Windows 7 Pricing - Europe loses out!

lucideer

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I didnt read the whole thread so someone may have pointed this out, but cant you browse the web through windows explorer?

Windows Explorer uses Internet Explorer's engine to browse. You can also browse the web with Windows Media Player, but it also uses Internet Explorer's engine. Another example that won't work is Firefox's IETab extension - it uses Internet Explorer's engine, so that extension won't work on EU Windows 7.

center15 wrote: »

One simply solution would have been to just give an option of firefox, IE and Opera when installing windows 7.

That solution wouldn't benefit Microsoft though would it. This one benefit's them in so many ways:
(a) it makes it look to unobservant people like MS are making some sort of compromise,
(b) it allows them to charge Europeans more for certain things,
(c) it pisses off customers allowing MS to tell them to "blame the EU" or "blame Opera" (see the recent JCXP boycott for examples of some ignorant people actually doing this) and,
(d) it means people will now have to jump through two hoops to use an alternative browser: 1) download IE off Windows Update and 2) use IE to download your browser of choice.

As I said above, just use Windows2008R2 for free instead of giving MS the satisfaction of another sale.

Sir Oxman

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU / UK prices for windows are usually higher than US prices
in addition US get extra special deals that we don't


Not having an upgrade option is not a major issue IMHO
Most people have OEM windows and so if they upgraded then the new copy of windows 7 would be bound forever to their current PC's mother board and would live and die with it.

In fact not having an upgrade option will prevent many people from breaking the law, which is what you would be doing if you moved the copy of windows to another PC ( unless you are one of the few non-coporate users of a transferrable windows license )

What law?

probe

gambiaman wrote: »

What law?

Microsoft can create any contract terms they like and put it in the EULA (end-user license "agreement"). If you want the software you have to click "yes" (I agree to all your conditions) - otherwise click no and the software install is abandoned. Everything is non-negotiable. Microsoft creates the law, and given its monopoly position, can enforce Microsoft law on more people on the planet than any democratically elected government. Not that there are many of these on planet Earth!

MS software calls home regularly to report on your compliance with "The Microsoft Law", without your express consent. Hitler, Napoleon and the Stasi were light touch softies by comparison when it comes to jackboot tactics....

In answer to your question "What law"..... contract law (by the backdoor) which is a major aspect of the Microsoft monopoly abuse of power which would appear to have received little attention from the competition authorities, anywhere.

probe

theCzar wrote: »

which is what the EU intended. MS jumped the gun a little with their decision to simply strip browser functionality from W7. Fine them again I say!

With no internet explorer pre-installed as the default, all the OEMs - Dell, HP, Sony, etc will install their own choice of browser - which will no doubt come pre-loaded with dozens of crapware, spamware, popping windows, bookmarks, other things that one will have to remove manually.

I can't see how one can fine MS for not providing a browser. Anymore than than you can fine a car manufacturer for not providing air conditioning. While one could fine a car manufacturer for selling a car without brakes (a safety issue), a PC without internet explorer is a far more secure PC. The requirement to use IE to perform windowsupdate is artificial - and monopolistic smelling. One can update Adobe software using any browser.

SirLemonhead

The EU's suggestion for including multiple browsers is stupid, there's more browsers out there than IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera. It would hardly be competetive and fair to leave them out too wouldn't it :P

probe

probe wrote: »

They are already selling Windows 7 in the US in the microsoft online shop for $49.99 (Windows Home Premium upgrade) if you buy it now and wait until 2009.10.22 for delivery. I doubt if you will be able to purchase this in the EU, as the Windows versions available in the US have higher grade encryption compared with those sold in the EU. One can only assume that the US gov wants to snoop on everything going on in the EU.

This hasn't been the case for about 10 years. Windows 2000 shipped with 56-bit encryption outside the US but this was increased to 128-bit in a later service pack and anything from Windows Me upwards is 128-bit as standard, Vista being 256-bit.

probe

Karsini wrote: »

This hasn't been the case for about 10 years. Windows 2000 shipped with 56-bit encryption outside the US but this was increased to 128-bit in a later service pack and anything from Windows Me upwards is 128-bit as standard, Vista being 256-bit.

In Microsoft's book: "Windows Server 2008 - Administrators Pocket Consultant" page 309 (of 657 pages - big pocket!) isbn 0-7356-2437-2, Microsoft states:

While US versions of Vista and Server 2008 support both 128 and 256 bit AES, export versions for use outside of the United States support only 128 bit encryption.

AES encryption was invented and developed in Europe by Leuven University http://www.kuleuven.be/english/

How dare Microsoft dumb this European encryption technology idown to 128 bits in Europe on their over priced platforms.

How dare Microsoft take advantage of Ireland to sell its products to the rest of Europe in this way and deny Irish customers the right to purchase Windows 7 upgrades at similar advance purchase pricing as is available in the US.

Capt'n Midnight

Dartz

If you don't like paying for Windows. If you don't like the Microsoft conspiracy, or the monopolising leverage.... Join Ussss.

TBH, I'm only using Windows 7 right now for the sake of 2 games.... because it came free until March-ish... I couldn't be arsed paying for the bugger when it comes out, mostly because it does nothing for me the above link doesn't do better, and for less fuss overall.

But then again, I'm a tight bastard....

Ciaran500

probe wrote: »

With no internet explorer pre-installed as the default, all the OEMs - Dell, HP, Sony, etc will install their own choice of browser - which will no doubt come pre-loaded with dozens of crapware, spamware, popping windows, bookmarks, other things that one will have to remove manually.

All the OEMs already use custom installs of Windows to stick whatever they want on a computer, this won't change it.

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Filtering content - ie port blocking is another big issue for competition authorities. Port blocking allows ISPs to kill off competition in telecommunications services, prevent entertainment services - except those offered by the ISP in question, and act as a censor on their customers' freedom of speech.

Illegal, unconstitutional, and in breach of European Convention on Human Rights. The government has given a de-facto monopoly to cable TV, and eircom in IRL. Eircom controls 95% of DSL internet connections - retail and wholesale combined. There is only one cable TV operator realistically speaking. Both of them are blocking ports and threatening customers.

The incompetent overpaid regulators are doing nothing to correct the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Sir Oxman

probe wrote: »

Microsoft can create any contract terms they like and put it in the EULA (end-user license "agreement"). If you want the software you have to click "yes" (I agree to all your conditions) - otherwise click no and the software install is abandoned. Everything is non-negotiable. Microsoft creates the law, and given its monopoly position, can enforce Microsoft law on more people on the planet than any democratically elected government. Not that there are many of these on planet Earth!

MS software calls home regularly to report on your compliance with "The Microsoft Law", without your express consent. Hitler, Napoleon and the Stasi were light touch softies by comparison when it comes to jackboot tactics....

In answer to your question "What law"..... contract law (by the backdoor) which is a major aspect of the Microsoft monopoly abuse of power which would appear to have received little attention from the competition authorities, anywhere.

'Breaking the law' is not the same as not abiding by the terms of an EULA.
I wish people (not you) would stop saying 'you're breaking the law' when it comes to bloody EULAs.

lucideer

gambiaman wrote: »

'Breaking the law' is not the same as not abiding by the terms of an EULA.
I wish people (not you) would stop saying 'you're breaking the law' when it comes to bloody EULAs.

As far as I'm aware a EULA is a legal contract, the terms of which you are therefore legally bound with when you Accept it on installation. Corrrect me if I'm wrong of course, but that sounds like breaking the law to me.

z0oT

I was once of the opinion that Microsoft should be allowed bundle whatever they like with Windows because it's them that make the operating system. But it's a classic case of Antitrust violation. So I see no problem in the EU fining Microsoft on Antitrust issues. Them removing IE and selling it without a browser in Europe is nothing more than Microsoft giving the EU the finger. With a bit of luck they'll be fined good and heavily.

Anyway, Windows 7 is basically what Vista should have been, i really don't understand the excitement considering it's sort of like a big kick in the arse for those who bought Vista. It's basically like them saying "Ok what we released in 2007 was crap, and now we're fixing that crap, but oh... we're going to charge you heavily for it too".
Microsoft always like to give out the image that they're very much on top of things with fixing bugs etc. and to be fair, they do patch them as they turn up, but when service packs and patchs are fixing hundreds of bugs something is a tad wrong there. The fact of the matter is that the bugs shouldn't be there in the first place, granted you won't catch them all, but releasing an OS with hundreds of bugs is very sloppy indeed. JMO though..
Again where the monopoly comes in, were this a competive market, people just wouldn't buy a buggy OS because a viable alternative would be present, and they'd spend money on that instead. However a monopolist can afford to release a thrown together product and get away with it.
Rant over. All my opinion btw, nothing more.

I'll continue to stick with Ubuntu and XP for games and whatever software forces me to use Windows. Maybe after the first service pack of 7 I'll upgrade but not until then, looking back at all the releases of Windows would say to stay away from the early days of it.

astrofool

lucideer wrote: »

As far as I'm aware a EULA is a legal contract, the terms of which you are therefore legally bound with when you Accept it on installation. Corrrect me if I'm wrong of course, but that sounds like breaking the law to me.

You're only breaking the law, if a case is brought against you, and the EULA stands up in court as a valid contract that does not impinge on your consumer rights.

Microsoft could write "you must be an elephant to use this software", it does not mean they could enforce it.

Similar with Apple putting that OSX can only be used on Mac hardware in the EULA, this is dubious at best from a legal POV.

Capt'n Midnight

It's a license so does not fall under the goods and services act which means most consumer rights don't exist

Interesting if true that you only break the law if they sue you.

It's all part of the FUD. Look at SCO their biggest asset was that they could potentially sue a lot of people. Microsoft et al and the BSA will go after companies in a similar manner to the RIIA / IMRO. You might not like the contract, you might not think it's unenforcable, but you can't afford to win that case in court because it could bankrupt you even if you won. And even if you got costs and when through the whole appeals it could easily take 5 years.


I haven't checked in a while but last time I looked you could only claim back purchase price or $5 if there was a problem with the software.

lucideer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interesting if true that you only break the law if they sue you.

Absolutely. I'm no legal expert, but I'd be interested to hear this from someone who was. I'll have to look into it.

(btw astrofool do you have any legal qualifications/expertise, or more interestingly do you have a source for this distinction?)

jochenstacker

Jeez, why do people pay good money for this cr*p?
I still have XP Pro running on my main PC (and looks like it will continue to run for some time) and a laptop running Debian.
Granted, it's a learning curve, but unless you're a complete cnut it's not impossible to work out.
So, should i pay silly money for an OS that is quite intentionally buggy because of the advent of electronic surveillance? It's the equivalent of having to fit faulty locks so the government can come into your house and have a good snoop around. And paying for the privilege.
Or would i be better off with an OS that installs from the bootup screen (no need for CD's), over the net, costs nothing, doesn't give your details to Big Brother and is secure?
Hmmmh...tough choice...

SirLemonhead

Oh god, get back under your tinfoil hat

jochenstacker

No tinfoil hats necessary, Windows just wasn't meant for networking.:)
It was meant to be single PC, single user and all the networking abilities had to be added on top.
The evidence is in the fact that the internet is virtually run by 90% by Linux and Unix based machines, no admin worth his salt would even consider Microsoft Server.
The fact is that Linux has become more userfriendly and still remains free and open source.
Windows is a bit like a Mercedes.
Badly built, unreliable and prone to fall apart.
I found this article on the net:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
It's a few years old, but I fancy things haven't dramatically swung around since.
The basic principles still stand

jochenstacker

jochenstacker wrote: »

No tinfoil hats necessary, Windows just wasn't meant for networking.:)
It was meant to be single PC, single user and all the networking abilities had to be added on top.

I'd agree with that statement for the 9x series but not for NT.

Capt'n Midnight

jochenstacker wrote: »

No tinfoil hats necessary,

This thread is about the price of windows 7

Please keep on topic and BTW NT was designed for networking, the VMS team used the BSD stack.


Unix http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=105
CT http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576