According to Microsoft it provides "the most economical way to stay current with Microsoft products," and actually this is true enough.
How stupid of them to embrace a licensing scheme that reduces their costs!</strong><hr></blockquote>It does not reduce costs. It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software. And most business don't do that.
<strong>They don't?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, they don't.
This from the article:
[quote]Business customers are always slow in upgrading, for obvious and understandable reasons. IDC's survey of 300 IT managers revealed that 75 per cent of them were still in the early stages of Windows 2000 adoption<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]Effectively, License 6.0 is stacked in favour of the Microsoft preferred approach to upgrades, and loaded against the slower upgrade cycles that are more prevalent in the corporate market.<hr></blockquote>
And by the way, my first two sentences are not contradictory at all. It's very simple logic.
Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.
Premise 2: Businesses don't upgrade every new release immediately every time.
Conclusion: Therefore MS's new licensing scheme does not save businesses money.
MS is doing this to force their customers to upgrade quicker and more often than they normally would, in order to get more money from them. BTW, I work at a place with tons of MS licenses, and the IT people went nuts when they heard about this. It's going to cost them tons of money, because they won't be able to choose when/whether to upgrade. It prevents a "wait and see" approach.
Are they any less sheep than all the apologists out there? If Steve Jobs took a dump and called it an iMac, at least half the people on the various rumor sites would eat it and say it's lickable, snappy and doesn't matter if it's not > 1 Ghz because of the Gigahertz Myth.
Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actaully, I don't even see companies saving money then. Sure, their getting a deal on the software, but their maintenance costs go through the roof, by having to deal with immature drivers, bugs and the massive security holes which are commonplace with a new M$ release.
It says nothing as to why the businesses are so slow to upgrade (yet they always do). This ships them the upgrades automatically, simplifying the process.
[quote]MS is doing this to force their customers to upgrade quicker and more often than they normally would, in order to get more money from them.<hr></blockquote>
No one is forced to accept it. Were your IT dept. people held at gunpoint by M$ goons until they signed on the dotted line?
There is nothing there to assume that the old way is not still an option. And there are alternatives out there.
[quote]And by the way, my first two sentences are not contradictory at all.<hr></blockquote>
They most certainly were.
"It does not reduce costs."
vs.
"It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software."
That's contradiction in its most base form.
You say it's not something, but then make a condition in which it is that thing you said it wasn't. You can never be a little pregnant.
You would do well to steer clear of absolutes.
[quote]Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.<hr></blockquote>
True. (I'll take it for granted that the extension of that last sentence is "...every time new software is released by Microsoft.")
[quote]Premise 2: Businesses don't upgrade every new release immediately every time.<hr></blockquote>
Note your use of the word "immediately". They do, all the same, be it from day 1 or be it 6 months later, they do.
OpenLicense6.0 makes it easier for the companies and for Microsoft because it simplifies the process. (and makes it cheaper)
Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.
If you'd bother to read the actual license you'll get a clear idea of what it all translates to in the real world.
<strong>It says nothing as to why the businesses are so slow to upgrade (yet they always do).</strong><hr></blockquote>No, they don't always upgrade. Mine didn't bother with Windows 98, for example. It makes much better sense to take a wait and see approach, upgrading only if necessary. See, it costs money to upgrade, and if you don't need to upgrade, why should you? That's why MS is implementing this new scheme. [quote]There is nothing there to assume that the old way is not still an option.<hr></blockquote>If you weren't such a blind MS apologist, you'd know that this statement is inaccurate. All licensing and purchasing is being changed. What's new is that your license for the software expires. You have to buy another license if you want to keep using it. You no longer buy their software, you rent it over specified periods of time. They've already done this in several other countries. Legal? Probably. Sleazy? Definitely.
[quote]Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.<hr></blockquote>
We're not talking about everything they do. Just this. The problem is that you whine whine whine when people make the slightest criticism. You're trying to argue that nothing they do is bad, that MS is perfect; I'm trying to argue that a few of the things they do are bad. I'll happily point out things that Apple does wrong, if you wish. The only blind true believer here is you, toward MS.
[quote]"It does not reduce costs."
vs.
"It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software."
That's contradiction in its most base form.<hr></blockquote>
No, one was a premise and one was a conclusion; you simply self-servingly ignore the other premise on which the conclusion depends: businesses don't upgrade immediately. Sometimes ideas are a little more complex than what you can read in just two sentences. Come on, three sentences isn't too hard to put together into one idea, is it?
Let me give you another example to which you can relate:
"groverat is a troll"
vs.
"groverat isn't a troll if he makes good posts"
Contradictory? Only if you ignore the next statement: "groverat doesn't make good posts."
nah, groverat isn't a troll. He just, for whatever reason, seems to like Microsoft and apparently enjoys defending them at an Apple centric website.
Not my idea of a good time, but not a troll.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that if MS didn't have a monopoly there is no way they'd be able to get away with this type of scheme. But they do (have a monopoly) so we'll never know.
I wouldn't call your average MS based IT dept. a herd of sheep. Clubbed seals, maybe, but not sheep.
Actually, most businesses only upgrade when they NEED to, or when they see a valid benefit to doing so. Unlike businesses, individual consumers will often upgrade "just because."
I don't know many IT professionals who went out and hopped on the WinME upgrade train just because it was newer, but I know many, many "average consumers" who assumed that because it was newer, it was automatically better and worth having.
Likewise, I know several gadget geeks and MS-zealots who have upgraded to XP, but I don't know any knowledgable tech professionals who have done so, yet.
I'm not trying to pick on Windows users -- some of the same stuff happens in the Linux and Mac worlds. I guess what I'm really talking about is the assumption that version 5 of something is automatically better than version 4.... sufficiently better to justify paying for it.
I personally do not purchase every "upgrade" offered for every program that I use. I don't see a "new version" as being equivalent to an "upgrade" unless there's something better about it.
Now, this new licensing scheme from MS is completely based on the assumption that every user must purchase every upgrade offered, immediately. This isn't something I believe in personally, so I hope MS doesn't try to make this mandatory.
groverat, don't be a moron. sheesh, you'll give PC users a bad image.
this licensing stuff is crap. why do you think IT admins were so pissed off when it first came out? because it was going to save them money and make their lives easier? no. because it railroads them into a course of action they may not want to take.
the lastest winXP security hole is a great example. what happens when to keep your MS license a business has to upgrade it's machines to XP. then everyone of them connected to the net gets rooted.
immediate upgrades suck. it would be like Apple making you run OS X 10.0. *shudder* ugh.
please, most of the time you seem logical about the PC side of things, why are you suddenly coming off as a mindless zealot?
<strong>Are they any less sheep than all the apologists out there? If Steve Jobs took a dump and called it an iMac, at least half the people on the various rumor sites would eat it and say it's lickable, snappy and doesn't matter if it's not > 1 Ghz because of the Gigahertz Myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They'd also go into how shit shouldn't have to be supported by OS X.
This is like MS did when they first started out. You can buy DOS for each computer for a ridiculous high price or you can just buy a DOS license for every computer at this cheap price!
They are getting companies to sign 3-5 year contracts for their software. No company is going to switch to different software if they still have 5 years left on their MS contract that they all ready payed for. It's all about control.
Every platform has sheep. Except the Amiga, perhaps. They're just a bunch of people as irritable and cynical as me, it seems. But they're just too stubborn to stop using the platform they like.
<strong>Every platform has sheep. Except the Amiga, perhaps. They're just a bunch of people as irritable and cynical as me, it seems. But they're just too stubborn to stop using the platform they like.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You want die hard? There are still users of the Commodore 64 in Poland!
Actually you cant really blame windows users for this. Yes, they will not "rise up against the tyranny of Microsoft" but then again I didnt see many people rising up against Apple on many occasions (eg. how much do macs still cost?), and I dont see any one revolting against government and corporations now (especially when you consider some of the SH!T going on right now).
Face it, people are now raised to be complacent. We are not conditioned to complain in any voice louder than a whimper.
Comments
<strong>You just found this out now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to Microsoft it provides "the most economical way to stay current with Microsoft products," and actually this is true enough.
How stupid of them to embrace a licensing scheme that reduces their costs!
baaaah
Fear the <a href="http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Anderson/research.htm"; target="_blank">Sheep-Goat!</a>
<strong>If you bother reading the article:
According to Microsoft it provides "the most economical way to stay current with Microsoft products," and actually this is true enough.
How stupid of them to embrace a licensing scheme that reduces their costs!</strong><hr></blockquote>It does not reduce costs. It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software. And most business don't do that.
I like how you contradict yourself in your first 2 sentences, that's cute.
[quote]And most business don't do that.<hr></blockquote>
They don't?
<strong>They don't?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, they don't.
This from the article:
[quote]Business customers are always slow in upgrading, for obvious and understandable reasons. IDC's survey of 300 IT managers revealed that 75 per cent of them were still in the early stages of Windows 2000 adoption<hr></blockquote>
and
[quote]Effectively, License 6.0 is stacked in favour of the Microsoft preferred approach to upgrades, and loaded against the slower upgrade cycles that are more prevalent in the corporate market.<hr></blockquote>
And by the way, my first two sentences are not contradictory at all. It's very simple logic.
Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.
Premise 2: Businesses don't upgrade every new release immediately every time.
Conclusion: Therefore MS's new licensing scheme does not save businesses money.
MS is doing this to force their customers to upgrade quicker and more often than they normally would, in order to get more money from them. BTW, I work at a place with tons of MS licenses, and the IT people went nuts when they heard about this. It's going to cost them tons of money, because they won't be able to choose when/whether to upgrade. It prevents a "wait and see" approach.
<strong>
Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actaully, I don't even see companies saving money then. Sure, their getting a deal on the software, but their maintenance costs go through the roof, by having to deal with immature drivers, bugs and the massive security holes which are commonplace with a new M$ release.
[quote]MS is doing this to force their customers to upgrade quicker and more often than they normally would, in order to get more money from them.<hr></blockquote>
No one is forced to accept it. Were your IT dept. people held at gunpoint by M$ goons until they signed on the dotted line?
There is nothing there to assume that the old way is not still an option. And there are alternatives out there.
[quote]And by the way, my first two sentences are not contradictory at all.<hr></blockquote>
They most certainly were.
"It does not reduce costs."
vs.
"It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software."
That's contradiction in its most base form.
You say it's not something, but then make a condition in which it is that thing you said it wasn't. You can never be a little pregnant.
You would do well to steer clear of absolutes.
[quote]Premise 1: MS's new licensing scheme would save you money if you normally upgrade every new release immediately every time.<hr></blockquote>
True. (I'll take it for granted that the extension of that last sentence is "...every time new software is released by Microsoft.")
[quote]Premise 2: Businesses don't upgrade every new release immediately every time.<hr></blockquote>
Note your use of the word "immediately". They do, all the same, be it from day 1 or be it 6 months later, they do.
OpenLicense6.0 makes it easier for the companies and for Microsoft because it simplifies the process. (and makes it cheaper)
Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.
If you'd bother to read the actual license you'll get a clear idea of what it all translates to in the real world.
A handy URL:
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/default.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/default.asp</a>;
[quote]Conclusion: Therefore MS's new licensing scheme does not save businesses money.<hr></blockquote>
So full of absolutes that make little sense.
If OpenLicense6 doesn't fit the needs of a specific company they can do something else.
<strong>It says nothing as to why the businesses are so slow to upgrade (yet they always do).</strong><hr></blockquote>No, they don't always upgrade. Mine didn't bother with Windows 98, for example. It makes much better sense to take a wait and see approach, upgrading only if necessary. See, it costs money to upgrade, and if you don't need to upgrade, why should you? That's why MS is implementing this new scheme. [quote]There is nothing there to assume that the old way is not still an option.<hr></blockquote>If you weren't such a blind MS apologist, you'd know that this statement is inaccurate. All licensing and purchasing is being changed. What's new is that your license for the software expires. You have to buy another license if you want to keep using it. You no longer buy their software, you rent it over specified periods of time. They've already done this in several other countries. Legal? Probably. Sleazy? Definitely.
[quote]Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.<hr></blockquote>
We're not talking about everything they do. Just this. The problem is that you whine whine whine when people make the slightest criticism. You're trying to argue that nothing they do is bad, that MS is perfect; I'm trying to argue that a few of the things they do are bad. I'll happily point out things that Apple does wrong, if you wish. The only blind true believer here is you, toward MS.
[quote]"It does not reduce costs."
vs.
"It only reduces them if you upgrade immediately after MS releases new software."
That's contradiction in its most base form.<hr></blockquote>
No, one was a premise and one was a conclusion; you simply self-servingly ignore the other premise on which the conclusion depends: businesses don't upgrade immediately. Sometimes ideas are a little more complex than what you can read in just two sentences. Come on, three sentences isn't too hard to put together into one idea, is it?
Let me give you another example to which you can relate:
"groverat is a troll"
vs.
"groverat isn't a troll if he makes good posts"
Contradictory? Only if you ignore the next statement: "groverat doesn't make good posts."
Look up "modus ponens" in a logic text.
Not my idea of a good time, but not a troll.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that if MS didn't have a monopoly there is no way they'd be able to get away with this type of scheme. But they do (have a monopoly) so we'll never know.
I wouldn't call your average MS based IT dept. a herd of sheep. Clubbed seals, maybe, but not sheep.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
I don't know many IT professionals who went out and hopped on the WinME upgrade train just because it was newer, but I know many, many "average consumers" who assumed that because it was newer, it was automatically better and worth having.
Likewise, I know several gadget geeks and MS-zealots who have upgraded to XP, but I don't know any knowledgable tech professionals who have done so, yet.
I'm not trying to pick on Windows users -- some of the same stuff happens in the Linux and Mac worlds. I guess what I'm really talking about is the assumption that version 5 of something is automatically better than version 4.... sufficiently better to justify paying for it.
I personally do not purchase every "upgrade" offered for every program that I use. I don't see a "new version" as being equivalent to an "upgrade" unless there's something better about it.
Now, this new licensing scheme from MS is completely based on the assumption that every user must purchase every upgrade offered, immediately. This isn't something I believe in personally, so I hope MS doesn't try to make this mandatory.
this licensing stuff is crap. why do you think IT admins were so pissed off when it first came out? because it was going to save them money and make their lives easier? no. because it railroads them into a course of action they may not want to take.
the lastest winXP security hole is a great example. what happens when to keep your MS license a business has to upgrade it's machines to XP. then everyone of them connected to the net gets rooted.
immediate upgrades suck. it would be like Apple making you run OS X 10.0. *shudder* ugh.
please, most of the time you seem logical about the PC side of things, why are you suddenly coming off as a mindless zealot?
If OpenLicense6 doesn't fit the needs of a specific company they can do something else. <hr></blockquote>
You better <a href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7720536.html?tag=owv"; target="_blank">believe </a> there are.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
<strong>Are they any less sheep than all the apologists out there? If Steve Jobs took a dump and called it an iMac, at least half the people on the various rumor sites would eat it and say it's lickable, snappy and doesn't matter if it's not > 1 Ghz because of the Gigahertz Myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They'd also go into how shit shouldn't have to be supported by OS X.
They are getting companies to sign 3-5 year contracts for their software. No company is going to switch to different software if they still have 5 years left on their MS contract that they all ready payed for. It's all about control.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Lucky ]</p>
<strong>Every platform has sheep. Except the Amiga, perhaps. They're just a bunch of people as irritable and cynical as me, it seems.
You want die hard? There are still users of the Commodore 64 in Poland!
Face it, people are now raised to be complacent. We are not conditioned to complain in any voice louder than a whimper.