It is very sad that Microsoft builds an Operating System Like XP or
Vista and Windows 7 and support it for only three years. They should well
call their selves crocks. People should not have to pay for their inflated
operating systems as they keep raising the prices when they release a new
system. Look Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 1 was $199.99 at Best Buy
in 2005 full version when I bought it and Windows Vista Home Premium Service
Pack 1 $239.99 on the present Best Buy Web Site. So you all tell me why they
should be allowed to tell people if you want a secure operating system you
have to keep buying their inflated software and why their prices keep going
up each time they release it. People should be able to by a computer and use
it for many years as long as they want. Very sad Microsoft is they way they
are and that is part of the reason they lost a lot of money. And by the way
the patent office rejected Microsoft's pay as you go patent computing patent
because very hard to patent something that has been around for years and for
other reasons.
"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u3r305163llr46um72h7pir6oa7rs39lfd@xxxxxx
Quote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 15:42:06 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> Quote:
>>
>>
>>"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:egl305dincroe26vclt1rb2tb9qm2191j2@xxxxxx Quote:
>>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n@xxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>>>secondary at best, IMHO.
>>>><H>.
>>>
>>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>>> interests are satisfied.
>>>
>>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>
>>That is not an implication but an indication with all the proof at hand. >
> No. You have chosen the info you call "proof" and have made your
> implications based on that selection. Might make you feel good, but
> it's bad practice.
> Quote:
>>Surely there have to be considerations, but they are clearly not primary,
>>that is my contention, or we wouldn't have these overwhelming problems.
>
> Your contention is wrong. You are clearly looking at matters from a
> jaundiced viewpoint. I'll leave it at that.
>
> I'm outta here.