Vista gonna be a contender?

[gryphon]

to be honest I barely gazed over the news report. Was to busy and bored to give any attention to the jumping monke. . wait. Mister Ballmer. :)

Don't get me wrong, my opinion about Microsoft as a company has not changed. Nor do I think Vista is as bad as most internet site want to make you believe.

Then again. I didn't switch to OSX and claimed never to use Vista myself for a reason. :)

I do have a desktop PC with Vista, and the virtual machine on my Apple is still using Windows XP.

[Andrew]

DRM sucks redux: Microsoft to nuke MSN Music DRM keys

So MS was selling music to people that contained drm. In order to play the music people needed to get a license from MS to play it on up to 5 computers.

MS is shutting down these license key servers. So if you bought this music, you will not be able to play them in the future on a new computer or if you format your old computer (or somehow screw up your licence key install).

More proof DRM is bad for consumers. I kinda hope this means MS is abandoning all DRM, but unlikely. It's probably just not profitable in this case to keep those servers running. They already got the money from people who bought the music, so why bother supporting them?

Yet another example of a corporation in control of your information/data that you paid for. Almost like with windows if MS finds your winkey to be incorrect they somewhat disable your OS until a good key is input.

I plan on switching to openoffice spreadsheet odf for my large spreadsheets from excel. This way I know it will run on any platform/OS, and not have to worry about purchasing software to view/edit my data in the future. I hope it works.

I remember I have corel office data from 5-6 years ago that is difficult to view since I don't have that software anymore.

[Andrew]

Bill Gates on Pharmaceuticals: The System Isn't Working

Open source, he said, creates a license "so that nobody can ever improve the software," he claimed

That quote there I literally laughed out loud.

I can't think of one piece of open source software that has ever been improved...

In fact, does anyone know of any popular open source software that people actually use? ::)

[gryphon]

to rephrase that.

How many people use open source software for the fact that the source code is open, and then make use of their access to the source code of the application. Put that in respect to the number of people who are using open source software only because it is free software and who would use any type of free software regardless if they provide the source code on request.

And altough badly quoted from his speech. I do agree with it. Open Source programmers have to make money to buy donuts to. That money has to come from somewhere. And in that source for money, each company chooses it's own way how they charge the customer (or some one else) for it.

[Andrew]

If Mozilla can make $70,000,000 revenue a year from a web browser they give away for free (and opensource), then I'm sure some obscure piece of software can make enough as a side project for a single person to work on (donations, web ads, support, etc). And yes not all small guys make it, but then not all for profit closed source companies make it either (in software industry it seems they all want to be bought out anyways).

For example a microsoft employee that makes opensource paint.net makes $3500 a month in advertising on the website. That's not bad for a single person a month and they already have a full time job doing something else. Now if he died tomorrow or decided to stop improving it, someone could take the source code and continue improving it if they wanted.

Why have 100,000 people employed to make software that 1000 employed people can make and give away for free and opensource? That's inefficient with resources in the marketplace.

Canonical that makes ubuntu, only has 130 employees. That's a pretty good amount of workers to put together software to form an OS and release it freely and opensource to everyone and have around 10 million users.

Like I pointed out in the ubuntu thread, Brazil is going to use linux/opensource for its education system (for 40 million students, 30k computer labs). No need to purchase software. Sure they'll have to hire many people to administer the products, but they'd be paying them if they paid for the software as well. And they can always purchase support if they want (which is how opensource/freeware seems to make its money).

How many people use open source software for the fact that the source code is open, and then make use of their access to the source code of the application. Put that in respect to the number of people who are using open source software only because it is free software and who would use any type of free software regardless if they provide the source code on request.

I'm not sure if I am going to use a correct example here, but here it goes.

There was XMMS player that was a winamp clone that was opensource in 1997. It stopped development, then some other people made Beep Media Player (BMP) from the source. Then BMP development stopped and other people made Audacious (currently being developed/improved), and several other versions that eventually all originated in some way from original XMMS.

Am I using audacious on my ubuntu install solely because it is opensource? Nope not really. It is a good winamp clone that works for me. I couldn't care less about the source code since I am not a programmer. But if XMMS was not opensource when developed, then I doubt Audacious would be what it is now, and I would not be using it.

This is an example of how bill gates was wrong in the quote. A program was opensource and people improved upon the source code (whether they were paid or not is irrelevant, the fact remains the code was improved and released). Which is obviously always happening with tens of thousands of opensource software (whether it is 100 lines of code, or 100,000).

And altough badly quoted from his speech. I do agree with it. Open Source programmers have to make money to buy donuts to. That money has to come from somewhere. And in that source for money, each company chooses it's own way how they charge the customer (or some one else) for it.

As I pointed out, I agree. Developers need money from somewhere to live. Opensource obviously works, otherwise no one would be working on any opensource apps, no one would be using opensource apps, and we would not be having this discussion.

[gryphon]

Think you have missed my point Andrew. Or just gave your point of view on it in retrospect to mine. :)

Each company can decide for itself how they want to license their products. Microsoft for one offers their SQL server and developer tools for free to any one who wants to use them. If you desire the professional editions you have to pay up for it. Don't criticise on the company for trying to proffit from every piece of code they produce. I doubt the evil license angry Microsoft analogy holds up anymore.

Ubunto is doing a great job on their OS (no really, I don't use or want to us it myself but that's another topic). Yet still that company did not make the Linux kernel they are using to create their OS. As far as I know most kernel programmers for Linux/UNIX are still on the payroll of companies like IBM and Novell or still at school. Even Linus himself has partially become commercial. The Open source community can not just be categorised into corporations who have a certain product. Ubunto does a great job in marketing an OS. Although the kernel (Linux), the GUI and even the packaging system is not strictly created by them. If takes a lot more people to make all that. (read along for the MS version of that)

I think OpenSource works depending on the need for it. The field I am working in will never even consider Open Source (at this time) due to the fact their software is open to anyone who needs it. You can customize it although let's be honest. If you can find an exploit in the original version, chances are it will work in the modified version.

And the Open Source of Microsoft. .. people argue all they want about it. Although basically it's just hogwash (always wanted to use that :) ). Their network stack comes from UNIX, LDAP and RPC has been borrowed from Novell and currently Citrix. And for the rest it's a combination of UML and BASIC which has been adapted over the years. (remember me to remove this when I have to retake my MCSE exams). Those things are documented more that the discussion of Microsoft and OpenSource] all together.

I still am a big supporter of Novell. Who is combining Open Source software with their own products. So is SUN at this time (there go my two favorite companies for the moment :) ). Both have a very detailed knowledge base. Microsoft has been opening up theirs a few years back. Mostly due to RedHat and the EU. Then again. Both Sun and Novell have not yet released all their sources. And probably never will. Which is not all that bad. It shows that a combination of open source and closed source software, combined with free software and payed versions is a very powerfull combination. Just keep in mind that the paying customers for MS are not the home users. It are the corporations who are really paying for the stuff. And they benefit a lot more from Microsoft keeping their software closed.

( On the EU part. Non of the European governments have switched from their closed source IBM mainframes, MS or (trusted)Solaris setups to Linux yet due to management restrictions )

This sounds familiar from a topic in the General Discussions boards we had ones. About IP and the authors rights. If some one wants it's software to released under certain conditions. Please respect those conditions, either being free, payed, closed or open source.

The rest (including parts of Bill's speech) are just hollow and empty marketing terms to me. :)

(besides your XMMS example, Netscape would have been a good one to :) )

This is an example of how bill gates was wrong in the quote. A program was opensource and people improved upon the source code (whether they were paid or not is irrelevant, the fact remains the code was improved and released). Which is obviously always happening with tens of thousands of opensource software (whether it is 100 lines of code, or 100,000).

I think the quote from Mr. Gates has been torn out of context as so many times is done to strengthen your own vision or to get more readers. The example he gave makes perfect sence on what he meant by that. And if you have set in enough boardroom meetings you notice that the examples people give with their statements, often have nothing to do with each other. Communication or the means to relay your point is still a hard skill to master. Abusing it to entertain your readers on the other hand is a lot easy-er. Just as the obviously always happening part in your piece (no harm, just to make my point I hope :)). It's not that obvious and hardly always happening. Yet using those terms does relay your point better, or maybe easy-er to others.

[Andrew]

Thanks for a good reply :)

Ubuntu is not creating any software that I know of (probably a couple small things), they are just doing a good job packaging it all together and putting a brand on it, like you said.

I was actually going to point out netscape->mozilla (I had it typed out), but then it seemed a bit out of place in my post so I removed it before posting.

Another example I just thought of was staroffice->openoffice. According to wikipedia, they incorporate the improved opensource into the paid version of staroffice. So opensource is good for opensource parts of staroffice (thus staroffice is better overall because of opensource, even if part of it is closed source).

"There's free software and then there

[gryphon]

My take on what he ment to say.

(a little bit biased as I am a Microsoft fan I suppose)

Just like Apple, controlling the hardware, OS and the software for the whole platform. Microsoft only wants to bring out software which is produced and controlled by it's own programmers. Customers must always have the certainty that the software in their possession originates at Microsoft. No where else. Changing the Windows OS to an open source project makes that extremely difficult to uphold.

And if you are good enough programming for the Windows platform from your own home. Microsoft will notice and offer you the option to do it officially. (paint.net and winguides are nice examples for that)

The MSN protocol..

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/aug99/protocolpr.mspx

It's not always open to the general public. Then again you didn't think ActiveSync and the Evolution Outlook connector are reverse engineered or found by change ;)

Personally I like it that way. Developers can access the documentation or get access to the protocols they need. Although not the general public and every programmer at home. You can start with the free stuff and work your way up. That way you can controle and guide young programmers into the right path. PHP for example is a nice language. Then again the amount of crap found with beginning PHP programmers almost outweights the amount of free porn on the Internet.

Relate that to Microsoft, they want a professional corporate attitude. And in their point of view, keeping parts of their software closed sourced is the way to achieve that.

Combine that with the notion that programmers need to eat. Microsoft offers their employees the certainty that their work is always payed for. We think that the work we do is important and has to be payed for. And who can blame them. They created software 80% of the worlds home users are using and is vital to almost any company.

[Andrew]

I'm too tired to look into this much but it looks like Vista DRM is successful at preventing people from recording NBC television. XP does not have this problem.

NBC Activates Broadcast Flag - links to slashdot.

[Megashrap]

Just out of curiosity, what would I gain by upgrading from XP Home Edition with SP3 to Vista home edition? Features etc.I did the PC check for vista and it gave me this;  System details:

No issues were detected for these system components

The following table contains system components that meet the minimum hardware requirements needed for Windows Vista. Category Action Required Explanation

CPU No action required Your computer's CPU is AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+

System memory (RAM) No action required Your computer has 2.00 GB of RAM.

DVD drive No action required Your computer can read DVDs.

Your computer can run Windows Vista

Based on our scan of your system, Windows Vista Home Basic appears to be the best edition

[Andrew]

Well, most people refer others to Features new to Windows Vista (wiki).

But if you're happy with XP, and unless for some reason there is actually a specific necessary reason to upgrade (most gamers state directx 10, even though it is currently not a lot better than dx9, they simply disable stuff in dx9 with games to make it look better in dx10), I'd keep using XP until you purchase a new computer. I plan on keeping XP on mine since there is no way I'm purchasing windows.

You can always try it on someone elses computer that has it already

What is your video card?

Some people hate vista (myself included), others find nothing wrong with it. The people who find nothing wrong with it usually have nice computers. It is definitely a bad OS for lower end computers as I've seen on 2 laptops and 1 tower it ran slower than windows XP. The fact that Microsoft cared more about Intels quarterly earnings than caring about its users makes me not want to use it (intel 910 can not use aero graphics, and intel 945 runs it slowly).

And Bill gates himself said the next version of windows is coming out in 2 years...

[D2k Sardaukar]

I'd keep using XP until you purchase a new computer.

And Bill gates himself said the next version of windows is coming out in 2 years...

That's what I will do, buy a fast new PC with Windows Vista around 1,5 month from now and it will be for games and multi-media stuff. When after 2 years the new windows is out, it will also take another year before the bugs are out and most drivers are working and perhaps than I will get the new windows, but that is of course if Windows can keep the 2 year planning up.

[Andrew]

A number of companies are opting not to embrace Redmond's latest operating system and, like GM, are waiting for Windows 7 instead

Vista taxes all but the most modern PCs with hefty processing and memory requirements. Many of GM's PCs can't even run the system. "By the time we'd replace them, Windows 7 might be ready anyway," Killeen says.

That is why MS announced next version in 2 years. Because companies don't want to upgrade to vista (because in some peoples opinions it sucks, and companies take a long time to upgrade their systems). And Microsoft doesn't want anyone to think about switching to linux or mac. So MS has to put out a new OS soon before companies start jumping ship.

I'd expect linux and mac to easily surpass vistas quality/usability etc in 2 years if they have not already.

Why update to vista if you need new hardware to accomplish the same tasks that the old hardware and OS could do? Spending money for no reason. Will windows 7 be optimized to use less memory and processing power than vista? Will it be scalable that it can run on EeePC? Currently Microsoft is making deals with OLPC and EeePC to put XP on them. That shows how good vista is when they are making arrangements to put 8 year old XP on new computers (which were originally going to be linux only). And these portable laptops easily run up to date linux distros.

MS cares about profits, not consumers.

[gryphon]

I'd expect linux and mac to easily surpass vistas quality/usability etc in 2 years if they have not already.

That's what I hoped for 3 years back.. . until now most distro's aren't really trying to take over the corporate market if you ask me. (few pioneering ones excepted of course). Their failure lies in trying to make Linux apply to home users as an Windows alternative. Not the focus on what a corporation needs in respect to it's employee's and policies.

[D2k Sardaukar]

Okay, you got me, I just like the new looks of Vista the most. :)

You can of course wait for the best solution in the future, but then you will wait forever, there is always something better tomorrow in the computer world.

I have been working with this PC for a long time and getting sick of the same looks and slow specifications, so I love to have a faster PC with a nice new look from Vista (which has as "bonus" better safety, longer support and newer DirectX).

[Megashrap]

What is your video card?

Geforce 8400GS/256 PCI-E16 direct-x 10 compatable.

Yea I think I will be keeping my XP for a while anyway because a.)I've never had a single problem with XP Home Edition yet that couldn't be figured out relativly easy.B.)I just installed the SP3 last night and want to see how it works out.I was just kinda shocked at the 1 gig of memory req. for just the damn Vista Home OS version. I've seen it on other peoples pc's and from what I gathered it was just a nice fluffier looking xp for the most part.Maybe that's just me though.  :-

[GhostHunter]

Geforce 8400GS/256 PCI-E16 direct-x 10 compatable.

Yea I think I will be keeping my XP for a while anyway because a.)I've never had a single problem with XP Home Edition yet that couldn't be figured out relativly easy.B.)I just installed the SP3 last night and want to see how it works out.I was just kinda shocked at the 1 gig of memory req. for just the damn Vista Home OS version. I've seen it on other peoples pc's and from what I gathered it was just a nice fluffier looking xp for the most part.Maybe that's just me though.  :-

Way more than that.

I had two HDDs. I had XP Professional on one, and I installed Vista Ultimate 64-bit on the other.

Vista is by far the better OS.

You need better hardware. Cry me a river. XP is what, 6, 7 years old now? That and the fact the PC industry was stagnating on 1GB of RAM being the standard for TWO YEARS before Vista came out. Give me a break.

Vista is smarter. It finds drivers automatically. Whenever you tried to use the "search for driver automatically" feature in XP you knew you were desperate because the end result was always the same: XP never found the driver unless you force installed it or referenced the disk or .exe itself, in which case automatically searching for it was kinda pointless..

It's also more idiot proof. I have had NO issue with Vista since I've started using it. Not one. Hell, I went to defrag the other night? Vista automatically does it.

Want to back-up your files automatically to some external drive or some other partition? Vista has a built-in program that easily handles that.

Did I mention it's a hell of a lot more stable than XP ever was? When or IF anything ever crashes Vista has the ability to isolate the issue, meaning that the one service/application closes, where as XP very commonly it turned into a chain effect where everything thereafter was fucked.

Looks better too. Aero makes everything look a helluva a lot nicer. Plus I've actually taken advantage of how you can simply scroll over the name of a minimized object and see what the app is doing several times.

Plus the smart search integration of search/run is exceptionally good and remarkably intelligent and agile.

Also, by default Home Premium comes with Media Center built directly into it; Ultimate does as a combination of Premium and Ultimate. That means DVD playback, along with a easy-to-use built-in application to watch TV through a tuner. No hassle there. On XP that would be all done through external programs, some which you'd need to buy, unless you had 03/05 Media Center Edition which was merely a testing ground for Vista, and was never sold by itself, rather just packaged w. pre-built units.

Oh, also it's a LOT more secure than XP ever was. There's still viruses. There's still spyware. But Vista by a long shot closes several back doors that XP was vulnerable too, SP3 installed or not.

With a OEM version installed and the right hardware Vista is faster than XP as well. Again, need the right hardware.

If you were going Vista, get Premium if not Ultimate, though. Basic is worthless.

[Megashrap]

Well I'm set on hardware other than buying a few more gig sticks of memory. Hell I just upgraded it. As for the OS, well I will be getting one sooner than expected thanks to my XP disc blowing into a million pieces and ruining my damn DVD RW. When I called tonight for a replacement disc. MS said it would be 30 bucks plus S&H. SCREW that!!! I told them that was way out of my price range for a replacement cd. I bet MS uses quarter toll machines on their employee bathroom stalls. I mean calling them to solve any type of a problem involves digging for your CC.For 30 bucks i'll replace my damn DVD-RW first,hopefully a SATA one at that from Newegg. Damn, I can't live without my DVD's and burning.

[Andrew]

A friend just bought a mac laptop and said they would never go back to windows. She said everything was so easy to use, and the programs that came with it were good (aka do what she wanted easily).

I had two HDDs. I had XP Professional on one, and I installed Vista Ultimate 64-bit on the other.

Vista is by far the better OS.

You need better hardware. Cry me a river. XP is what, 6, 7 years old now? That and the fact the PC industry was stagnating on 1GB of RAM being the standard for TWO YEARS before Vista came out. Give me a break.

True XP is old as hell, but it still works. You are correct when you say you need the correct hardware. If I put vista on my current computer it would be slower than XP. So by the time I buy a new computer the new "cheap" computer should be able to run it.

Vista is smarter. It finds drivers automatically. Whenever you tried to use the "search for driver automatically" feature in XP you knew you were desperate because the end result was always the same: XP never found the driver unless you force installed it or referenced the disk or .exe itself, in which case automatically searching for it was kinda pointless..

That is very true. I have a driver popup every time I start my computer. It never finds the driver and I have no idea what it is looking for. I made a thread about it with no help. Only solution is to format/install and try to figure it out, but windows comes with so much crapware that I forget about it when I'm uninstalling all the bad software.

It's also more idiot proof. I have had NO issue with Vista since I've started using it. Not one. Hell, I went to defrag the other night? Vista automatically does it.

That is true as well. Although someone commented that there is no progress bar when manually defragging, how stupid is that? Also ext3 does not fragment, so windows is still behind (maybe if they didn't ditch their new filesystem that was supposed to come with vista).

Did I mention it's a hell of a lot more stable than XP ever was? When or IF anything ever crashes Vista has the ability to isolate the issue, meaning that the one service/application closes, where as XP very commonly it turned into a chain effect where everything thereafter was fucked.

I'm sure it is more stable, but sadly for me when I saw it on two laptops and a tower it was unstable. Within an hour or two of unpacking a laptop whenever I opened control panel it would crash. Of course this was after I uninstalled all the crapware that came with it. I'd still blame windows since they let companies install the crapware to their OS when shipping.

Looks better too. Aero makes everything look a helluva a lot nicer. Plus I've actually taken advantage of how you can simply scroll over the name of a minimized object and see what the app is doing several times.

Yep does look better. And I'd hope so because it is 7 years newer. Although compiz is still better looking and uses less resources.

Also, by default Home Premium comes with Media Center built directly into it; Ultimate does as a combination of Premium and Ultimate. That means DVD playback, along with a easy-to-use built-in application to watch TV through a tuner. No hassle there. On XP that would be all done through external programs, some which you'd need to buy, unless you had 03/05 Media Center Edition which was merely a testing ground for Vista, and was never sold by itself, rather just packaged w. pre-built units.

I still think they should sell 2 versions of windows at most. Business and Home. Then they wouldn't have to screw around supporting all these different versions and people not knowing which one to get.

Oh, also it's a LOT more secure than XP ever was. There's still viruses. There's still spyware. But Vista by a long shot closes several back doors that XP was vulnerable too, SP3 installed or not.

True :)

If you were going Vista, get Premium if not Ultimate, though. Basic is worthless.

Kinda like microsoft works?

[gryphon]

A friend just bought a mac laptop and said they would never go back to windows. She said everything was so easy to use, and the programs that came with it were good (aka do what she wanted easily).

From my perspective, it's now about 2 months that I own a MacBook for my personal use. First thing I did was buy more memory for it, downloaded Opera, got a copy of Microsoft Office 2008 and a license for vmWare Fusion (yes to run WindowsXP, unity mode is truly nice. A shame it is used to overcome a lack of features in the host OS. In my case specific management software and Novell stuff.)

Next to that I have picked up a couple of free applications for maintenance tasks.

For now I like working on a Mac almost 14x7. Just don't get any illusions. Their is no such thing as single-file-applications. Mac's have a nice candy for you just as often as Windows hangs and simplicity / easy-in-use is easy mistaken for a system lacking basic editing and personalisation options. Did I mention iCal can only handle one calender type. The option to store business, personal and leasure calenders in one calender file is a privilege Outlook has had for a couple of years now.

(sounds unimportant.. . try synchronizing 4 years of calender history into one calender and try to find a business meeting from last year.)

After a couple of tweaks you get it working in a mixed Windows / UNIX / Novell environment. it's just that until this day I don't get why Adobe's CS suite has to be the only option when it comes to web design on a Mac. If any one knows a better application for that please let me know cause for now I am stuck with Netbeans. It's not bad and yes I do own a copy of CS3. It's just crazy no decent webdevelopment software exists for OSX.

(or maybe I am to picky on the software I want :P)

[Andrew]

That friend I've been talking about for months that had a low end computer come with vista (vista capable intel 945)? He finally put XP on it and he says it runs nice and fast now. He had turned off all the aero stuff and it ran a bit faster, but still not much faster than his 4 year old computer that he replaced. I guess XP is 7 years old so it should run faster, but I hate the fact that companies are selling vista with low end computers that would clearly run better with XP. They enjoy doing this because it means people will most likely get fed up with their slow computer and buy another one sooner than later.

According to this, Vista only has 15% market share. Which is kinda scary considering Mac has 7% market share and windows is going down, and apple/linux is going up.

On the same website it says firefox has 18% marketshare. woot. Hurry up and release 3.0! Also according to that website it turns out Apples checkmarking safari to install every time there is an update to other apple software has been a success.

[Andrew]

Windows XP To Windows 7 A Risky Path, Microsoft Warns

By golly MS is correct. Businesses should upgrade to vista asap and once windows 7 is released in one or two years then upgrade to that. And once the new version of office is released they should upgrade to that as well. Who cares if the current computer hardware and OS work fine, businesses need to go out and buy new hardware and OS because it will save them money! ::)

/drunk

[Andrew]

Microsoft Pledges Windows XP Support Through 2014

I hope this is true.

People are willing to pay for your product. Please continue selling it. All they have to do is have some support staff, and developers to continue to fix security threats. They already spent all the R&D and advertising etc way back when it was released.

Of course they want to get rid of it so they can make money with their new product they spent lots of time and $ on.

They have to keep XP around to run on those ultra portable laptops (two new Asus EeePC being released soon with xp, can't let linux only run on them) since vista can not run on them (surprise!).

EDIT:

Microsoft VP confirms Windows 7 ship date: January 2010

So in 1.5 years a new windows version will be released. I doubt many corporate places will switch to vista now. Although vista should be better by then and we will go through the same crap with win7 as with vista.

EDIT:

Intel says 'no' to Windows Vista

Windows Vista is not for Intel, it has been claimed. The chip giant will not be installing the new operating systems on its many thousands of desktop PCs. It has "no compelling case" to do so.

Too bad for Intel. They are missing out on the "wow". As in "Wow I paid how much for an OS and had to upgrade my hardware to do the same thing I was doing before?"

[Andrew]

Microsoft Tries Annual Fee in New Office Bundle

The package includes Office Home and Student 2007 -- which typically retails for $149.95 -- as well as a subscription to the company's OneCare malware protection service, which by itself costs $49.95 per year.

Wait so MS is selling protection against viruses and malware because it's operating system is not secure? Maybe if they had a secure OS they would not need to do this. I guess it is more profitable to have an unsecure OS that people pay for, then sell the same customers software to attempt to secure their OS.

"It looks like they are trying to spur adoption of OneCare by bundling it with Office," Rosoff said. "I can get a security product from someone like Symantec for $80 per year or I can get it with Office."

People pay $80 per year for symantec!?

I know someone who was paying $25 per year for mcafee until I showed him AVG free. One less drone spending money on crap they don't and shouldn't need. I remember being in a store (futureshop) and people were looking at antivirus software and talking/deciding about which one was better to get. I should have spoke up about the free versions...

EDIT:

hmm looks like AVG is in trouble for its new malware scanner clicking on links when browsing the web thus giving false info to webmasters. Meh, I'm still using clamwin.

[gryphon]

Microsoft Tries Annual Fee in New Office Bundle

Wait so MS is selling protection against viruses and malware because it's operating system is not secure? Maybe if they had a secure OS they would not need to do this. I guess it is more profitable to have an unsecure OS that people pay for, then sell the same customers software to attempt to secure their OS.

Microsoft does it because they are a retailer. They sell you stuff. They sell it because people buy it. Never wonder why so many people by extended hardware warranty with Apple or Dell. (please don't start a topic about Dell not trusting it's own hardware because they offer extended hardware support, why should you need that with good hardware..)

They sell it because there is a market for it. And they run a company to make money. Simple as that. If an OS would be immune to viri and the customer was unaware of that they'd still offer you a subscription or Symantec of AVG. Because they can and because all those paranoid people on the net click anything they see. You need AV software and they need the momey.

People pay $80 per year for symantec!?

You know companies need to buy AVG for 50 Euro a workstation. Making it more expensive then Symantec.