and you believe a financial <cough-marketing> report published by MS?
happy 1st birthday!

"Pietr'''' Phudpuckr" <PietrPhudpuckr@xxxxxx> wrote in
message news:C3898288-6979-44AE-8020-AF34A1EE972B@xxxxxx

> Isn't it strange as how the wackos that advocate for alternate operating
> systems are strangly quiet since the release of Microsoft's latest
> financial
> report!
>
> It is now a fact that everything they have been spouting for the past year
> is rubbish.
>

Hehe well, excuse me for mentioning it but MS software costs money,
Apple software costs money, Open Source and Linux cost nothing.

Since Vista costs more than previous versions but Linux still costs
nothing it seems to me to be a bit obvious that MS will take in more
money than previously and Linux will still take in nothing. Also, the
Game Halo probably contributed a lot, that has nothing really to do with
the OS sales.

So comparing the financial results of a profit Vs a non profit
organization is kinda stupid, isn't it?



john wrote:

> and you believe a financial <cough-marketing> report published by MS?
> happy 1st birthday!
>
> "Pietr'''' Phudpuckr" <PietrPhudpuckr@xxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:C3898288-6979-44AE-8020-AF34A1EE972B@xxxxxx

>> Isn't it strange as how the wackos that advocate for alternate operating
>> systems are strangly quiet since the release of Microsoft's latest
>> financial
>> report!
>>
>> It is now a fact that everything they have been spouting for the past year
>> is rubbish.
>>

>
>

Charlie;
"Vista costs more than previous versions"
I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows
XP.

Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
versions of Windows.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ov6XJbKGIHA.4684@xxxxxx

>
> Hehe well, excuse me for mentioning it but MS software costs money,
> Apple software costs money, Open Source and Linux cost nothing.
>
> Since Vista costs more than previous versions but Linux still costs
> nothing it seems to me to be a bit obvious that MS will take in more
> money than previously and Linux will still take in nothing. Also,
> the Game Halo probably contributed a lot, that has nothing really to
> do with the OS sales.
>
> So comparing the financial results of a profit Vs a non profit
> organization is kinda stupid, isn't it?

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Charlie;
> "Vista costs more than previous versions"
> I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
> Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
> Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
> Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows XP.
>
> Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
> Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
> versions of Windows.
>

I can agree to some extent in terms of "Value for money" if you take
"Inflation" into account, however I strongly suspect that the costs of
producing things like DVDs have actually come down in the sort of
quantities MS would be dealing with, so in terms of (say) $200 for a
physical item (DVD) I think we would see an increase in profit, though
you are correct that this can be argued...

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> Charlie;
> "Vista costs more than previous versions"
> I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
> Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
> Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
> Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows
> XP.
>
> Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
> Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
> versions of Windows.

Practically everything technology based has seen extraordinary
price drops over the last 15 years, while steadily increasing value
and performance. Hard drives, CPUs, monitors, peripheral devices,
routers, internet connections, CD prices, DVD prices, DVD burners,
DVD players, cell phones, flash drives, and really the whole computer
is cheaper and better. Everything but Windows has fallen in price.


-Michael

How about other operating systems and software?
How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
versions of a few years ago?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e4aHgIMGIHA.3360@xxxxxx

>* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

>> Charlie;
>> "Vista costs more than previous versions"
>> I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
>> Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP
>> Home.
>> Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
>> Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with
>> Windows
>> XP.
>>
>> Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
>> Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
>> versions of Windows.

>
> Practically everything technology based has seen extraordinary
> price drops over the last 15 years, while steadily increasing value
> and performance. Hard drives, CPUs, monitors, peripheral devices,
> routers, internet connections, CD prices, DVD prices, DVD burners,
> DVD players, cell phones, flash drives, and really the whole
> computer
> is cheaper and better. Everything but Windows has fallen in price.
>
>
> -Michael

MICHAEL wrote:

> * Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

>> Charlie;
>> "Vista costs more than previous versions"
>> I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
>> Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
>> Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
>> Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows
>> XP.
>>
>> Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
>> Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier
>> versions of Windows.

>
> Practically everything technology based has seen extraordinary
> price drops over the last 15 years, while steadily increasing value
> and performance. Hard drives, CPUs, monitors, peripheral devices,
> routers, internet connections, CD prices, DVD prices, DVD burners,
> DVD players, cell phones, flash drives, and really the whole computer
> is cheaper and better. Everything but Windows has fallen in price.
>
>
> -Michael

Well I was thinking along the lines of price of a Windows DVD Vs the
cost of making it more than anything else, so would think that over the
last release of the XP OS Microsoft would expect to see more "Profit" in
simplistic terms. In the case of OEM installs there's no cost at all
except paperwork.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> How about other operating systems and software?
> How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
> versions of a few years ago?
>

Linux is still the same

I think there's some ambiguity here however, we are talking "Microsoft"
which supplies all manner of things to a vast market Vs. "Other
Operating Systems" so comparisons are not direct.

I mean for example MS sell all manner of things that are not software or
even remotely OS related, Apple less so but still varied and one could
argue even less related, so there's no clear way for anyone to win this
debate, in fact it's largely a pointless debate.

My point was 1. Naturally MS make more profit than a non profit... and
profit / turnover can be misleading for many reasons, even without the
differences mentioned above. 2. That just because people are buying
something now does not mean it is any good. People "Buy" all kinds of
software, a lot of which is no good.

That is not to suggest I am claiming Vista or anything else is no good,
only that figures such as those quoted in the current debate don't
really mean a lot, one way or the other.

* Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> How about other operating systems and software?
> How are those prices of newer versions now compared to their older
> versions of a few years ago?

Well, there really isn't anything to compare the scale/install base
of Windows to... is there? Typically, high volume businesses find
a way to produce more/cut costs, increase value and lower prices-
unless there's some type of shortage or production supplies spike.
Of course, that assumes there's competition in the marketplace.
Even smaller companies that don't produce products in volume
will compete on price if there is competition... they generally have
to in order to survive. Microsoft may have to spend large amounts
on R&D and employees, but they have practically no other overhead
when it comes to their software products. Their actual manufacturing
costs for putting bits on a disk have more than likely plummeted over the years.
That's why they have one of the best profit margins of any company
in the world. As I have said before, they make more money than Wal-Mart
with a fraction of the sales that Wal-Mart has.


-Michael

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:%23NkX8AMGIHA.3548@xxxxxx

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>> Charlie;
>> "Vista costs more than previous versions"
>> I have not seen that when I have compared prices here.
>> Windows Home Premium is slightly more expensive than Windows XP Home.
>> Windows Vista Business is slightly less than Windows XP Pro.
>> Vista Home Basic and Vista Ultimate have no comparisons with Windows XP.
>>
>> Prices are about the same as when Windows 95 was released.
>> Take into account inflation, Windows Vista is cheaper than earlier versions of Windows.
>>

>
>
> I can agree to some extent in terms of "Value for money" if you take "Inflation" into account,
> however I strongly suspect that the costs of producing things like DVDs have actually come down in
> the sort of quantities MS would be dealing with, so in terms of (say) $200 for a physical item
> (DVD) I think we would see an increase in profit, though you are correct that this can be
> argued...

It is not the cost of the DVD, it is the cost of the development, the cost of doing business, the
product support, future research, etc. (including profit for the share holders.)