Is Windows getting more expensive?

TalkBack 15 of 73:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

I respectfully disagree: I would agree with you here except there is one huge difference
between previous versions of Windows and Vista. With previous
editions of Windows you decide what you want you computer to
do. With Vista's digital restyrictions management and windows
genuine disadvantage, this has changed. I ran XP for a couple
of years until lightning destroyed my motherboard. After
replacing my motherboard, I had to reactivate Windows. The
only problem was the fact that Microsoft would not reactivate
the licensed copy I PAID FOR. After several long distance
calls (at my time and expense), I was finally able to
successfully get Windows reactivated.

A month later, my harddrive went out. I went through the same
procedure to try to get Windows reactivated. This time I was
given the run around due to many "previous activations." At
this point, I was thinking about downloading a crack to take
care of the problem. After much more time on the phone, I was
finally able to get reactivated. My time is worth about $18 an
hour, so the first time I needed to get Windows activated, it
costs me about $54. The second time it costed me even more.

When Microsoft's XP support runs out, will it automatically
activate reinstalled Windows XP or will it refuse to reactivate
XP and force customers to buy Vista? If customers are forced
to migrate to Vista, many will have to replace their computers.
The new version of Windows Genuine Disadvantage can now
deactivate peoples computers when they connect to the Internet.
I for one am not giving Microsoft this power over my property.

I run Linux on several computers in my home, and it looks like
I will be using Linux and FreeBSD almost exclusively. I agree
that Linux is NOT FREE (as in cost) because it take a good bit
of time downloading and configuring device drivers. The last
time that I installed Linux on a machine, it took me about 3
hours of work therefore costing me about $54 for the operating
system. This is a cost that I am willing to pay for the
freedom of control of my computer.

Overall, Microsoft no longer is the best "bang for the buck."
The only thing holding Linux back is the fact that the big
hardware vendors refuse to sell computers preinstalled with
Linux. Another thing holding Linux back is the fact that most
hardawe vendors do not officially support their Linux drivers.
I believe that this is due in part to their "partnership" with
Microsoft.

Even with these things going against Linux and other free
software, this type of software is the best and biggest bang
for the buck. I already know about 20 people who say they will
refuse to run Vista. Microsoft needs to accept the fact that
they now have competition, and that they need to listen to and
provide for the needs of their customers. If they do not,
there are many other choices.; Posted by: cyberscan Posted on: 02/28/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use