Software you really resent paying for

[Woofage]

I wouldn't mind paying a certain amount for Windows, but the high prices take gallons of piss.  They sell billions of copies.  They don't need all that money.

I guess the amount paid by the large box stuffers like Dell is quite small. When bought separately it becomes like a spare part hence the price is a little higher.

I've just checked and I paid £45 for my copy of xp. I agree that that's on the high side, especially when its major competitor can be had for the price of the bandwidth to download.

[ian]

Software will always sell at the what the market will pay. Linux doesn't really affect Windows pricing, because they aren't really competing. The main knock to Windows pricing is from the big system builders, who have to push down every cost to keep their margin. I do hate Microsoft's overcomplex and obfuscating pricing structures. They make the little baby Jesus cry too. Bastards.

The corporate mothership paid for my copy of XP. Really, they shouldn't have. Still, in the time it takes for XP to wake up and rouse itself into a useful state, I can read the news, drink a cup of coffee, write a brief, and answer a few emails on my Mac.

[Woofage]

Software will always sell at the what the market will pay. Linux doesn't really affect Windows pricing, because they aren't really competing.

I was kind of tongue in cheek when I suggested that Linux is a competitor to Windows. In theory, of course, it is the only major competitor but in practise the numbers don't support that statement.

[Polar Bear]

... scratches head ...   

... shrugs ...

Ah.  Got one      

I do did resent paying for Norton Internet Security in the end as it had become extreme bloatware as well as unreliable.    It knackered pc performance and I managed to get a virus or two, one requiring a full system wipe and rebuild. 

I'd only resent paying for something that didn't do it's job.   That's why I haven't upgraded to Windows 7 via Vista, nor have I upgraded past Office 2003.   I need windows for my voice recognition software.   Linux just doesn't support it so whether it's free or not is irrelevant.   

I always have bought Windows in oem guise, i.e. with a machine or with a significant amount of pc internal hardware.   Relatively a licence is cheap that way.

[Woofage]

nor have I upgraded past Office 2003

Luxury.</ Yorkshireman>

My copy is the 97 version.

[Polar Bear]

Sound.   

[Zipperhead]

I always have bought Windows in oem guise, i.e. with a machine or with a significant amount of pc internal hardware.   Relatively a licence is cheap that way.

It doesn't need to be a significant amount of hardware. I've bought XP cheaply in the past by buuying it with a mouse....

[Greenbank]

It doesn't need to be a significant amount of hardware. I've bought XP cheaply in the past by buuying it with a mouse....

The vendor is being a bit naughty then. OEM versions should only really be sold with a motherboard as MS considers replacing a motherboard as a 'new computer' and therefore requires a new license if the (if the original license was an OEM license, although the exact details will depend on which licensing structure you fall in to). Full understanding of MS's licensing terms requires a team of lawyers and several lifetimes.

In general some vendors don't give a monkeys about the conditions since they get to shift more OEM versions and make more money (although the margins are small).

OEM versions also differ in that you don't get the same level of support as full retail versions. Not that I've ever had to speak to MS to get support for anything, every answer I've needed has been available on t'Internet.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

I was kind of tongue in cheek when I suggested that Linux is a competitor to Windows. In theory, of course, it is the only major competitor but in practise the numbers don't support that statement.

That is indeed true on the desktop.
Looking at the Top500 list of the fastest computers out there and its a different matter - 89% of systems run Linux.