because of Management

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[aussie_a (778472)]

What happened to the great American "can do" attitude

Don't worry. I have a very can do attitude when it comes to Vista. As in, I can do without Vista.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Technician (215283)]

I have a very can do attitude when it comes to Vista. As in, I can do without Vista.

I have learned from my past mistakes what the upgrade treadmill problems are.

I was running DOS. On top of that I installed Windows 3.1. On top of that I installed the Windows 95 Upgrade (the one without IE included) and installed IE as a seprate program. This process took several years and went through several hardware upgrades such as memory, hard drive, and later motherboard and CPU. Each re-instalation was a major pain. I learned quickly never to do upgrade upon upgrade again. It just takes too long. Windows 98 was a replacement, not an upgrade on top.

What I learned is the upgrade is nice IF the upgrade is a replacement, not an upgrade that requires a prior qualifying product to be already installed.

In a nutshell. If the upgrade is a stand alone fresh install, that if fine. Doing an install and then doing an install, and then doing an install... Forget it. You will regret it on your first hard drive replacement.

So.. To properly answer the question.. I need to know what kind of upgrade we are talking about. Does it do a fresh install, or does it require the prior qualified (auth per WGA perhaps) version installed? I would hate to do the recovery from a dead hard drive to include install, configure networking for phone home, patch, WGA auth, install service packs, upgrade, re auth with WGA, install applications such as MS office, re auth with WGA, etc.

To repeat the question, Will the upgrade install on a bare new hare drive or does it need a pre-qualified install of the prior version? Using the Genuine Windows sticker number is not a problem. Doing an endless install on install is a problem.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[lord_rob the only on (859100)]

I have learned from my past mistakes what the upgrade treadmill problems are.

I would agree with you if I hadn't tried Debian GNU/Linux. The big problem of Windows is that it doesn't use a database managed installation system. When you remove a program under Windows (add/remove program in control pannel), what Windows does is simply calling the uninstaller of said program. Then it's up to the uninstaller to handle the uninstallation properly. When the uninstaller asks you something like "This is a shared library, are you sure you really want to remove it ?", you'd better say no unless you are really really sure. This is because Windows doesn't use a database managed installer, and hence cannot determine whether a given shared library can be safely removed or is used by another program. For the very same reason, when Windows is upgraded, it cannot be determined if the components that are removed/upgraded will be incompatible with installed programs or not. I have been running Debian Sid for more than four years now, upgrading the packages every days. Still no major problem for me.

Anyway for the case of Windows, I would tend to agree with you anyway ...

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[MojoStan (776183)]

To repeat the question, Will the upgrade install on a bare new hare drive or does it need a pre-qualified install of the prior version? Using the Genuine Windows sticker number is not a problem.

From my experience (upgrade versions of Windows 2000 and XP), qualifying prior versions have never needed to be "installed" to perform a "replace/fresh/clean/start-from-scratch" install using an upgrade version. When installig on a bare hard drive, the upgrade version might ask you to pop in the previous version's CD for proof. I didn't use the upgrade version of Windows 95 like you did, but didn't it ask if you wanted to wipe the hard drive and start from scratch (instead of upgrading "on top" of the old installation)?

Just like previous versions of Windows, Windows Vista upgrade versions will still allow clean installations and in-place upgrades (that's what Microsoft calls them). MS describes these options on this page: Upgrade Planning for Windows Vista [microsoft.com].

Heck, I'll just cut-and-paste the relevant info from that page:

The options

You can upgrade from your current edition of Microsoft Windows XP or Windows 2000 to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista by purchasing and installing an upgrade copy of Windows Vista. Depending on which edition of Windows you are running and the edition of Windows Vista you would like to install, you have two options for the installation process:

In-place upgrade
You can upgrade in-place, which means you can install Windows Vista and retain your applications, files, and settings as they were in your previous edition of Windows.

Clean install
Upgrading to Windows Vista with a clean install means that you should use Windows Easy Transfer to automatically copy all your files and settings to an extra hard drive or other storage device, and then install Windows Vista. After the installation is complete, Windows Easy Transfer will reload your files and settings on your upgraded PC. You will then need to reinstall your applications.

Re:

[Technician (215283)]

Windows upgrades have always worked on bare hard drives by inserting a CD (or floppy) for the product you are upgrading from, no need to have it actually installed.

I can tell you never did the Windows 95 upgrade. It does not boot. It does not install from DOS. It does require Windows 3.X which requires DOS. After that to get on the web, required installing a browser such as IE seprately. After my 3rd system rebuild, I swore off upgrades on upgrades and opted for fresh installs only.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[Broken scope (973885)]

Or maybe he struck a nerve.

Re:

[drsquare (530038)]

If the market continues to fill demands for those who put in no effort, then fewer will put in effort, and soon the operating system will do the thinking for the average consumer.

Why should an operating system require effort? Computers are supposed to do work for us, not the other way round.

You can say what you want about microsoft but at least they don't tell you to upgrade the kernel or compile modules when you want to install some hardware.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[orasio (188021)]

I think the whole point of Consumer IT is to make life easier, more productive, enjoyable and entertaining. I'd rather have an OS that enables me to process, edit and share photos and videos of my last vacation with my friends and family then one that enables me to "pwn" my HW or compile a new version of vi. We shouldn't be slaves to our computer or barred from using IT just because we're not smart enough.


That problem has been solved. The software is there.
The issue right now is marketing and distribution.

Ubuntu with Automatix does everything you want, easily.
Installing Ubuntu from the live CDs is too easy.
And they send you the CDs for free, if you don't want to download them, or don't get them from a friend (at least 5 friends of mine converted with my CDs, successfuly, and with Ubuntu 7.04 I'm planning on all my familiy as they need new OSes).

Microsoft beats them, because you get Windows readily installed on new computers.

It's not feature of the software per se, but a distribution issue.
I think that the focus should be there, right now. Not about the software itself, but improving the way it gets distributed, and marketed.

Once it is installed, there is another issue, Automatix, that takes care of codecs, and proprietary software(there you get the ability to share pics with your friends with Picasa, just like your friends do it).

After that, using and administering Ubuntu is a walk in the park. A consistent interface, very easy. Installing new stuff is done in two ways. Most stuff is either preinstalled, like OpenOffice, or comes through the Package Manager.
Proprietary stuff comes from Autmatix. No hunting for the downloads.

There, the distribution problem is solved much more easily in Ubuntu.
I think that with better distribution, and more publicity, Ubuntu is ready for the desktop, when ease of use is our target. Or at least it's a lot more ready than XP.

Re:Cue standard slashdot responses:

[plopez (54068)]

Why are Slashdot folks, and why is IT in general, so negative and pessimistic?

Experience, mostly. After having been lied to, screwed, blued and tatooed you get cynical. You get handed crap and are expected to make it work. You are seen as a cost center, when your contributions can be very useful to an organization. Managers insist on treating IT as a factory assembly line 'reach for the lowest common denominator' type job when it is a knowledge based skill based job.

When POS vendor hardware or software fail, the vendor blames the IT department. When the IT department is incompetent, they blame the vendor.

You give everything, weekends, relationships, holidays, mental and physical health and then get laid off anyway. See also http://www.adminspotting.org/ [adminspotting.org]

And MS is one of the worst. They promise it is easy. And it is easy, if you don't actually want to solve any serious problems. It's OK for for a few minmal classes of problems (web shopping cart, hierarchial accounting system) but not so great for actual business problems. The reason so much COBOL is still out there is that most programmers still haven't progressed far from COBOL.

ERPs are great, if you can change your business practices to fit the ERP. Which is totaly backwards, the software is developed to fit the business, not vice versa. Consultants for the ERP de jour swoop in, pick up fat pay checks and then leave the IT departments to hold the bag.

There is no good reason for Vista. Windows server 2003 and XP could serve for another 20 years under a nice incremental improvement process. But no, MS is going to once again pull the rug out from under us. A whole new class of security holes, new libraries, new incompatibilies and if you were dumb enough to pay for certs, a whole new set of certs. SQL Server 2000 was around for about 7 years, that gives you a reasonsable ROI. Changing every 2-3 years leaves you no ROI as by the time things stabilise, you have to change again.

I'm done. 9 months from now I will be in another field. Have fun, suckers....

(Damn, 3 glasses of wine and I am ranting and raving. I am getting cranky in my old age...)

Re:

[saridder (103936)]

research.microsoft.com for internal innovations. I watched "RingCam" become RoundeTable, a commercially viable, innovative video conferencing. I am a competitor and will crush them in this arena, but we don't complain and then copy what they do 5 years later.

As for a lesson in how the world works, most innovations in big companies are acquired. It's cheaper to watch 10 startups and follow what the market wants, realize which approach will work then buy them, as opposed to gambling/putting a stake in the

Re:

[cuantar (897695)]

Or do you just want to copy what others are doing and give it away for free?

Yes.

More to the point: The free software/open source software community is not a market, and I really don't like the business-speak that comes to the surface every time free software comes up. The goal of everything is not profit or some idea of "winning." Sometimes people just like to share things that they've written to be useful, in the hope that it will help someone else.

I don't write code for a living; instead, it's a

Re:

[10Ghz (453478)]

In fact it's a large industry that fuels GDP, productivity and growth, and will raise living standards for the next century

Here's the thing: There's a lot more companies that use software, as opposed to companies that make and sell software. If a company buys a piece of software from another company for $1000 it increases the GDP by $1000. If they get similar piece of software for free, then GDP does not increase. But in both cases the user receives the benefits of the software. So is GDP accurate measure h

Huh? 64-bit XP exists.

[gvc (167165)]

The reason your machine has 32-bit XP is because Microsoft made the (misguided, in my opinion) to make XP-64 require 64 bit drivers, and your favorite dollar-store device doesn't come with one. Had they implemented some facility for for XP64 to use 32-bit drivers, we'd all be using it by now.

How does Vista change this?

Re:'Vista' happily overwrites MBR to stop Linux bo

[Achromatic1978 (916097)]

This is the share that adds a dollar sign to every partition and file on any windows system that windows can reach and the result is its undeletable and unmodifiable share name.

Yeah, unmodifiable.

My Computer > C Drive > Sharing and Security > C$ > "Do Not Share This Folder"

Fuck me, that was hard.

(Now, an argument about it being enabled by default, that would have a lot more merit.)

Then, however, I read this:

New hardware is assumed to be contaminated with windows' hardware spy routines in t

a recent "install" experience

[yagu (721525)]

I recently built my own machine... 2G memory, .5TB (2 SATA drives), 3.06Ghz dual core... all very cool. I spent almost 2 weeks getting my XP Professional installed and working properly (for what reason would an OS not come with PS/2 generic mouse drivers?). The sound was a nightmare to get running, the video was a joke. Fortunately (I guess), a lot of the drivers came with the motherboard (as one might expect), but the installation and configuration was amazingly tedious, and error prone.

I'm convinced one part of the horrible nature is that even today it seems that EVERY driver, EVERY re-configuration demanded a reboot though in my wildest imagination, I couldn't think of a rationale -- this continuity interruptus makes for a tedious, drawn out, error-sprinkled, bad-taste-in-the-mouth experience.

I finally shook out all of the bugs (oh, yeah, about 100+ XP updates -- the CD was pre-SP1, go figure), got a SCREAMING machine, absolutely delighted with the configuration and performance.

Now, to be on-topic, I can't begin to imagine these upgrades will be problem free, I can't even think they'd be problem-sparse. It's non-trivial work installing from scratch, much less considering layering something as big as Vista over an existing XP. I wouldn't want to do it. I've read enough reviews from people with bollixed machines (granted, they were working with release candidates) -- there will be a LOT of people out there who've committed too much data and personal work (blood, sweat and tears) on their new XP machines -- and they're going to lose data.

It's interesting to note the article recommends upgrading to Vista by doing a clean install. That's not really upgrading XP, that's installing Vista. How many people will not have had their data backed up properly ahead of this? How many will be left with applications that ran on XP that won't run on Vista?

The article is probably right, this is MS' olive branch to vendors who had hoped to roll out the new machines with brand spanking new Vista already installed. It's a PR debacle and nightmare in the making. Fortunately for MS, that would be mostly irrelevant.

(To contrast, on same machine described above, I took the new Mandriva, booted up, installed and got completely running, all sound and video working perfectly -- in less than 2 hours!

Funny, for my life I could not find a satisfactory solution (or even find a google solution) to get the XP dual boot file configured properly to reference the Mandriva... Finally gave up, and let lilo handle it, the configuration was painless and flawless. Go figure.)

Re:

[Above (100351)]

I use FreeBSD at work, because it's the best OS for servers.

I deal with Windows, Exchange, Office, because my employer will bear the costs.

When I shell out my own money for a new machine, I buy an Apple. I pay money to never have to write this story. I am fortunate to have the money to do that (not that it's a huge premium), but I love being able to buy a new machine and well, start using it immediately to do useful work. It even helps me migrate from my old machine in a useful way. In minutes.

Re:

[Nightspirit (846159)]

Were you trying to install the 64 bit version or something?

For the life of me I can't figure out how you could have all this difficulty unless you had a bad BIOS driver or something.

I've installed xp pro on countless machines (including ones with a ps/2 mouse) and the only problems I've had was when bad hardware was installed ($5 chinese off-brand soundcard from frys, what was I thinking?) or I had to look up RAID drivers.

I do agree with you about rebooting nightmare. Google slipstreaming windows XP for how

Re:a recent "install" experience

[CastrTroy (595695)]

The article is probably right, this is MS' olive branch to vendors who had hoped to roll out the new machines with brand spanking new Vista already installed. It's a PR debacle and nightmare in the making. Fortunately for MS, that would be mostly irrelevant.

I read another article on Google News earlier stating the same thing. A bunch of computer makers are pissed because they think nobody will buy new PCs this holiday season because they're all waiting for Vista. They have certain quotas to meet for the holiday season. Never mind that they'll have higher sales than they've had in 4 years the day Vista is released, they can't wait that long. So they're going to offer free or cheap upgrades to Vista, to everyone who buys a machine with XP now. I think they're banking on the fact that 75% of the people won't bother to updgrade, or will lose their golden ticket, and won't be able to upgrade, and that this will cost MS very little.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[Jason Earl (1894)]

The problem with that line of thinking is that the Christmas season presents sales opportunities that simply don't come around again later in the year. No one wants to get a coupon for a Vista computer in their stocking, and a computer with XP pre-installed simply isn't as competitive an offering as a computer with Vista installed would be. That means that a significant amount of money that would have gone towards PCs this Christmas will probably go towards something else. OEMs are pissed, and rightly so. Missing the Christmas season is the unpardonable sin in the retail business.

Re:

[jesterzog (189797)]

That means that a significant amount of money that would have gone towards PCs this Christmas will probably go towards something else. OEMs are pissed, and rightly so. Missing the Christmas season is the unpardonable sin in the retail business.

In all honesty, though, what would retailers do about it? Ditch Microsoft and start shipping PC's with Linspire?

Re:

[dknj (441802)]

I recently built my own machine... 2G memory, .5TB (2 SATA drives), 3.06Ghz dual core... all very cool. I spent almost 2 weeks getting Ubuntu installed and working properly (for what reason would an OS not come with generic video drivers?). The sound was a nightmare to get running, don't get me started on my unsupported video capture card. Fortunately (I guess), a lot of the drivers came with the linux kernel (as one might expect), but the installation and configuration was amazingly tedious, and error pron

Re:

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

I hear you... try installing without a floppy for the modern disk controllers!!! XP still won't take CD or USB keys for drivers at boot time! What a crock, MUCH of the problem people have is related to THAT feature missing! If you could load up a CD or USB key with all the drivers before you start it would save HOURS on an XP install. But alas, even that wouldn't work because every vendor has to use their own EXE for DRIVERS instead of a standard format. Now if you're installing Dells it's really easy,

Re:a recent "install" experience

[HermMunster (972336)]

Windows XP support USB keyboards and mice in the base install. The XP installer fully supports a PS2 keyboard and mouse.

Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro. You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors. Same for sound. Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.

If you didn't have support for your USB keyboard or mouse you had non-standard components. Albeit rare, some are out there. My customers are always told to buy for something other than price. In other words, never buy that el-cheapo mouse that is not a recognizable name or you'll pay in time and gas trying to get it to work and then driving back to the store to return it.

The issues described in his posting are demonstrative of a lack of experience and/or prioritization.

After 5 years of distribution with a large number of new products released over that half decade it would be no wonder that some people have problems with some new components and their drivers.

XP HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH PS2 DRIVERS, EVER.

If you have a problem it is your problem not XP.

I do not in any way support Microsoft and I do not care to protect their name or business. It isn't my job to police for them and I don't care what anyone I encounter does with XP legal or otherwise. It just isn't my problem.

I do dislike the fact that Microsoft has stolen, deceived, and broken so many laws to get and maintain their monopoly. I hate monopoly companies. But I can honestly say that those comparative stories about XP vs. Linux are not giving the fully story to the readers, so I am commenting.

Re:a recent "install" experience

[guruevi (827432)]

I find it so weird that Wintendo-fanboys always have the following attitude:

Of course your Linux boots up and everything works dandy but then you have to install the proprietary drivers from the hardware vendors because they don't want to release some information about what fits where in the register and how to call certain functions so you can play your favorite games with faster 3D acceleration. Since that is not painless, it's an inherent problem with Linux, not the proprietary hardware you bought.

Of course Windows doesn't come with all those drivers pre-loaded, you have to install them yourself. That your keyboard or mouse or network card (and there's a bunch out there that don't work vanilla) isn't working on startup isn't relevant, you don't need to use those to ... oh wait, you DO need those to download your patches and drivers... Since that is not painless either, well, it's your hardware, not a problem with Windows.

My idea: buy an open source supportive or supported video card, they're out there. Run any vanilla linux and it will work right-out-of-the-box. Or buy a Mac, all your proprietary stuff that works right out of the box. Or buy a combination of proprietary hardware and linux and get the hassle of typing 2 lines on command line to get NVidia drivers working or buy a proprietary operating system with a half-ass Dell and spend the next 3 days setting up your system or buy an utterly old system from the year 2001 where XP should have all drivers for and spend only 1 day installing patches, upgrades, virusses and reboots.

Re:

[aaronl (43811)]

I can't speak for the odd problems that the GP had with keyboard/mouse, but Windows XP *DOES NOT* come with drivers for most modern hardware. Most Linux distributions come with drivers for nearly anything out there.

To finish installing XP, you need to go download video drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, motherboard drivers, etc. Hell, you can't even install on many SATA systems without having a floppy drive and teaching XP how to talk to a SATA controller.

To make Vista have accelerated 3D, I still n

Re:

[jesterzog (189797)]

After the pain of the XP install was over it worked just fine. He loves it... it's faster than any PC he has ever owned.

This is one of the reasons that I get a little skeptical about how so many people like to judge a linux distribution by its installer. A lot of reviews I've read over time of linux distributions have focussed almost entirely on the installer. It's true that most people who use Linux (unlike Windows) will need to install it at some point, and installation is quite important because of t

What free really means

[biocute (936687)]

Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home.

So it's similar to some open source service providers charging for installation and support, even the software itself is free.

This deal is not meant for bargin-hunters, but for people who really need a new machine right now, and the only thing holding them off is the operating system.

Depends on how nerfed you want your OS to be...

[Loopy (41728)]

The Ultimate version will run around $400 from what I've heard (yes, it's rumor). While the home/basic version will run a LOT cheaper, you'll be unable to do a lot of the stuff "tweakers" like to do to customize and manage things. Think: XP Pro had Remote Desktop, where XP Home did not. That kinda stuff.

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

Surely everyone here knows to get the cheaper OEM version - it should still be legal to buy it with an internal component like a $10 floppy disk drive.

Re:

[TheSpoom (715771)]

Those of us who want to do lots of tweaking know where to find our copy [thepiratebay.org] when the time comes. ;^)

(NB: I probably won't upgrade to Vista anyway, it doesn't seem worth it.)

Well..

[Arthur B. (806360)]

My dell came with windows XP and a free upgrade to linux !

Re:

[jmv (93421)]

Actually, my Dell came with FreeDOS (and a free upgrade to Linux of course).

How about a downgrade coupon ....

[tomhudson (43916)]

... for those who buy a box with Vista and want XP instead because their favorite game/app/whatever doesn't work?

Buy your PC now and get the upgrade cheap

[davidwr (791652)]

Just don't install it until XP support expires.

Not a matter of importance.

[Lethyos (408045)]

This is just a little fan on the flames to convince hold-outs (as others have correctly indicated in this thread). Once Vista begins shipping, it will be installed ubiquitously on nearly all comodity machines and the influence on the bottom line of the cost will be, for the most part, unaffected.

Re:

[realmolo (574068)]

Agreed. How many people have:

a)a machine powerful enough to run Vista well
b)actually care about upgrading their operating system

The answer is "not many". I can count on one hand the number of people I know that have upgraded the operating system on their PC. Almost everyone just buys a new PC. Especially these days, where every 12 months you can buy an $600 machine that is TWICE as fast as the $600 machine you bought 12 months ago.

Upgrades are pointless, is what I'm saying. And even if NO ONE upgr

Re:

[fermion (181285)]

This is absolutely not so. It is like saying that XP had no effect on the price of the computer. In fact, in order to not to look like it was using it's monopoly to cheat consumers, it had to create a scaled down version of XP. If one wants the sam OS that one had 5 years ago, say in NT or 2000, the cost of the cheapest rises from a few hundred dollars to over $500. I know that the retort is that no one really needs those extra features, but that is like saying a mac mini is comparable to the cheapest De

Need a new term

[dbIII (701233)]

"Free" as in Vista.

The pleasures of NOT upgrading

[codefrog (302314)]

It's a total toss up for me on which I'll have more fun not buying; Vista or a PS3.
On the one hand, not buying Vista is a Genuine Advantage in many ways...
but by not buying a PS3, I save more money and also get the bonus of not upgrading to newer DRM.

Thank goodness I can afford to do both!

In other words...

[joe_cot (1011355)]

Dear OEM distributors:

We screwed up. Please don't go selling Linux PCs this Christmas.

Regards,

Bill

Do it right.

[MBCook (132727)]

If you want a free copy of Vista, do it right. Just wait until you can buy a copy pre-installed on a new computer. With the new MacBook Pros out that's what I'm thinking of doing. By the time Leopard comes out my little G4 will be two years old. I can replace it, get a free copy of Leopard, and I'll have gotten a good use out of my current Powerbook. Plus there is always the chance of another speed/RAM bump or price drop by then.

But a "free" upgrade is a crock. You'll almost never get it.

I remember gettin

You got the wrong idea

[suv4x4 (956391)]

As always. The point isn't to go out and start buying WinXP PC-s so to get free Vista.
The point is if you need to buy a PC, you don't need to wait for Vista, but buy it now with XP, and get Vista later for free.

As you probably imagine, quite a lot of people are holding hardware purchases, waiting for Vista pre-installed machines. What Microsoft does is keep the market going versus stifle sales right during the Holiday season.

In fact, it's a very sweet deal if you ask me, since Vista is gonna be crap until SP1, and you get to enjoy worry free XP experience until Vista is stable: then upgrade for $0. Best of both worlds.

The Beginning of The End

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

I really do think that Vista will be the beginning of the end for Microsoft as a major player in the OS wars. There are subtle signs that they are starting to lose. Not commmercially -- not yet -- but their pricing and licensing models no longer work. I would have thought that even they were finally coming to realize this, but their pricing, licensing, and marketing (4 major versions) of Vista says otherwise.

I expect Windows to hang around for a long while yet, but I expect that this is where it will begin to actually decline. Their business and marketing models have been pushed past the point at which their products will continue to carry them: they have no technology advantages anymore (most of those they had before, they bought or stole), they are pricing themselves out of the market, and they have been making both installation and use of their products more difficult rather than easier. The only advantage they have had has been a stranglehold on market share and thus hardware vendors, but they have begun to lose that leverage as well. Given their heavy-handed (and monopolistic according to the courts) business practices, I doubt many people will really suffer very much from their passing. After all... their major competition is actually free.

Re:

[pandrijeczko (588093)]

I do fully agree with your point that Linux (at least as it stands today) will not displace Windows from the desktops of Joe Average users. To be perfectly honest, if Joe's computer usage consists purely of playing games, working with a few household documents, maybe printing and editing a few family photos and all that kind of stuff, then he's probably no need to ever run Linux - and if, when Joe buys his next PC, he's still able to do all of those things, then it won't matter to him whether or not he's ru