Coffeehouse Thread

72 posts

How to easily make Windows free: Idea?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jamie

    Linux is free... sort of.
    Basically - Linux BETAS seem to be mostly free - with the releases - most companies charge for.

    Why can't MS do the same?
    Just release all win betas free - perpetually..
    so delevlopers could go grab the newest build ( it would have one of those - Exipres in 360 days - disclaimers - like most of your betas.

    This way - your core dev audience - those who are the most prone to experiment tinker with machines and linux - would at least always have the option of a free windows BETA.

    MS could then say - Win is free - in much the same way betas of linux ( all linux are a beta haha)
    give devs what they want - and still sell - suported "finished" versions to home users and businesses.

    Seem so simple to me..  why not?

    jamie
    Smiley



  • User profile image
    Manip

    Full Linux IS free. Betas are given away freely as are the full versions. RedHat + Mandrake all free. The only vendor that isn't it Lindows.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    mandrake, xandros, lycoris all charge

    maybe im refering to the easiest of the linux's

    debian is free etc but its WAY too hard for me

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    jamie wrote:
    Linux is free... sort of.
    Basically - Linux BETAS seem to be mostly free - with the releases - most companies charge for.

    Why can't MS do the same?
    Just release all win betas free - perpetually..
    so delevlopers could go grab the newest build ( it would have one of those - Exipres in 360 days - disclaimers - like most of your betas.

    This way - your core dev audience - those who are the most prone to experiment tinker with machines and linux - would at least always have the option of a free windows BETA.

    MS could then say - Win is free - in much the same way betas of linux ( all linux are a beta haha)
    give devs what they want - and still sell - suported "finished" versions to home users and businesses.

    Seem so simple to me..  why not?

    jamie
    Smiley


    Did Your computer not come with Windows preinstalled?

    By the way, I heard that Microsoft has them avaliable on MSDN, I don't have an MSDN subscription so I can't verify whether or not that is true.

  • User profile image
    Knute

    If Linux is free how come when I go to the software store I don't see rows and rows of "Cool" software for linux???

    Just wondering

    ~ Knute

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Knute wrote:
    If Linux is free how come when I go to the software store I don't see rows and rows of "Cool" software for linux???

    Just wondering

    ~ Knute


    Ever since the Unix System V legal issues arose, I haven't considered Linux free. Also, I understand that it has support for FAT and NTFS so unless Microsoft gives Linus Tovalds formal permission to support those file systems, Microsoft can sue pretty much everyone running Linux.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Because nobody is making any... And because Linux is SO incredibly user-unfriendly it isn't even funny!

    Edit: Above post - Why would you sue Linus, first off he personally didn't add those features. Second he does not own Linux. Third he does not make a penny from it.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Manip wrote:
    Because nobody is making any... And because Linux is SO incredibly user-unfriendly it isn't even funny!


    I didn't know that Linux could be considered user friendly. ^_^;;

    It isn't a bad operating system if you're willing to spend time in a DOS like interface.

    Edit: I'm not saying to sue Linus, I'm saying that support is in the Linux kernal so Microsoft legally can sue anyone running Linux unless it gave permission to Linus to support those file systems in Linux.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Again, just to nitpick, they wouldn't need to give permission to Linux, but to each of the vendors and distro partners. Linus has no ownership of any distro and as such giving him permission wouldn't do anything.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    I didn't know that Linux could be considered user friendly. ^_^;;

    It isn't a bad operating system if you're willing to spend time in a DOS like interface.


    Actually I wasn't picking on BASH or the shell environments, more the GUI's GNOME, KDE etc. Ever tried setting anything up in them? They are GUI's designed by developers for developers... I suppose I expect too much.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Manip wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    I didn't know that Linux could be considered user friendly. ^_^;;

    It isn't a bad operating system if you're willing to spend time in a DOS like interface.


    Actually I wasn't picking on BASH or the shell environments, more the GUI's GNOME, KDE etc. Ever tried setting anything up in them? They are GUI's designed by developers for developers... I suppose I expect too much.


    Linux + KDE reminds me of DOS 6.22 + Windows 3.1. ^_^;;

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Except less user friendly! =)

  • User profile image
    Gill Bates

    Do you realize how many people would come out of the woodwork and say they were developers just to get a free copy of the much awaited Longhorn? Then again, Apple did this with Panther. The difference was that it was a *surprise* to all of the people who *already* spent $3000 to attend their developer's conference (they got a neat iSight camera as well). I'm sure Microsoft could easily justify the same, but to do what the Linux community does naturally, I wouldn't hold my breath. Besides, would it take a true developer to install those free beta versions of Windows? If so, maybe the idea could fly. Say, instead of having a great wizard, you were left to run FDISK and such on your own. That would indeed help. But it wouldn't be perfect either.

  • User profile image
    vanlandw

    windows will NEVER be free....neither will office..

  • User profile image
    jamie

    but free as in speech?

    the perpetual beta could at least give you "we're free too" ammo?

    why be so -definate-

    perception is just..that! Smiley

    btw- vanlanbw - arnt you in the show 24? haha

  • User profile image
    mindragon

    Well...why not a subscription model? Something like it's free to install, but if you want these 30 cool features, it's $4.99 a month? Seems to me, Microsoft would be much more in line with user's expectations that way and it would get around the nasty "preinstalled" model that makes life a little difficult for corporate users.

    Corporate users are usually the last to upgrade because of the "if it sorta works why fix it" problem. But if the OS's were made available on a subscription model (maybe $39.99 a month per server) I think that more corporations might be inclined to upgrade since it's "free".

    I upgrade my subscription based software (FTP voyager, Serv-U) far more frequently than my OS's (Windows 2003 / WinXP still slowly being rolled out)...

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    mindragon wrote:
    Well...why not a subscription model? Something like it's free to install, but if you want these 30 cool features, it's $4.99 a month? Seems to me, Microsoft would be much more in line with user's expectations that way and it would get around the nasty "preinstalled" model that makes life a little difficult for corporate users.


    I'd switch to Linux and pay SCO their licensing fee if Windows had a subscription model as at least then I would own the software.

  • User profile image
    Sabot

    On MSDN Subscription download you can download a version of Longhorn and have been able to since before Christmas.

    How it works is that you can install software covered under MSDN licence on any number of machines that are licenced to you and that it is for development purposes only, not production.

    The MSDN library consists of almost everything Microsoft makes, except leisure software and is very comprehensive.

    I would always recommend purchase of an MSDN licence if your a developer principally involved in development using Microsoft tools. Purely because it works out cheaper in the long run, specially when upgrading. The bottom-line arguement always works with the boss. From the developers point of view, it's goodie central and lets be honest, we love our toys! Wink

    So I have my desktops and all my development servers covered by the one licence which has been happily software audited and is proven to be totally legitimate.

    I paid £446 for Redhat Linux recently, so what have I paid for if it's 'free'? That covers one processor whether development or production. £76 for a desktop version.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000E2Y81/onthewebcom-21/026-9521030-8063644

    Loads of goodies in Open Source admittedly, but the number of Windows Open Source stuff is growing too. The advantages to Linux based on bottom-line aren't seeming so great right now.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.