Vista is Leaked

[CoffeeFiend]

I think that will change. I'm certain that there is going to be enough pressure from users who are going to keep Windows XP that they won't have a choice to support DX10 for XP. Remember when they said they refused to change the Vista's no-tranferring of license clause in the EULA? After enough pressure, that changed. Same's gonna happen with DX10.

I don't think so:

-The licensing chance cost them 0$ to implement, and took 0 man-hours. And it will result in higher sales (less people not buying it because it can't be transferred) - and not from the home users only. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't. That was just a quick business decision, nothing more.

-Back porting DirectX 10 would require countless hours of many developers to release, even in some sort of degraded/XP-compatibility mode, and might even require back porting of other significant subsystem features. It could be VERY expensive and take a LOT of time. And then they'd be getting rid a selling point for Vista, costing them even more money. And the blame for DirectX is likely going to be directed at the game makers, for creating DirectX 10-only games/no DirectX 9 version or port. A major undertaking, costing them lots of money and developer time (a limited resource), to reduce their sales? I just can't see it ever happen.

Although I fully agree about the Windows pricing. Win XP pricing wasn't too bad, but the server licensing is WAY too pricey - especially for development/non-production boxes!

[Aegis]

I think crahak's just a little too overenthusiastic over Vista, but it's true that DX10 won't be ported back because it requires a new driver architecture.

[Spooky]

I agree that we probably will not see DX10 back ported to WinXP, or if it is it will probably be a long time before WinXP sees it.

[cluberti]

The problem is the outrageous pricing that Microsoft chooses for it's software. Last I heard, before WGA, 75% of all computers that were running XP had pirated copies. What's more revenue? 25% of installed copies at $250 or 100% of installed copies at $75?

There's no statute on what a software product can cost, nor what can be charged - if you feel the price is too high for Microsoft Windows Vista, then don't buy or use it. I guess people don't realize the kind of money that goes into a project like this, for man hours, equipment, testing, etc. even before a product is shipped, and then the additional costs for ongoing maintenance and support (those costs are mostly eaten by Microsoft, as support contracts don't cover even a fraction of those costs - that all gets tagged to the cost of product development as well). I guess people think it only takes a few dollars and man-hours to produce, when in fact many millions go into a project like this, regardless of the end product. Microsoft is in the business of software development to make a profit for it's shareholders and employees, not to be the cheapest or best software out there. If they are one or both, benefit, but ultimately it's the bottom line that counts. Therefore, they charge what they believe the market will bear, and no less. Profit is the ultimate motive, for almost any business venture.

If prices were more reasonable, there would be less piracy.

I sincerely disbelieve that line of thinking - If Microsoft charged $50 for Windows or Office, I sincerely doubt that would make even a minor dent in the amount of piracy for Windows and Office. Think this way: most music transferred online is done via P2P, and not legally purchased from any online store, but the cost of a legal download is at most a dollar or two per track or 12 - 15 dollars per disc. Music and software may be entirely different products, but the net outcome will likely be similar. As long as it (whatever "it" is) can be had for free, piracy is here to stay, regardless of cost.

[jcarle]

There's no statute on what a software product can cost, nor what can be charged - if you feel the price is too high for Microsoft Windows Vista, then don't buy or use it.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure that I won't be buying Vista for reasons other then the price.

I guess people don't realize the kind of money that goes into a project like this, for man hours, equipment, testing, etc. even before a product is shipped, and then the additional costs for ongoing maintenance and support (those costs are mostly eaten by Microsoft, as support contracts don't cover even a fraction of those costs - that all gets tagged to the cost of product development as well). I guess people think it only takes a few dollars and man-hours to produce, when in fact many millions go into a project like this, regardless of the end product. Microsoft is in the business of software development to make a profit for it's shareholders and employees, not to be the cheapest or best software out there. If they are one or both, benefit, but ultimately it's the bottom line that counts. Therefore, they charge what they believe the market will bear, and no less. Profit is the ultimate motive, for almost any business venture.

As I'm sure you know, I run my own software development and website development company. I'm well aware of the costs involved. When you know that a certain product is meant for a certain audience, you have to develop with the understanding of how much revenue you can expect. I wrote WUD which I support with the help of RJ66, it takes time and money, but I charge nothing because I know the audience would never pay for such a utility. Pricing should revolve around the same kind of thinking.

Seeing as an operating system is an essential part of a modern household, I have a hard time seeing it as a reasonable price when the cost of the operating system costs more then a majority portion of it's hardware.

If prices were more reasonable, there would be less piracy.

I sincerely disbelieve that line of thinking - If Microsoft charged $50 for Windows or Office, I sincerely doubt that would make even a minor dent in the amount of piracy for Windows and Office. Think this way: most music transferred online is done via P2P, and not legally purchased from any online store, but the cost of a legal download is at most a dollar or two per track or 12 - 15 dollars per disc. Music and software may be entirely different products, but the net outcome will likely be similar. As long as it (whatever "it" is) can be had for free, piracy is here to stay, regardless of cost.

Perhaps in a way, that holds true. Yet, things like WGA are incentives that tend to force people who pirate to buy legitimate copies. Although reducing the price of Vista wouldn't eliminate piracy, it would certainly help reduce it.

[fizban2]

They already got around the key issue, and the activation issue, in just a little over 24 hours after the leaked RTM hit the net its just that everyone doesn't have the 'fix' yet but they will. This is going to probably be one of the most pirated OS's in years. Its a shame really.

As far as the leaked copy of Vista, it's still pretty useless after 30 days without a key (although I'm sure someone will probably get around that soon enough). I guess people feel that since the internet is basically free, anything found on it should be as well, even though using any software package you didn't pay for (assuming it isn't open source) is akin to thievery. I won't get into flame wars about the cost of software, loss of revenue stated by companies due to software piracy, etc., but that's just my two cents.

the crack you are reffering to will not stay working long, since they are using beta 2 keys and the beta 2/RC architecture around those keys it will only be a short time before MS will read for those keys with WGA, it is simple to pick them out as vista RTM keys are totally different then RC2 beta 2 keys. the crack will work but no updates or WGA support (i know it works now but it won't stay working for long, to easy to close of the way people made it work)

[Stead]

i have to agree with if it cost less there would be less piracy.

...lets see

in my local pc shop i can get windows xp profesional for £90

media edition for £80

home for £60

vista prices from amazon (only place i know of)

vista... ultimate £325.00

home premium £224.99

home basic £184.99

does anyone see why people dislike how expensive vista is?

[Spooky]

Nah, i'm not talking about the one that became public. Theres another one on the horizon that doesn't need a key or activation. Once it gets around theres really nothing MS can do because theres nothing for MS to control, they can't turn it of by refusing activation.

They already got around the key issue, and the activation issue, in just a little over 24 hours after the leaked RTM hit the net its just that everyone doesn't have the 'fix' yet but they will. This is going to probably be one of the most pirated OS's in years. Its a shame really.

As far as the leaked copy of Vista, it's still pretty useless after 30 days without a key (although I'm sure someone will probably get around that soon enough). I guess people feel that since the internet is basically free, anything found on it should be as well, even though using any software package you didn't pay for (assuming it isn't open source) is akin to thievery. I won't get into flame wars about the cost of software, loss of revenue stated by companies due to software piracy, etc., but that's just my two cents.

the crack you are reffering to will not stay working long, since they are using beta 2 keys and the beta 2/RC architecture around those keys it will only be a short time before MS will read for those keys with WGA, it is simple to pick them out as vista RTM keys are totally different then RC2 beta 2 keys. the crack will work but no updates or WGA support (i know it works now but it won't stay working for long, to easy to close of the way people made it work)

[Sn4k36]

Could i also say that office 2007 RTM got leaked today....

[EchoNoise]

[deleted]

Edited September 29, 2022 by EchoNoise

[cluberti]

The key algorithm was changed for RTM, so I can assure you they won't work with WGA without any checking the actual keys involved - they won't validate against the algorithm as they are pre-RTM keys.

Pricing should revolve around the same kind of thinking.

Tell that to your shareholders... won't fly.

Seeing as an operating system is an essential part of a modern household, I have a hard time seeing it as a reasonable price when the cost of the operating system costs more then a majority portion of it's hardware.

That I can somewhat agree with, but developing Windows costs many, many millions of dollars, and since Microsoft is a for-profit company, ROI is important. If that means Vista retails for over a certain price and people and companies (and OEM vendors) will buy it, that is what will be charged. It's just a fact of economics - if people wouldn't pay that, it wouldn't be able to be charged and still leave a company in business; the development would be too expensive in the long term. I don't see this changing any time soon, though, even though Office is the cash cow, not Windows.

[Jeremy]

6.95 GB (7,472,820,484 bytes)

37,531 Files (6,627 Folders)

[jcarle]

... developing Windows costs many, many millions of dollars, and since Microsoft is a for-profit company, ROI is important. If that means Vista retails for over a certain price and people and companies (and OEM vendors) will buy it, that is what will be charged ...

Sure, but what's the return on investment of few people buying it? I'm sure Vista will eventually become the dominant OS on the market, but mostly due to OEM inclusions and piracy. I honestly think the percentage of people that currently have Windows XP and will buy Vista is very small.

6.95 GB (7,472,820,484 bytes)

37,531 Files (6,627 Folders)

Umm... what?

[Tasslehoff]

6.95 GB (7,472,820,484 bytes)

37,531 Files (6,627 Folders)

Umm... what?

That'd be the windows folder size on a fresh install probably. The RC1 is about 6.39GB if I remember correctly in which I quickly deleted in my vmware test.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Tasslehoff

[Jeremy]

Yes, I figured it would have been obvious, but yeah.