Windows Vista retail doomed unless Microsoft cuts prices?

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by Koolpc

Well, in all the years i have used XP i have never activated the updates, i don't trust them and i have never ever had an issue / problem! Some people will say that problems will arise but i have been using XP for quite a few years with no problems at all.

Unclean! Unclean!

Aside from the obvious risk of port attacks etc. which anti-virus programs can't help with, I'd be worried about being able to play the latest games etc.

For example if MS release a DX10b that requires activation? Sure they don't at the moment, but there's not a lot to stop them from doing that in the future. Even if it doesn't itself, it's not hard to imagine that DX itself could rely on an update to the OS itself, like SP2. Again there's nothing to stop them from requiring GWA activation for any service packs etc, which they started doing for XP in recent years.

[Koolpc]

Well, if Microsoft say jump then i suppose you must Jump!!

[Splash]

KoolPC - Wasn't XPSP2 just a collection of updates?

[Koolpc]

Originally Posted by Splash

KoolPC - Wasn't XPSP2 just a collection of updates?

Yes, but it was already on the disc!

[Splash]

So if a software vendor releases an update on CD you'd use it, but if you need to download it you don't? Fair enough.

Anyways, another pointer to To Update or Not to Update (Split from Mac Thread)

[Koolpc]

Originally Posted by Splash

So if a software vendor releases an update on CD you'd use it, but if you need to download it you don't? Fair enough.

Anyways, another pointer to To Update or Not to Update (Split from Mac Thread)

I had the CD with it on. No way i could take the updates off of it!! Other than that i don't install the updates. Install them if you want. That is your perogative.

Anyway, enough of 'updates etc' lets get back to the original thread issue.

[kempez]

Originally Posted by Koolpc

I had the CD with it on. No way i could take the updates off of it!! Other than that i don't install the updates.

Congratulations on being one of the many "users" out there mate, glad you could educate all of the tech savvy people on here who aren't "users".

In future I think I'll stop my anti-virus getting new definitions, never update my software firewall and install a couple of those programs that conveniently "pop-up" telling me "My PC may contain viruses" when I go to some sites

[Koolpc]

Originally Posted by kempez

Congratulations on being one of the many "users" out there mate, glad you could educate all of the tech savvy people on here who aren't "users".

In future I think I'll stop my anti-virus getting new definitions, never update my software firewall and install a couple of those programs that conveniently "pop-up" telling me "My PC may contain viruses" when I go to some sites

Good for you!

[excalibur2]

Originally Posted by Splash

Touché excalibur2, however I'm a little puzzled by your second statement. If you don't trust the people with full access to the code to be able to patch it properly how do you expect a "trusted" (would be interested in how you define this) third party to?

Other sources do examine what is in the updates, I've got a slight paranoia about way things are going generally in life i.e. big brother.

[QUOTEAs for KoolPC it's clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree. I hope for your sake that you're not part of the botnet sending out massive amounts of spam at present. You might want to do a little web-searching on "Windows XP SP2 vulnerabilities" though.[/QUOTE]

HUH! Part of a botnet spamming...LOL All I can offer to Hexus is what experience I have manage to obtain since windows 3.0....it might be of some use to some and considered cr*p to others.

***A final thought - if the Windows Updates are such a waste of time why would Microsoft pour so much cash into them? Would you run "apt-get update" on your debian box?***

..and they really turned outlook express and IE into great programs. Anyway some programs wont install unless winxp sp2 is installed, as for all MS updates who they mainly for......joe public or business.

[Bob Crabtree]

Originally Posted by Koolpc

Well, in all the years i have used XP i have never activated the updates, i don't trust them and i have never ever had an issue / problem! Some people will say that problems will arise but i have been using XP for quite a few years with no problems at all.

There will be many people out there who will do the same with Vista. I know i will when i get it.

Two problems with this, as I see it.

First, some apps may not run without updates. So, for instance, there may be a Vista equivalent to SP2 (okay, there almost certainly will be) and it's possible that, as with SP2, that some apps won't run without it.

The other is the fact that you'd be leaving yourself wide open - just as you are right now with XP.

The fact that you've never had any problems, unfortunately, is not proof of anything - and definitely not proof that you'd be safe or wise to do this with Vista.

I'm sceptical about Windows updates myself so what I do with XP is set things so that I choose what is or isn't downloaded and updated.

Hopefully, this will still be an option open to me with Vista retail.

[autopilot]

Yes, but when you look at the price of games, it does not seem that high when you think it will last a few years and how much you will actually benefit from it.

If it does bomb, MS will drop the price then. I am in no rush anyway, i dont understand why so many people are. I will wait for driver support to mature, bugs/securtity flaws to be ironed out first, etc.

And don't MS have to keep the Retail prices up in order to keep the OEM prices up to?

[Splash]

Are we talking about functionality or security? If people choose not to install functionality patches for an app they may or may not use then that's up to them, if they choose not to install SECURITY patches (as per this post I feel they're part of the problem.

Anyways, my feelings are now known, I'll let the thread get back on track. My twopenneth is that Vista is being released in a wide enough spectrum of versions, and the availability of the OEM and upgrade versions make it a reasonably priced OS. A lot of people will complain at paying £300+VAT for Ultimate retail - they could buy home basic OEM for £55+VAT. Granted you miss out on a lot of the shinies, but if you can't afford it you don;t get it - simple as.

[kempez]

But you can't get Media Centre with Home basic and you can't re-install it either.

My point (I think) is that they could have priced the retail version more reasonable in relation to the OEM's that you mentioned.

[Koolpc]

They could have priced it better. How many people can afford £300+ for the Retail Ultimate?

[Splash]

How many people NEED retail ultimate? I made the point elsewhere that when you put it into perspective a retail copy of Ultimate will set you back about the same as a high end graphics card. People need to start looking at the software as part of the PC, rather than an added extra.

[kempez]

I agree that it is an integral part of a PC.

BUT those of us who do have a 360 and want the excellent media extender features of MCE, and upgrade our PC's often and want Vista cause it's the latest OS.

That's who needs it

My PC has had more parts than Frankenstein, but no upgrades cost me £300+ as I sell the old parts and buy new ones. That is something I don't do with my OS so I can't afford to go OEM and I £300+ in one go's a lot of money