Steer Clear of Windows Vista Basic
in [Dell]
|
Prev: Dell CD-RW Drive?
Next: Installing new HD a 5150C
From: Ben Myers on 17 Mar 2007 23:11 Microsoft has contractually strong-armed nearly all of its OEMs into providing Windows Vista with nearly all of the computers. Exceptions are made, of course, for large corporations and government agencies who would otherwise tell Microsoft, Dell, HP and everyone else to go stuff Vista, exactly where to stuff it, and detailed instructions of how to stuff it. So Dell sells XP systems, not thru its home/consumer "channel", but thru the business and govt channels. Likewise, copies of XP have mysteriously dried up in the retail store channel. .... Ben Myers On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:50:31 GMT, "William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1(a)idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote: >Hi! > >> While you are correct that "Vista Basic meets all of these needs ...", >> so does Windows XP. > >Had it been completely up to me, the system would have been running XP. I >had concerns that the (old!) version of Quicken might turn upside down and >die on Vista. > >The problem in this case is finding a system with XP on it instead of Vista >at all the usual retail store suspects (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc...). I >don't think either one is still carrying XP-based systems. I suggested >buying from someone who would still offer XP on a system, but this wasn't >accepted. > >William >
From: RnR on 19 Mar 2007 07:08 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:11:10 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote: >Microsoft has contractually strong-armed nearly all of its OEMs into providing >Windows Vista with nearly all of the computers. Exceptions are made, of course, >for large corporations and government agencies who would otherwise tell >Microsoft, Dell, HP and everyone else to go stuff Vista, exactly where to stuff >it, and detailed instructions of how to stuff it. So Dell sells XP systems, not >thru its home/consumer "channel", but thru the business and govt channels. > >Likewise, copies of XP have mysteriously dried up in the retail store channel. > >... Ben Myers I concur. Obviously it's due to profit margin on Vista is so much greater than XP and corporate sales are the main revenue of each pc mfgr so they can afford to let them have XP where as to maximize revenue on the consumer side, they push Vista instead of XP. Bottom line to us is, the consumer gets screwed again and the sad thing, most don't even know it because they buy into MS bs (much like software licenses but thats already in other threads).
From: Tom Scales on 19 Mar 2007 07:25 <RnR> wrote in message news:n4rsv2d5qupk8dqnbf5ddipmskbpvn22os(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:11:10 -0400, Ben Myers > <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote: > >>Microsoft has contractually strong-armed nearly all of its OEMs into >>providing >>Windows Vista with nearly all of the computers. Exceptions are made, of >>course, >>for large corporations and government agencies who would otherwise tell >>Microsoft, Dell, HP and everyone else to go stuff Vista, exactly where to >>stuff >>it, and detailed instructions of how to stuff it. So Dell sells XP >>systems, not >>thru its home/consumer "channel", but thru the business and govt channels. >> >>Likewise, copies of XP have mysteriously dried up in the retail store >>channel. >> >>... Ben Myers > > > I concur. Obviously it's due to profit margin on Vista is so much > greater than XP and corporate sales are the main revenue of each pc > mfgr so they can afford to let them have XP where as to maximize > revenue on the consumer side, they push Vista instead of XP. Bottom > line to us is, the consumer gets screwed again and the sad thing, most > don't even know it because they buy into MS bs (much like software > licenses but thats already in other threads). How do you figure the profit margins are higher? The real reason is likely that they want to focus their support efforts on Vista. Having dual support teams is very expensive. If XP is just in the corporate channel, the costs are low, as most corporations essentially support themselves. Everyone sees a conspiracy at every turn when it is just good business.
From: Ben Myers on 19 Mar 2007 13:07 One counterpoint to this argument about cost of support provided by vendor is that XP is more stable, has fewer defects, therefore requires less support for any computer owner, whether consumer, business or government. Sorry, the Microsoft conspiracy is as obvious as it has ever been. Microsoft has its OEMs by very short hairs, and Vista is what WILL(!) be shipped unless businesses demand otherwise (as most sensible businesses will do until they have qualified all their hone-grown apps with Vista). This satisfies two objectives. Microsoft gets the desired penetration of Vista into the marketplace. Lean over and grab your ankles for that one. OEMs are happy to sell Vista systems, which require more hardware to run even half-baked, and therefore are more profitable. But Vista support by name-brand vendors is and will be a sinkhole for money... Ben Myers On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:25:39 -0400, "Tom Scales" <tjscales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ><RnR> wrote in message news:n4rsv2d5qupk8dqnbf5ddipmskbpvn22os(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:11:10 -0400, Ben Myers >> <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote: >> >>>Microsoft has contractually strong-armed nearly all of its OEMs into >>>providing >>>Windows Vista with nearly all of the computers. Exceptions are made, of >>>course, >>>for large corporations and government agencies who would otherwise tell >>>Microsoft, Dell, HP and everyone else to go stuff Vista, exactly where to >>>stuff >>>it, and detailed instructions of how to stuff it. So Dell sells XP >>>systems, not >>>thru its home/consumer "channel", but thru the business and govt channels. >>> >>>Likewise, copies of XP have mysteriously dried up in the retail store >>>channel. >>> >>>... Ben Myers >> >> >> I concur. Obviously it's due to profit margin on Vista is so much >> greater than XP and corporate sales are the main revenue of each pc >> mfgr so they can afford to let them have XP where as to maximize >> revenue on the consumer side, they push Vista instead of XP. Bottom >> line to us is, the consumer gets screwed again and the sad thing, most >> don't even know it because they buy into MS bs (much like software >> licenses but thats already in other threads). > >How do you figure the profit margins are higher? > >The real reason is likely that they want to focus their support efforts on >Vista. Having dual support teams is very expensive. If XP is just in the >corporate channel, the costs are low, as most corporations essentially >support themselves. > >Everyone sees a conspiracy at every turn when it is just good business. > >
From: Doug Jacobs on 19 Mar 2007 14:48
Tom Scales <tjscales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Everyone sees a conspiracy at every turn when it is just good business. Of course it's good business! I'm sure the kickbacks that Microsoft is getting from the hardware companies is very nice... I'm only half kidding here... Seriously, running ANY flavor of Vista is going to end up sucking down large chunks of your hardware. It disgusted me when I saw the local stores trying to foist systems onto customers that would barely run Vista, much less anything like an application. I guarantee you that just weeks before that very same hardware SKU had XP Home loaded on it, at least making them a capable home system. But now...Ugh. For instance, can anyone tell me why you would EVER sell a Vista system with less than 1GB (MINIMUM!) RAM in it? Yet I still saw several "bargin" systems shipping with 256MB of RAM and half of that was sucked down by the video card. I'm surprised Vista even consented to even BOOT on such hardware... But hey, $400 and the system's yours! -- Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse! http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98 |