Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#81

Post by brudgers »

tedunangst wrote: post #51
adevine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. This comparison makes no sense to me. It's 2016, not 2000, so the fact that a Mac Air is $700 in 2000 dollars is a completely random and arbitrary number.

You couldn't buy any laptop of any quality for $700 in 2000. Macs have the reputation of being overpriced, but they are much more affordable than computers at the turn of the century. Of course, PCs are still available for less, but the point is that many people previously unable to afford a Mac can.

Reminds me of buying the Toshiba Satellite 1805-s201 in August 2001. It was the first sub $1000 laptop I saw: $995 with $100 manufacturer rebate. Celeron 800 mhz, 128mb, and 20GB of spinning rust. It was the cheapest laptop and ran the current version AutoCAD without a problem [actually, ADT2 which had a much higher load than typical AutoCAD].

To me, the way to weigh value is relative to workload. Few users are hardware bound and today the most likely bottleneck for ordinary people is going to be GPU, not that I'm saying ordinary users are going to run up against it.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#82

Post by davidf18 »

xemdetia wrote: post #73
davidf18 wrote: post #40

In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some sof…

> Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... . > So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some software development with open source, very useful. This is just untrue at many levels, there is still plenty of early adopter issues going around and there are plenty of people gett…

For some reason that link wasn't working: Try this:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/10/15/only-5-of-mac-user...

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#83

Post by donny2015 »

plandis wrote: post #56
noxToken wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I plan on test driving 10 this weekend. From what I've heard (installation tactics aside), it seems like Win10 is a better Win7. What about it doesn't make it a better Win7? Edit: Clarification.

My favorite part is the forced upgrades. Didn't want to reboot your computer? WELL TOO BAD MICROSOFT KNOWS BEST.

I can't remember when was the last time I rebooted my Win 10 PC because of an update. With Windows 7, it was like twice a month.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#84

Post by davidf18 »

PostOnce wrote: post #48
davidf18 wrote: post #40

In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some sof…

roughly 40% of American workers earn under 20k. what percent of laptops sold do you think are under $500? I bet most. And now chromebooks wax popular. Macs aren't for the masses, cost wise.

Did you know that a number of "the masses" that earn little money smoke a pack or two of cigarettes per day? How much do you think this costs on a yearly basis?

In NYC they are $12-$14 per pack, but even in the rest of the country at its lowest cost it has to be several dollars per pack * 365.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#85

Post by brudgers »

SeanDav wrote: post #58

Ironically, Windows 10 is probably the Microsoft OS that is going to push me full time to using Linux. Right now I use Linux for work, but home network, and laptops (except 1 Mac) all run on Windows 7/8. However the underhanded tactics that Microsoft have resorted to in order to try force me to upgrade and the fact that I lose significant (actually all) control on patching, worries about MS spyware etc means that Win…

Windows 10 may be the Windows version that gets me to switch back to Windows from Linux. The interface is gorgeous. I can run a Linux environment. It's got multiple desktops.

Cannonical loves my data as much as Microsoft. Unlike Microsoft, they love sending to Amazon for sales purposes and the search engine du jure for "personalization" and to websites to download their Ubuntu "app" things.

TANSTAAFL.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#86

Post by brudgers »

donny2015 wrote: post #80
nimos wrote: post #57

I think a big part of the problem is Windows 7 is so good. I have very little incentive to switch at all. I'll probably do it sometime in the next week because free upgrades end July 29th but only because I have Windows 10 on a laptop and I've been happy with it. If I hadn't had that experience I wouldn't risk it.

Yes, Windows 7 is very good indeed, but after upgrading to Win 10 none of my workflows changed, and my 7 year old laptop got noticeably snappier.

That's my experience as well. Windows 10 is significantly less crufty than 7 or 8. The interface is gorgeous to boot. Not sure I'll switch from Ubuntu for day to day, but it's possible.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#87

Post by dTal »

iancarroll wrote: post #42
gnu8 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this comment be voted down? Software that tries to mislead and nag the user into taking an action that damages their computer is malware. The only reason Microsoft doesn't forcibly apply the update to all Windows computers without permission is because that would undeniably be malware. But the net effect is the same - Windows 10 is installed without the owner's knowledge or consent. Windows 10 IS malware.

Windows 10 doesn't (edit: intentionally) damage a computer. Calling it malware is ridiculous.

Intent to damage is not an absolute requirement to be malware. The infamous Sony rootkit had no intent to damage. However, it overstepped the bounds of its authority and was capable of damage through gross negligence (as overstepping software often is). Software that forcibly dikes out someone's OS without their permission is malware.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#88

Post by brudgers »

_Understated_ wrote: post #50
tantalor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sales? It was free. They can't give it away.

It's only free if you have a valid Windows 7 or 8 license that you have already paid for so really, it's not free at all.

Curious what sort of Windows license hasn't already been paid for.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#89

Post by davidf18 »

SyneRyder wrote: post #54
davidf18 wrote: post #40

In real dollars, the cost of Macs are extremely low. $1 in 2000 is about $1.40 now. So the cost of a $1000 13" Mac Air which is a very respectable laptop is about $700 in 2000 dollars. Even IBM has gone to using Macs today. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998315/apple-mac/every... So the machines are very cheap, even to IBM they are easier to use and require less tech support. For those that want to do some sof…

As much as I like my Macs, I don't think you can claim a Mac is cheap now. I was in the market for a new MacBook Pro, but the machine I was looking at was going to cost me over $4000 (Australian, but at today's exchange rates that's still about $3200 USD). Apple really price gouge on SSD & RAM upgrades - there is no way a 1TB SSD costs $800. I ended up buying a fully-spec'd 2012 MBP instead (more affordable, better k…

Sorry, you're getting ripped off "Down Under." I've been to Sydney/Melbourne twice and I love it. Bondi Beach Yeah!

But you can get a brand new 15" Macbook Pro Retina for about $1900 total from an authorized dealer. Check out website Appleinsider.com

Besides being able to go to stores for Genius Bar help, you're when you call for customer service or tech support you get Americans who are very helpful and speak English well not people from Philippines, India, whatever. Nothing against these people of course, just when it comes to tech support.

There was a recent NYTimes article about how companies make tech support awful. Apple is not one of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/technology/why-tech-suppor...

My times calling Microsoft Tech support (having to do with Office 2016 Mac and other MS products running in Windows 10 VM) were miserable. Switched to the wrong people, people who can't speak english well, who don't seem to understand what I was talking about. Having to call over and over and over again.

Part of the added cost of Macs is precisely to ensure that you get quality support and is well worth paying for unless you absolutely cannot afford it.

Re: Windows 10 a failure by Microsoft's own metric

#90

Post by tedunangst »

jtuente wrote: post #64
tedunangst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't buy any laptop of any quality for $700 in 2000. Macs have the reputation of being overpriced, but they are much more affordable than computers at the turn of the century. Of course, PCs are still available for less, but the point is that many people previously unable to afford a Mac can.

That's a pointless metric to use for affordability, because that $300 difference is purely inflation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple making their products cheaper.

If the price in real dollars is less, then then the product is cheaper.
Post reply on HN