On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:52:21 -0400, jim wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.10.24.05.52.56@users.easynews.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400, jim wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> So pirates haven't been slowed down at all, and the rest of us -- the
>>> legitimate purchasers -- are left to live with Windows Activation. You
>>> really need to ask the question - who's benefiting here? Certainly not
>>> users, and given the amount of discontent this is likely to cause,
>>> arguably not Microsoft either.[/color]
>>
>> Ah, but that's not true. Arguably Microsoft DOES benefit.
>>
>> Whoever wrote this article doesn't seem to understand the big picture.
>> Chinese users are accustomed to getting their Windows OS for free.
>> Microsoft is afraid that if they can't get Vista for free, they'll
>> migrate towards Linux. It wouldn't do to have Linux computers become
>> dominant in the world's soon-to-be-biggest economy, would it? So,
>> Microsoft provides a "workaround" that committed software pirates can
>> exploit, while at the same time putting honest users in a vise to
>> squeeze out the last possible drop of licensing revenue.
>>
>> It's called "screwing your best customers." It only works for so long,
>> which is why Microsoft's star is on the wane.[/color]
>
> I still can't understand why Microsoft hasn't learned the lesson that
> razor and printer manufacturers have long ago...give away the OS and
> sell the apps to make it useful.[/color]

One way to turn a profit on free software is to sell a service contract
so people don't have to yank their hair out when something goes wrong.
That is how Linux companies operate. One company ([url]www.zonbu.com[/url]) sells a
complete system for consumers -- a cheap mini-ITX box preloaded with
Linux and an assortment of apps, with a service contract under which the
consumer pays the vendor to maintain the system via the Internet. It
seems like just the thing for anyone with basic computing needs who
doesn't want to bother with any kind of maintenance or troubleshooting.

Theoretically, Microsoft could do something like this, but the scale and
staffing requirements would be immense, and it would require a completely
different business model from the one they have now.
[color=blue]
>
> I may be wrong here, but I don't think they can (under current law) make
> you publish APIs or other proprietary info when the "product" is free.[/color]

Probably not, but one reason Windows has been so successful is because
Windows users have an immense range of software choices. As big as
Microsoft is, I don't think they could reasonably take on the job of
creating and distributing all the Windows software in every category.
[color=blue]
>
> So, give away the OS (or make it ****ed cheap - like printers are now),
> and make your money on the apps and services provided to government
> agencies and businesses that run the free (or cheap as hell) OS.
>
> If Windows was free, Linux and Macs would fizzle out overnight (not that
> they're really cooking now).[/color]

We will find out. The day is coming when the OS will be free, because
the difference in quality and application support between Windows and
Linux will be insignificant.

Charlie