Windows XP -- digital camera/photo features

Started Apr 23, 2001 | Discussions thread
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,292
Like?
Service model for Windows
In reply to Lorena, Apr 26, 2001

I had a discussion with my brother about this last night. He is also a power user but like Rick, he works in the software industry, so he is going to have a different prospective than you or I might have.

He also felt very strongly that Microsoft is going about WinXP's registration system all wrong.

He suggested there are already good models out there that Microsoft could follow in the open source world. I believe he called it a service model where Microsoft would offer service for your computers, including updates to the operating system for a fixed fee per year. In order to get service on a particular machine you would have to have it registered and pay for this service. Microsoft could then offer single user service contracts, family contracts (for multiple computers in a home) and business contracts. Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft would actually provide service for their operating system like you expect from any other product you pay for?

Software is one of the only things I can think of where you buy it and then if it fails, from no fault of your own, you are forced to pay for service. Microsoft can claim they will refund your service fee if it is an software issue, but these things are so complicated and often not resolved so it isn't fair to leave the burden of proof on the customer.

This didn't sound too onerous to me. I wouldn't mind paying MS $30 bucks a year for keeping a system updated or even $100 a year for improvements and enhancements for my family of computers.

There are a few things I've read about Microsoft's strategy that are very troubling to me.

For example I read a Microsoft's recommendations for new system requirements to manufacturers. There were things in there about not allowing internal upgrades that seem a extremely constraining. I'd link to the article on zdnet but don't have it on this computer (perhaps someone else might be able to do that.)

For another example I read that Microsoft is artificially impairing the quality of MP3's in their MediaPlayer to act as an incentive to push their own, more secure format. This is another example of backwards thinking. Does Microsoft really think people are going to dump their investment in MP3 players and equipment and jump ship to Microsoft's format because MP3's play worse with MS's own built-in Mediaplayer? It is too late to close this barn door. MP3 format is out and the best the industry can do is try to add on some type of MP3 macrovision type scheme to hardware and software players to reduce the convenience of copying.

In light of Microsoft's current, perilous legal situation, they should be bending over backwards to not look like a Goliath that is using its position to wield it's mandates on consumers.

Danny

Lorena wrote:

Daniel Lauring wrote:

If people think they will need to buy a new full priced copy of
Windows for each machine they have laying around they will
seriously think twice about buying a new machine or keeping old
machines in service. The cost of ownership is too high.

But, if it were only to cost, say $10 dollars, to use Windows on a
second machine, you'd have a lot more chance of bringing people to
the table. Now when a customer goes to the store to buy that new
copy of Windows he might consider paying $20 dollars more for the
right to install it on the other two machines he has in his house.

I also feel very strongly, with my own innate sense of fairness,
that the solution Microsoft has chosen for Windows XP is not fair
to customers with multiple machines...cutomers that have been loyal
to Microsoft for years and have provided Billions and Billions of
dollars of revenue to Microsoft.

If Microsoft thinks they can drive against popular opinion by the
shear force of their size and inertia, they need to take a history
lesson and look back at Sony's Betamax, IBM's personal PC, or
closer still, CP/M....or a hundred other cases in history.
Software companies, if anything, have even more fragile positions.

Good luck,
Danny

Danny,

Thanks so much for expressing so very well the concerns of a great
majority of XP potential users. I am extremely sensitive to the
copyright issues raised by Rick and believe strongly that piracy
must be contained. However, I agree with you that Microsoft's
approach will only hurt consumers like you and me and ultimately
Microsoft's bottom line. Unfortunately, piracy will continue
unchecked. I wonder how many users would suddenly feel justified
in obtaining pirated copies of XP?

While I wold love to upgrade to XP to replace my very unstable
Win98, I will balk at having to buy multiple copies of XP to
install in my home computers. Rick, I am more than happy to pay
Microsoft a licensing fee for that priviledge. Fairness and
convenience to the law-abiding consumer should be paramount in
Microsoft's strategy and not at all inconsistent with its ability
to protect its products from illegal use.

Lorena

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow