Path.GetInvalidPathChars "Visual Basic 6.0 Classic" equivalent
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Mike Williams on 17 Mar 2010 11:10 "mayayana" <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:%23%23LAxTdxKHA.404(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > If you buy the PC you cause the money to be > sent to MS, even if you didn't write that check. > (Though I read that they're getting significantly > less for XP on netbooks, due to the pressure > from Linux.) They're still getting something for it though, and it's a lot more than they were getting for it in Africa when they were paying people to take tens of thousands of copies of XP off their hands or, more accurately, were paying their corporate MS gangsters to shove it down the throats of people who did not want it and who had actually already paid a legitimate company for a custom version of Linux, which Micro$oft in tended to steal: http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=6124&pn=1 Mike
From: C. Kevin Provance on 17 Mar 2010 12:16 "mayayana" <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:uCOyAzXxKHA.2432(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... : Wow...I had to stop and think, when was the last time I actually bought : something from MSFT? It was either VB6 or Win98. Every OS since then has : come preinstalled. : > : : That's a purchase. I think they get $50-80 : for each OEM license. So if you buy a commercial : PC with Windows pre-installed then you're : buying Windows. It might be a passive purchase, : but the money is just as real. Many people actually : pay more to MS now than they used to. They buy : a PC with Windows, then get malware or other : problems and just buy another PC. That's the : beauty of OEM for Microsoft. They can keep selling : the same license to people several times over : by claiming that they've actually sold the license : to an inanimate object -- a circuit board. I didn't know if we were counting passive purchases. Usually I build my own boxes. The last time I built one the outlet threw in Windows for free having spent x amount of dollars. The laptop on the otherhand, which came with Vista I guess counts...if we're counting passive purchases. Otherwise, preinstalled OS aside, VB6 would have to be it.
From: Cor Ligthert[MVP] on 17 Mar 2010 12:46 Tom, Interesting, thank you for adding that to my knowledge. Cor "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message news:uFlnoJexKHA.5576(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > On 2010-03-17, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Oh, definately - MS is getting their portion. >>> It's just that a lot of people >>> don't realize that the crapware they get >>> on their system is actually >>> subsidizing the cost of windows - making >>> it basically free to the consumer. >>> >> >> How do you know the crapware isn't subsidizing >> the cost of the power supply? Or the RAM >> stick? Or Carly Fiorina's retirement package? >> > > Ok - it would be more appropriate to say offseting the cost of the pc. In > other words, they are able to sell the pc at a more competitive price to > the > consumer because they are selling desktop space to the scammers. > > The reason I target windows is because the fact is that windows is > probably the > single largest cost in building a pc... > > The way this works really came out when del started selling certain > desktop > machines with linux as an option. It was noted that the linux machines > were > actually more expensive then the equivalent windows machines. It > basically came down to the fact that on the linux machines they couldn't > install all the crapware - so they couldn't sell it as cheaply even though > they were only paying a fraction of the cost to Canonical for ubuntu. > > -- > Tom Shelton
From: mayayana on 17 Mar 2010 15:23 > It was noted that the linux machines were > actually more expensive then the equivalent > windows machines. It > basically came down to the fact that on the > linux machines they couldn't > install all the crapware I don't see why not. They can do whatever they want with Linux. I suspect the reason it was more expensive was 1) Pressure from Microsoft to make sure Linux didn't succeed. 2) The cost of support for a product that is unlikely to see a large market. (Anyone who wants Linux doesn't need to buy it from Dell.) I'm not sure it's possible to really know what goes on behgind the scenes, but according to this link the OEMs make "$10-20" on junkware: http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2007/04/how_much_does_junkware_shav e_off_a_pcs_price.html According to this one, Dell sold Ubuntu PCs for $50 less than Windows: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/05/windows-tax-is-50-according-to- dell-linux-pc-pricing.ars I do seem to remember that at least some Linux PCs were more expensive, though. At any rate, I am happy to know that Windows doesn't cost anything. That's almost enough to make me go out and get Win7. :)
From: Tom Shelton on 17 Mar 2010 15:09
On 2010-03-17, mayayana <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> It was noted that the linux machines were >> actually more expensive then the equivalent >> windows machines. It >> basically came down to the fact that on the >> linux machines they couldn't >> install all the crapware > > I don't see why not. They can do whatever they > want with Linux. I suspect the reason it was more Becasue there isn't a lot of crapware companies targeting linux. How big a market could there be? > expensive was > > 1) Pressure from Microsoft to make sure Linux > didn't succeed. > Could be - but, I don't think so. > 2) The cost of support for a product that is > unlikely to see a large market. (Anyone who > wants Linux doesn't need to buy it from Dell.) > > I'm not sure it's possible to really know what goes > on behgind the scenes, but according to this link > the OEMs make "$10-20" on junkware: > http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2007/04/how_much_does_junkware_shav > e_off_a_pcs_price.html > Well, I remember reading it was more then that - could be right though. > According to this one, Dell sold Ubuntu PCs > for $50 less than Windows: > http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/05/windows-tax-is-50-according-to- > dell-linux-pc-pricing.ars > Yes, I remember that the price dropped - after a lot of complaining. Initially they were more expensive - maybe it was the cost of developing a working image (kernel, drivers, software, etc). But, I remember reading that part of it was the crapware offset. > I do seem to remember that at least some > Linux PCs were more expensive, though. > Del's were at first. But, they did come down latter. > At any rate, I am happy to know that Windows > doesn't cost anything. That's almost enough to > make me go out and get Win7. :) > I never said it was free - why do you keep implying that I said windows has no cost? It does. MS will be paid for every copy - the question was by whom :) When you buy a windows pc preinstalled, that version was bought and paid for by the OEM - so you are buying it from the OEM not MS. I suppose that makes you there customer indirectly... -- Tom Shelton |