What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
177 Comments
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -12/+178"According to research conducted by Wipro and GCR Custom Research, total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802."
"By the way, the study claims that switching to Vista saves on hardware costs."
AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - AstralSin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+69WOW, i cant stand microsoft's products but i didnt think their users were stupid enough to believe this crap. vista saving on hardware costs HAS to be a joke, they can't be serious about that. XP is more secure because its been out for so long and many of its holes have been patched, vista is a breeding ground for new exploits and vulnerabilities. i mean come on, they could have at least waited for SP1 before starting this crap.
- ratsg, on 10/10/2007, -11/+68The day m$ comes up with something that doesn't suck will be the day they start selling vacuum cleaners.
- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Typewriters were cheaper. Much cheaper.
- Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32It's like those food commercials that claim their product has 70% less sugar/fat than "the leading brand". Except they don't say what brand it is - thus, it could be thier own products they're referring to...
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31So they're basically admitting these "facts" are completely made up.
So.....am I laughing?
Yes. - yunus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Why the F would they advertise XP costing $4407 a year. I would have never guessed the cost being that high. This would be like GM trying to sell a Hummer by advertising the gas mileage it gets.
- AstralSin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28well, i sure learned something from this article... Wipro and GCR are untrustable and probably paid off by M$
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28"Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc." - Exactly what I was thinking.
- lengau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Or all three...
- misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18To be fair, Windows 95 was not a bad choice at that time. Linux was only just getting started - open source did not have the credibility it does these days. Commercial Unix systems were way too expensive for most. Mac was not doing so hot at the time either.
Vista on the other hand seemingly offers nothing that new - and nothing that is really very visible to the consumer aside from a little bit of eye candy. Windows 95 was more revolutionary for the industry I think. Vista just seems like XP with more crap piled on. - kernokerno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17With all "due" respect, no?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16I heard on Security Now that Vista has a brand new networking stack, one that (at least initially) reintroduced old bugs.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16You know what, Toby, when the son of the deposed king of Nigeria emails you directly, asking for help, you help! His father ran the freaking country, okay?
- Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13"Hi, I'm Bill Gates. I heard you take insane bets and wondered if you'd be my ass slave for a billion dollars."
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/45363/detail/
I'd say they were well paid. - riverstyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13This is like the big-top soda association saying that its soda is nutritious and hydrating because it contains water. They ignore the fact that soda contains caffeine and sugar and a boatload of other things not even worth mentioning.
They really did say that too. Even said it contributed to a healthy lifestyle.
The comparison im making is: Its not what you say, its what you Don't say. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11You're completely right. It's Win98 when Microsoft lost it. That's when the Internet Revolution was starting to take hold, Microsoft killed Netscape by embedding Internet Explorer into the "core OS" (their words, not mine), decided ActiveX was a good idea, bought in DirectX and killed OpenGL compatibility/performance, started writing the specs for ACPI which would become the bane of computer users everywhere, decided to kill Java by trying to make their own proprietary version of it, and when finally ruled that they couldn't, completely removed support for it, the list goes on and on...
- Herolint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13This is nothing new. Microsoft has always bashed their old products when new ones come out. I think it is funny to. It's like they've just discovered what everybody else knew all along. Their products are crap.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14[quote]WOW, i cant stand microsoft's products but i didnt think their users were stupid enough to believe this crap. [/quote]
MS conned the world and tied consumers into Windows back with Win95. CONSUMERS DID NOT KNOW ANY BETTER. They are only now starting to realize that they've been had. - psycybrfrk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13well, all the reasons they give are *****. I have a feeling MS is just trying to slow the adoption of linux. If you've seen any of their server ads where they say "xxx adopts ms server over linux!" and say really great but wrong stuff about windows. If you need examples to know how much windows sucks on a server, myspace uses microsoft products, while facebook uses linux.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It's not insane, just desperate.
- consonance, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14You definitely don't know what you're talking about.
- sudowrestler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1095 was the last Microsoft product I remember people getting really excited about. It was a huge improvement over 3.1x, of course. And, as you said, Mac was in the depths of its slump and Linux was just starting up. I think Microsoft is probably surprised at Vista's slow acceptance, given the eye candy. Maybe nowadays there's already so much eye candy on the web that people aren't that easily impressed anymore. People live more in their browsers than in their GUI these days.
- Diggtatorship, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Not too long ago, Microsoft did the same thing to front page. They released a PDF document that basically ripped frontpage a new cornhole. The same document went on to explain why their new product, expression web, was sooo much better than frontpage.
- greevar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Flawed by design...
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Good Windows administrators still cost a fair amount. However there are a whole array of cereal box MSCEs that I wouldn't let near my pocket calculator, forget a computer.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11People use Windows because of networking effects, little else. I rarely meet a person who is actually happy with Windows.
- fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think "best" is a bit of a stretch. I think you mean most commonly used.
- cloakeddagger, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14has anyone ever read any of these studies? they're as self deluded as that guy who hangs around near my building telling people he's going to save them from the comming invasion....
the people who write them have no souls... - OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Personal attacks are not allowed on Digg.
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You have to be a plant, NOBODY goes from 9 years on linux to Microsoft.
- jtmach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Whatever, it says right here they guessed at the results. Wow the guess matches the message they wanted to send, who would have thought.
[quote]Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007...[/quote] - falafelkiosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Using Vista as a server? ms must be kidding, it's like driving F1 with a Trabant... But the choise is up to the customer; rock solid UNIX or a joke OS, also known as Vista.
I have never believed in microsoft's "facts" and the "Get the facts" campaign really annoys me... - Shpox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7More like a "twist the truth" campaign.
- kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7But Vista can bring it down to the low low price of just $3802!!!
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What are you, 7 years old?
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What, Texas is part of Mexico again?
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Are you insulting me?
- Arawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Laughing even more... :D
- Zoshchenko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6For years companies have used the strategy of "NEW AND IMPROVED" to promote a new product. Basically it says our previous product sucked and the new version doesn't. Thing is, most people buy into this without really analyzing it. Yes, Microsoft is desperate. The created a "new and improved" product but they have no credibility because of all the "new and improved" products that have preceded it. On top of that, most people managed to get comfortable with XP and trying to cope with Vista is a total pain in the ass. The Apple commercials were NOT spoofs. So I'm not surprised at all that Vista has failed miserably. No one trusts Microsoft and no one wants to give them any money for fixing things that never should have been broken in the first place.
- fieryprophet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Everyone is missing what the report is really saying, which is actually funnier than what's being assumed here.
The key thing is that it claims that using "Microsoft best practices" (e.g. using an entirely Windows Vista-based environment, security model, servers, administration techniques, etc.) these savings are what one could expect. The only problem is that those "best practicies" cost a fortune themselves in implementing them AND are almost never seen in real world usage. Microsoft is a corporation that requires an immense cashflow. We, the consumers, are not supporting their cash sucking habits, and therefore must be swindled with some made up "facts." - MasterDwarf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6or this one...
"Anyway, Microsoft must really be hurting if it has to resort to beating up on its most stable product in years. It's clearly desperate to get people to move off XP (you know, the Windows OS that actually has hardware/peripheral support, a lot of software written for it, needs a lighter hardware platform, etc.). Maybe the open-source crowd should just wait for Microsoft to beat itself into oblivion."
I had to chuckle. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6@kretik
Wow, nice comeback. It's like saying " Nuh uh, you're the immature one."
Brilliant!! - fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This is supposed to be TCO for an Enterprise environment. This is meant for a CIO to read and compare total cost of ownership of Vista versus XP. It's not really targetted at the home user.
- iNoles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Does this sounds like gecko commercials? Your can save a lot of money by switching to Vista. LMAO!
- YourDoom123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6actually, he was referring to the report itself, not the quoted text. granted, this could have been made more clear.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Vista ended up being free for me, so it was cheaper in that respect.
But in defense of MS vista is a better product than XP was in the same time frame. - JesperL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, sure. Berate me now, unwashed youth; you'll be sorry when the aliens invade!
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Really? So where is the 270+ patent infringements by Linux?
I guess his boss is the pot whilst yours is a kettle. -
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is