What's the deal with the $100

In more than one product group's forums lately, I have been told by
Microsoft employees that Microsoft is working on iterative development. As
soon as a product is usable, they shipped it leaving many known issues and
desired features for later iterations.

They wouldn't answer my question when I asked if I could pay for the product
iteratively.

Well, if any of this is true, and I reiterate that we do not have a single
reference to anything indicating it is more than the ravings of a newsgroup
lunatic, Microsoft may have found a way for us to pay iteratively. Of
course, what's so bad is that we are paying the full price of the product up
front already.

Dale

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.203ee99aee543f3f98976e@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>> Apple charges for "significant" upgrades. Microsoft already does the
>> same
>> thing. W2K3 versus W2K3 R2. You had to buy a whole new license.
>
> This was for a server upgrade -- do you mean that Windows 2003 Server
> versus Windows 2003 Server Release 2 was considered an upgrade? If so,
> bad marketing -- should have named W2K3 R2 Windows 2005 Server...
>
> Unless it was one of those nose in the tent efforts to get folks used
> to paying for 'Service Packs'.
>
> I agree with you, charging for Service Packs is the sort of thing which
> encourages folks to not want to pay for the original.
>
> --
> Barry Schnur

The thing is, Microsoft already has a rather large target on its back,
engaging in this sort of approach (if true), just provides ammo for
folks wanting to feel 'moral' by doing end runs with the Microsoft
licensing/activation game. I am not in any way encouraging or
endorsing those end runs, I don't do it myself, but an approach that
makes Microsoft appear 'greedy' does have consequences.


--
Barry Schnur

A friend at work just bought a new MacBook Pro. He runs Vista on it better
than any box I have seen running Vista before. It seems that the best
platform for Vista is a Mac.

Maybe there's something to the idea that Vista will be a boon to Apple.

Dale

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.203f881621194e1598977b@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> The thing is, Microsoft already has a rather large target on its back,
> engaging in this sort of approach (if true), just provides ammo for
> folks wanting to feel 'moral' by doing end runs with the Microsoft
> licensing/activation game. I am not in any way encouraging or
> endorsing those end runs, I don't do it myself, but an approach that
> makes Microsoft appear 'greedy' does have consequences.
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur

Since I build up systems as part of my client support, I get to test
configurations quite a bit. Vista has lead me to raise the bar for
'standard' systems.

Last year, a 939AMD 3800X2 with 1G of PC3200 DDR dual channel memory
and an ATI x550 was something I would happily deploy.

For now, the 'base' system is an AM2 4200X2 (or 4600X2) with 2G of
PC5300 DDR2 dual channel memory and an ATI x1300 with 256M onboard is
what I suggest to clients. Even if they are deploying XP (which is
what they are at the moment), at least they are well positioned to move
to Vista.


--
Barry Schnur

I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.

Dale

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.203f915e9ac71f36989783@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> Since I build up systems as part of my client support, I get to test
> configurations quite a bit. Vista has lead me to raise the bar for
> 'standard' systems.
>
> Last year, a 939AMD 3800X2 with 1G of PC3200 DDR dual channel memory
> and an ATI x550 was something I would happily deploy.
>
> For now, the 'base' system is an AM2 4200X2 (or 4600X2) with 2G of
> PC5300 DDR2 dual channel memory and an ATI x1300 with 256M onboard is
> what I suggest to clients. Even if they are deploying XP (which is
> what they are at the moment), at least they are well positioned to move
> to Vista.
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur

"Dale" <nospam@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:ehYp5$eUHHA.488@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
>only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
>wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.
>
> Dale

I have to work on Intel but I've never owned anything but AMD.
My Athlon XP runs just fine.
I've had AMD PCs since the 386 and never had compatibility issues.
AMD is generally cheaper and faster than Intel.
I thought it was pretty sad when the Intel Pentium 200 was first introduced
and they insisted it was faster than an AMD, when it was faster and much
more expensive than the AMD 166, and maybe a little cheaper but definitely
much slower than AMD's 200.
If I could afford a PC right now I'd go with the AM2.

> I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
> only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
> wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.
>
That would be a VERY long time ago. Sort of like saying, 'I got a bad
taste in my mouth for Microsoft when I bought WinME and found out it
was bad stuff', I've not bought a Microsoft OS since.

Like hard drive manufacturers, the two CPU guys shift places from time
to time. I preferred AMD K6-2-400's to similarly priced Pentium II's.
I liked the faster P3's as they ran relatively cool. I shifted to AMD
XP's -- though some ran hot, because the Pentium 4's were pricey, and
then as they P4's moved up the performance ladder, THEY ran hot (and
the Retail fans were LOUD).

When the AMD 64's came out I was impressed with their price,
performance and that they ran nice and cool (and quiet even with stock
fans). The 939 Dual cores were sweet, and I like the X2 Dual cores.

But the newer Intel dual cores offer marginally better
price/performance, though they still run hotter than the AMD's.

Hard drive manufacturers do the same thing, for the longest time, I
really preferred both WD and IBM, I ran away from IBM when they started
failing when subject to high duty cycles. I avoided Seagate IDE drives
(but found their higher end SCSI drives to be excellent). Then WD
seemed to get in to a bit of a reliability funk, and Seagate started
producing nice drives which ran quiet and are quite reliable.

All this is to say that while I 'punish' manufacturers for bad cycles,
I don't elephantize my memory regarding them -- after I've heard and
seen a change, I respond to it. Your mileage and approach of course
may vary.


--
Barry Schnur

Oh, I know that my bad taste is no longer justified LOL. I just haven't
made that leap. And now with the Core 2 Duo, it will probably be a few more
years before I have to consider it.

Dale

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.203fea2560304892989785@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>> I got a bad taste in my mouth for AMD clear back when I bought my one and
>> only 386SX-20 because it wasn't completely compatible. Some applications
>> wouldn't run on it. I haven't owned an AMD since.
>>
> That would be a VERY long time ago. Sort of like saying, 'I got a bad
> taste in my mouth for Microsoft when I bought WinME and found out it
> was bad stuff', I've not bought a Microsoft OS since.
>
> Like hard drive manufacturers, the two CPU guys shift places from time
> to time. I preferred AMD K6-2-400's to similarly priced Pentium II's.
> I liked the faster P3's as they ran relatively cool. I shifted to AMD
> XP's -- though some ran hot, because the Pentium 4's were pricey, and
> then as they P4's moved up the performance ladder, THEY ran hot (and
> the Retail fans were LOUD).
>
> When the AMD 64's came out I was impressed with their price,
> performance and that they ran nice and cool (and quiet even with stock
> fans). The 939 Dual cores were sweet, and I like the X2 Dual cores.
>
> But the newer Intel dual cores offer marginally better
> price/performance, though they still run hotter than the AMD's.
>
> Hard drive manufacturers do the same thing, for the longest time, I
> really preferred both WD and IBM, I ran away from IBM when they started
> failing when subject to high duty cycles. I avoided Seagate IDE drives
> (but found their higher end SCSI drives to be excellent). Then WD
> seemed to get in to a bit of a reliability funk, and Seagate started
> producing nice drives which ran quiet and are quite reliable.
>
> All this is to say that while I 'punish' manufacturers for bad cycles,
> I don't elephantize my memory regarding them -- after I've heard and
> seen a change, I respond to it. Your mileage and approach of course
> may vary.
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur

> Oh, I know that my bad taste is no longer justified LOL. I just haven't
> made that leap. And now with the Core 2 Duo, it will probably be a few more
> years before I have to consider it.

Fair enough, heck I figure the time is right for me to try one of the
Core 2 Duo Intel CPU's.

Old Dog

New Tricks


--
Barry Schnur

I'm waiting for the real Quads ;-)

--
Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.204034fe7bab08f1989789@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>> Oh, I know that my bad taste is no longer justified LOL. I just haven't
>> made that leap. And now with the Core 2 Duo, it will probably be a few
>> more
>> years before I have to consider it.
>
> Fair enough, heck I figure the time is right for me to try one of the
> Core 2 Duo Intel CPU's.
>
> Old Dog
>
> New Tricks
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur