News - Remember, the Windows 7 Release Candidate won't last forever

[Jimbo75]

I'll be generous and call that strike one.....

He calls me a nutter, I say he has mental issues, you give me a strike.

[Saracen]

....

Feel free to remove my posting privelages, I've seen enough sad ******s in one thread here to last me a lifetime.

As you wish.

[dangel]

Well all the best to him - I think he may have more issues in life than MS' EULA in all honesty.

[Funkstar]

What an angry person

Oh well, at least the ban means I don't need to bother replying to the multiple posts.

[Saracen]

Well all the best to him - I think he may have more issues in life than MS' EULA in all honesty.

What an angry person.

As he can't reply, refute or defend himself, or at least, can't for 7 days, the less said about him personally, the better. Carry on with the thread by all means, but please leave personalities out of it.

And for the record, in case he reads this as a guest, the account is suspended for 7 days. And for everyone's benefit, when a mod or admin tells you to watch your attitude and stop insulting people, the best bet is to stop doing it. If you respond with more of the same, and what amounts to "up yours", the results are pretty predictable.

[dangel]

Saracen - why don't you just delete the whole off-topic crap from this thread then? TBH none of it was really relevant to the OP. Just a thought, might get things back on track eh? Found the whole thing rather bizarre anyway! #5->#54(!)

[Saracen]

I'll think about that. Generally, I don't edit threads started by other Admins, or by the blue business people. This might be an exception though.

[directhex]

The way I see it, as a supporter of Free Software, I also have to support Microsoft's EULA. If I expect people to take code I write and use it under the terms I stipulate (e.g. the share-with-everyone-plz terms of the GPL), then other developers should be equally free to release their own works under the licensing conditions of their choice. In Microsoft's case, their choice says "Pay us ££ for a single-machine license or ££££ for a transferable license" then that's entirely their choice. It's my decision, as a consumer, whether or not to take then up on their chosen terms. If I'm not happy, I can go elsewhere.

Similarly, I'd love access to Sky TV - but their contract is pretty strict over the "use out Sky Box or die" clauses, and I refuse to use their garbage set-top box... so I opt to not receive their service.

[Splash]

The way I see it, as a supporter of Free Software, I also have to support Microsoft's EULA. If I expect people to take code I write and use it under the terms I stipulate (e.g. the share-with-everyone-plz terms of the GPL), then other developers should be equally free to release their own works under the licensing conditions of their choice. In Microsoft's case, their choice says "Pay us ££ for a single-machine license or ££££ for a transferable license" then that's entirely their choice. It's my decision, as a consumer, whether or not to take then up on their chosen terms. If I'm not happy, I can go elsewhere.

Similarly, I'd love access to Sky TV - but their contract is pretty strict over the "use out Sky Box or die" clauses, and I refuse to use their garbage set-top box... so I opt to not receive their service.

....but ZOMG! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING?

Back on track anyhoo - I'm a big believer that if you disagree with the license, you don't use the product. I fail to see why it's so hard: if Jimbo chooses not to buy Win7 then that's entirely his choice, but why so angry? I don't see anybody here forcing him to sign over his firstborn in exchange for it.

[Noxvayl]

Doesn't work that was for Adobe products.

Anti virus apps and other utilities don't work like that, unless they come in a special pack with multiple licenses. These are cheaper than buying X copies of the single user edition usually.

And the point is not that you specifically don't use a multiple PCs at the same time, it's that the majority of people in this position would use their two PCs at the same time because the chances are they would be in the same household and partner/spouse/family members would use one with you used the other.

True... but does Microsoft offer a pack of X amount of licenses to home users which provide the same level of savings and benefit to the user?

I use Eset Smart Security which cost me £84 for 2 licenses which can run over 3 years... that equates to 1 license costing me £14 per year. If I were to buy 1 license alone it would cost me £40 for the year. That is a 35% saving, making the cost of using the software cheaper as I expand my network of personal computers and cheaper still the more I renew it(renewal allowing for new versions of software as well...).

Microsoft has yet to adopt any such customer satisfaction activities with bulk licenses(for the home user, they service corporate entities fine). I have heard rumours of the "Family pack"(not seen any for sale yet, not really looking though) but that is restricted to 1 number of PC's(3 from what I've heard) and you get no flexibility... They also don't offer the family pack in upgrade discounts. If I am to continue using them over and over again surely the more I buy from them the better my deals become...

So yes other applications are "similar" but Microsoft customer satisfaction is light-years behind those applications. This is what needs to be addressed. If they want the same agreement, they must provide the same customer satisfaction options to suit all possible customers... otherwise change the agreement.

To do a per-session use activation, would be very inconvient, the steam example has court me out before now, I wanted to play some world of goo or something when the nice people at my local water firm had dug up my street, and my BT phone line.... I was bang out of luck.

That would be purely your own fault... Steam allows for game back ups to disk(CD or DVD), and to keep on an external HDD, for those situations where you are not online. If you have your games already installed, steam also uses an offline mode to allow you to play the single player games.

Was in a similar position to you a while back(2008) and I loaded Portal, HL2 and Crysis on steam... and played them offline. The option is there for you to use... just need to use it.

Microsoft offer no such flexibility of choice for their customer, either it's their way or bugger off. If you are quite happy to accept that, fine. Don't go forcing everyone else to conform to outrageously restrictive clauses for a piece of software though. Jimbo75, and anyone else, are more than entitled to say that the "status quo" is ridiculous and provide idea's for it's improvement.

The way I see it, as a supporter of Free Software, I also have to support Microsoft's EULA. If I expect people to take code I write and use it under the terms I stipulate (e.g. the share-with-everyone-plz terms of the GPL), then other developers should be equally free to release their own works under the licensing conditions of their choice. In Microsoft's case, their choice says "Pay us ££ for a single-machine license or ££££ for a transferable license" then that's entirely their choice. It's my decision, as a consumer, whether or not to take then up on their chosen terms. If I'm not happy, I can go elsewhere.

Similarly, I'd love access to Sky TV - but their contract is pretty strict over the "use out Sky Box or die" clauses, and I refuse to use their garbage set-top box... so I opt to not receive their service.

I agree with you... but what if you have no other choice? Content, itself, should not be restricted. How you obtain it... ok that's is sort of acceptable, but to prevent people from getting content through ridiculous clauses is just horrifyingly pathetic.

Using restrictive clauses should be outlawed if you are the sole owner of the IP. Sure companies should get their deserved revenue from it but why do we have to be restricted above and beyond that?

If they want to generate more sales and revenue they should seriously think about providing customer satisfaction rather than unsatisfactory services that are overpriced and have ridiculous clauses attached. The same things which drive people to piracy are the very tools they use to prevent it... rather interesting occurrence don't you think?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Jimbo75 has this in mind but seems to convey this idea in a negative and demeaning manor, much like I used to. None-the-less this doesn't mean you should do the same back.

Simple misunderstanding can go a long way to aggravate people. All well for you to point to Jimbo75 and say he is the cause of the problem... but it takes 2 opposing forces to create friction. Accept your own part in the creation of the problem, because your part is always far bigger than you realise.

[TheAnimus]

ExHail, they have it for 3:
http://www.kikatek.com/product_info....source=froogle

With every SKU it becomes more complex and increased transaction costs, generally speaking you need 8+ client 1+ server before a business can use volume licensing, however with bizspark and the like there are often 10 ways of buying the software.

This to me, is bloody confusing, and needs to be simplified.

Changing it for home users so you got a further 20% discount for each additional license would be quite complex, I personally think home premium and regular is too many SKUs let alone more.

The problem is with every differentiation comes added complexity, I already have about 16 different versions of vista to test a new release on..... Please, no more.

The reason Jimbo was getting such a reception was because he was defending his idea with the terminal intensity normally found by a mactard, ignoring the comments people where making of "if you don't like it, use something else"

In effect the ideas he is suggesting would result in less revenue per version of the OS around, he might argue that this would lead to increased sales above the loss, but that is his projection as someone who has failed to show they understand anything about the matter in hand (in fact contractidcting himself directly).

Also on the steam thing, my internet hasn't stopped working for months, why would I be planning for it too? I just assume things will work! Imagine what a pain it would be for your OS to behave similarly.

[badass]

Microsoft has yet to adopt any such customer satisfaction activities with bulk licenses(for the home user, they service corporate entities fine)

Can't agree with the bit in bold.
Buying windows in bulk for corporates is way more expensive than individual licenses.
The cheapest way is to buy machines with W7 Professional OEM licenses on them.
You can then purchase SA for them that's around £80 per machine.
If you purchase SA for a machine running Vista business or W7 Professional, it gives you the right to upgrade it to Vista or W7 enterprise. Should Microsoft release the next version of windows within a year of that purchase, you get rights to that as well.
If you purchase it for XP now or any time after the W7 official release, you're wasting your money
If you would have bought it up to 1 year before the official W7 release, you would be able to use W7 enterprise, Vista enterprise or XP pro Volume licenseing edition.
Now however it's pretty pointless

[Noxvayl]

Pretty interesting. My minimal information about volume licensing lead me to believe the cost of hundreds or thousands of licenses was far less than getting each individually. I guess I had purchasing computer systems in bulk in mind, they tend to supply windows without a major price hike, which is far more satisfactory than the service a home user gets.

Either way I think Customer Satisfaction should always be priority number 1... Money as a motive/reason is insanity because money is worthless and useless to society as a whole. We can build houses in weeks but take decades to pay for them, where's the logic in that? Not like the resources are not available...

[Syllopsium]

Customer satisfaction is very rarely truly the top priority. Businesses prime purpose is to make money.

Now, it's also true that making money can be closely associated with customer satisfaction - or at the very least meeting a reasonable proportion of the customer's needs, but that's not the same as being truly focused on customer satisfaction.

Some of the open licensing does work out as cheaper than boxed products, particularly for non operating systems. If buying in extreme bulk (i.e. Dell, with millions of licenses), deals are made on an individual basis, I believe, and options such as customised versions of Windows (i.e. the BIOS locked Vista releases) become possible.

Still, it's a fairly obvious set of choices : either capitulate to the EULA demands, argue with Microsoft (they have modified the EULA if enough users complain in the past) or use something else.

It's also worth mentioning that Windows isn't an especially bad deal. Is a three user family pack of 150 quid really that unreasonable? Additionally, if the inevitable OS X comparison is brought in, Windows actually works out as better value.

True, a base purchase of Windows may be slightly more expensive than OS X in some cases, but on the other hand Apple appears to have stopped supporting 10.4 in December - a product less than five years old. Windows is good for up to ten years (thirteen in the case of XP) before all security hotfixes are withdrawn..

PK

[badass]

Pretty interesting. My minimal information about volume licensing lead me to believe the cost of hundreds or thousands of licenses was far less than getting each individually. I guess I had purchasing computer systems in bulk in mind, they tend to supply windows without a major price hike, which is far more satisfactory than the service a home user gets.

Either way I think Customer Satisfaction should always be priority number 1... Money as a motive/reason is insanity because money is worthless and useless to society as a whole. We can build houses in weeks but take decades to pay for them, where's the logic in that? Not like the resources are not available...

OEM licensing does get cheaper for the system builders. The corporates that buy them however don't save any money compared to a home user. As I said in the previous post, we pay more for the extra flexibility of Windows Enterprise. Microsoft would prefer it if we got a subscription instead, but when 3 years of subscription is more expensive than buying the licenses outright, we haven't bothered.

[Noxvayl]

I never said windows was extremely bad... just that it could be MUCH BETTER.

Customer Satisfaction can, and generally does, lead to profit. The reverse, however, does not lead to customer satisfaction. It's not a chemical equation that can be processed backwards to get the initial substances. If you reverse the Customer Satisfaction leads to profit model you end with unsatisfied customers AND a product far inferior to what you could of produced with the same resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subscription idea would be workable if they got it to a reasonable amount and the results of each new version of Windows emulated and exceeded that of Windows 7. The following is how I would move forward with Windows:

• £15 per year subscription for home users, £30-50 for businesses.
• Subscription grants free access to new versions as long as you keep paying each year.
• No contract time limit or clauses forcing you to continue the subscription longer than 12 months. Renewal is optional.
• Restrict OS use to 1 PC(as it is currently, with some edits to the EULA). To add 1 more PC the yearly subscription increases by £5, £15 for businesses.
• @ 4million households with 1 PC each Microsoft could generate £60million revenue
• @ 1million businesses with 1 PC each Microsoft could generate £30million revenue

I think you could all agree that the above household figures are rather pessimistic look at how many customer Microsoft has(and ridiculously pessimistic for prospective customers), yet the prospective revenue for Microsoft with the above idea far exceeds it's current achievement... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual

Proposed benefits of this focus on customer satisfaction:

• Less wasted resources on old Operating Systems
• More constructive feedback provided by customers
• No need for advertising(customers will be waking, talking adverts)
• Increased efficiency for the product creation cycle
• Less time spent talking about their product and more spent making it better

Above mentioned idea would cost customers £45 per new version of Windows(based on the 3 year product cycle), produce more revenue for Microsoft than they can currently imagine, reduce cost of creating the product and make marketing obsolete. Where is the negative?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might want to know where my understanding comes from to make such ridiculous claims... I am part of a business, Amway, that uses similar principles and I based my idea, loosely, on the same principles that they use. This is a brief insight into the opportunity Amway has to offer, even in a recession... figures taken in 2008:

Individual prospects within Amway:

• ABO(Amway Business Owner); £47 - £732 monthly income.
• CRC(Certified Retail Consultant); £92 - £2 683 monthly income.
• BC(Business Consultant); £830 - £50 000 monthly income.

Those are figures for all individual ABO's and above within Amway. The company as a whole is far better off than those ABO's and are committed to providing customer satisfaction, so much so that they offer a 90 day satisfaction guarantee on their products. They will refund you if you are unhappy with the products, not if they don't work. That says everything about how they built the business they currently promote.

Should you want to know more PM me.