The REAL cost of Vista = $21.100

Vista OS = $350
New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster = $1500
Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching for
drivers = $200
New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with vista=
$500
Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make a mess
out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like= $150
Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand WTF
Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than her, Cost
of Divorce = $ 10.000
Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible fonts
and colors on the vista screen = $2000
Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems with vista
= $2000
Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista = $500
Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to slugginess
slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots like Frank,
Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100

Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
and a New copy of windows XP of course $250

Total Cost of Vista = $21.100

It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!

See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html

Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!

so dont buy it and stop whinning

More propaganda

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...inux-microsoft

Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for
businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle.

When asked by Gartner about Microsoft's intensifying battle against the open
source operating system, European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois claimed
that Linux is in fact more expensive to run than Windows.

Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for
governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he said.

Courtois claimed that Microsoft has been tracking the total cost of
ownership (TCO) in 12 organisations across a range of business sectors, and
that in 95 per cent of cases the "TCO was better on the Windows platform".

Licensing costs account for just five per cent of the total cost of an
operating system, he said, and those plumping for Microsoft have an easier
life in terms of application integration both internally and with external
business partners.

But Courtois was challenged by Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's president of
research in Europe.

He argued that the perception among chief information officers is that Linux
and open source software is more cost-effective than Windows and Microsoft's
Office applications.

"I do expect that some of your clients are looking for a response on
licensing or more flexibility in the packaging," he said.

Courtois replied: "As soon as you start digging down you go beyond
licensing. It's not that we are perfect with licensing; we need to make it
simpler. But it's about the end-to-end environment."

He claimed that, with such a rich diversity of software applications and
hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter
integration by using Windows.

However, there is growing interest in Linux in the public sector. Last
month, West Yorkshire police took delivery of Linux desktops as part of a
trial for the operating system for English and Welsh forces.

And the European Commission handed open source advocate Netproject a
?250,000 (£160,000) contract to conduct a feasibility study into running the
operating system in government departments.



"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46dc439f$...
> Vista OS = $350
> New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster = $1500
> Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching for
> drivers = $200
> New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with vista=
> $500
> Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make a
> mess out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like= $150
> Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand WTF
> Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
> Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than her, Cost
> of Divorce = $ 10.000
> Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible fonts
> and colors on the vista screen = $2000
> Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems with
> vista = $2000
> Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
> incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
> Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista = $500
> Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to
> slugginess slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
> Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots like
> Frank, Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100
>
> Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
> and a New copy of windows XP of course $250
>
> Total Cost of Vista = $21.100
>
> It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!
>
> See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html
>
> Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!
>
>

This entire post is pure fiction and in jest.
"Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than
her..."
If that happens, Windows Vista, or any other outside thing is not the
cause.
A bad relationship was there to begin with an Windows Vista is not
responsible.
However some always want to find blame for their own shortcomings and
Windows Vista has been a common excuse for many failures.

As for the new computer, not necessary for many.
Windows Vista installed and works fine on my older laptop and Desktop.
Other than additional memory, the newest component between the 2 is a
two year old video card.
No Aero in the laptop, but other than that, all is well.

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


"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46dc439f$...
> Vista OS = $350
> New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster =
> $1500
> Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching
> for drivers = $200
> New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with
> vista= $500
> Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make
> a mess out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like=
> $150
> Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand
> WTF Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
> Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than
> her, Cost of Divorce = $ 10.000
> Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible
> fonts and colors on the vista screen = $2000
> Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems
> with vista = $2000
> Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
> incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
> Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista =
> $500
> Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to
> slugginess slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
> Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots
> like Frank, Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100
>
> Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
> and a New copy of windows XP of course $250
>
> Total Cost of Vista = $21.100
>
> It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!
>
> See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html
>
> Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!
>
>

What sort of currency is expressed to the nearest thousanths?

vista terminal ator wrote:
> Vista OS = $350
> New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster = $1500
> Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching for
> drivers = $200
> New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with vista=
> $500
> Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make a mess
> out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like= $150
> Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand WTF
> Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
> Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than her, Cost
> of Divorce = $ 10.000
> Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible fonts
> and colors on the vista screen = $2000
> Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems with vista
> = $2000
> Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
> incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
> Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista = $500
> Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to slugginess
> slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
> Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots like Frank,
> Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100
>
> Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
> and a New copy of windows XP of course $250
>
> Total Cost of Vista = $21.100
>
> It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!
>
> See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html
>
> Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!
>
>


B-b-b-b-but Linux is a no hope OS and no competition at all, why did MS
even bother to study this?

And why put in the bit that only mentions the cost of developing certain
apps? Certain apps?

Not wishing to state the obvious but doesn't developer experience have
ant bearing on this?

If you price Windows and price Lexus, you will find Windows Cheaper every
time.


"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> More propaganda
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...inux-microsoft
>
> Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for
> businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle.
>
> When asked by Gartner about Microsoft's intensifying battle against the
> open source operating system, European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois
> claimed that Linux is in fact more expensive to run than Windows.
>
> Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for
> governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he said.
>
> Courtois claimed that Microsoft has been tracking the total cost of
> ownership (TCO) in 12 organisations across a range of business sectors,
> and that in 95 per cent of cases the "TCO was better on the Windows
> platform".
>
> Licensing costs account for just five per cent of the total cost of an
> operating system, he said, and those plumping for Microsoft have an easier
> life in terms of application integration both internally and with external
> business partners.
>
> But Courtois was challenged by Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's president of
> research in Europe.
>
> He argued that the perception among chief information officers is that
> Linux and open source software is more cost-effective than Windows and
> Microsoft's Office applications.
>
> "I do expect that some of your clients are looking for a response on
> licensing or more flexibility in the packaging," he said.
>
> Courtois replied: "As soon as you start digging down you go beyond
> licensing. It's not that we are perfect with licensing; we need to make it
> simpler. But it's about the end-to-end environment."
>
> He claimed that, with such a rich diversity of software applications and
> hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter
> integration by using Windows.
>
> However, there is growing interest in Linux in the public sector. Last
> month, West Yorkshire police took delivery of Linux desktops as part of a
> trial for the operating system for English and Welsh forces.
>
> And the European Commission handed open source advocate Netproject a
> ?250,000 (£160,000) contract to conduct a feasibility study into running
> the operating system in government departments.
>
>
>
> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
> news:46dc439f$...
>> Vista OS = $350
>> New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster = $1500
>> Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching for
>> drivers = $200
>> New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with
>> vista= $500
>> Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make a
>> mess out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like= $150
>> Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand WTF
>> Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
>> Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than her,
>> Cost of Divorce = $ 10.000
>> Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible
>> fonts and colors on the vista screen = $2000
>> Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems with
>> vista = $2000
>> Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
>> incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
>> Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista = $500
>> Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to
>> slugginess slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
>> Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots like
>> Frank, Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100
>>
>> Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
>> and a New copy of windows XP of course $250
>>
>> Total Cost of Vista = $21.100
>>
>> It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!
>>
>> See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html
>>
>> Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!
>>
>>
>
>

Spanky deMonkey wrote:
> If you price Windows and price Lexus, you will find Windows Cheaper every
> time.

Lexus? Ain't that a car?

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

"vista terminal ator" <->, iletisinde þunu yazdý,
news:46dc439f$...
> Vista OS = $350
> New computer that is fast enough to run this bloated monster = $1500
> Cost of time lost trying to make your old hardware work, searching for
> drivers = $200
> New printer, scanner, webcam etc because nothing is compatible with vista=
> $500
> Cost of tech that you call to reinstall vista for you after you make a
> mess out of vista by trying to load drivers that it doesnt like= $150
> Cost of books and training CDs you get in order to try to understand WTF
> Microsoft did with this frikin OS = $50
> Your wife divorces you because you spend more time on Vista than her, Cost
> of Divorce = $ 10.000
> Medical bills for yourself by getting bad eyesight from the horrible fonts
> and colors on the vista screen = $2000
> Medical bills for other pains and anxiety attacks due to problems with
> vista = $2000
> Cost of new screen because out of frustration with vista software
> incompatibity you clobber it with a hammer = $350
> Purchace of new upgraded software that is compatible with Vista = $500
> Cost of time wasted due to the reduction of productivity, due to
> slugginess slowness of Vista (compared to XP), annually $3000
> Time spent of the vista newsgroup trying to get help from idiots like
> Frank, Bill Yanair, and Jupiter Jones = $100
>
> Cost of tech to finally format Vista and install XP back, $150
> and a New copy of windows XP of course $250
>
> Total Cost of Vista = $21.100
>
> It is ironic that MS claims that Windows is Cheaper than LINUX!!!
>
> See here http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5072973.html
>
> Perhaps, but vista is NOT windows.... its a disaster!!!!
>
>

I think you should invest in a Mac because with a Mac system nothing can go
wrong. People producing Mac's assume the users IQ to be around 70's.
It seems that Vista (and even XP) is a bit complicated for you.
Just buy a Mac and stop whining in MS forums so that people in need of help
can get their answers easier.
$21.100 and $ 23.000 wouldn't make a significant difference.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:21 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Spanky deMonkey wrote:
>> If you price Windows and price Lexus, you will find Windows Cheaper
>> every time.
>
> Lexus? Ain't that a car?

Windows? Ain't that a narcotic?