Microsoft gets sued over Windows XP downgrade fees
By Donald Melanson 
posted Feb 16th 2009 2:38PM
posted Feb 16th 2009 2:38PM
Microsoft may be doing its best to move past Windows XP once and for all, but a Los Angeles woman is alleging that the company is all too happy to bank some extra change on the OS in the meantime, and that it's essentially trying to have it both ways. As a result, she's now suing Microsoft over its XP "downgrade" fees, and requesting that the lawsuit be granted class-action certification so others can get a piece of the action. Apparently, Emma Alvarado bought a Lenovo PC last June and had to pay an additional $59.25 to downgrade to XP, which she claims is simply a case of Microsoft taking advantage of consumer demand for XP to pad its profits. The suit further alleges that the seemingly endless extensions of the XP deadline were "likely due to the tremendous profits that Microsoft has reaped from its 'downgrade' option." For Microsoft's part, it insists that the company itself "does not have a downgrade program," and that it doesn't get any of the money from the Vista-to-XP downgrade options.[Thanks, Cargojack]
Oh, boo hoo. GET A LIFE. They can charge whatever they want.
Don't be ridiculous Windows Vista SP1 was out by then. There is nothing wrong with the OS, but simply the people that are unwilling to except change. The fact that she filed that suite is sort of a proof that people are unwilling to change and learn new things.
But the story has NOTHING to do with accepting chance, the fact is that Microsoft shouldn't charge to downgrade something, especially when it doesn't cost them a cent.
@Andrew: So you simply open your wallet and don't ask questions?
"but simply the people that are unwilling to except[sic] change"
There's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why everyone tries to argue this point. If someone wants to keep using Windows 95, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
Yep it has been proven more than once....
BeOS failed because they couldn't stand up to MS and win as well as the fact that people didn't want to change
IMO it is one of the coolest OSs ever... easy to use perhaps more so than Windows and boots completely so fast even at 300mhz i could boot 3 times before Vista gets the desktop usable
Too bad Be Inc didn't make it... we do have Haiku R1 (BeOS's ideological successor open source like Linux) to look froward to soonish though and hopefully Haiku R2 will nock the socks of the competition
For real! Don't people have better things to do than finding who to sue?
you don't have anything better to do than post on engadget XD
Easy proof that the consumer in question is an id*ot...
The system would likely come with Vista Home Basic. To upgrade to Vista Business it would cost ~$60. Windows XP Professional is the "equivalent" to Vista Business, not to Vista Home Basic. MS was still selling XP legally, and maintained its MSRP. The customer chose of her own free will to purchase the equivalent of Vista Business to be installed on the product purchased. The choice was not forced upon her.
This will be thrown out of court for being a non issue
I think this lady has a legit cause, it's ridiculous to be charged a "downgrade" fee for anything. Seriously now, it's a DOWNgrade.
Microsoft cannot "charge whatever it wants", because it is an adjudged monopoly. Federalist judges can cite Adam Smith all they like- and it pleases me that they do so, because AS warned us about the abuses of monopolists.
You gain control of a market, you get the power, the money, and the oversight of the courts... maybe the last. Reagan, Bush and Bush packed those courts TIGHT with Federalist Society judges, and their party blocked Clinton utterly from appointing any of more, um, open-minded judges during his eight years, ie open minded to following monopoly laws. So it's up to the luck of the draw, and the luck is skewed Republican.
But the law is clear about monopoly abuse. What is not clear is whether the packed courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, will follow the laws.
Mysterio if you buy a car with a V6 in it but want to replace it with a four cylinder, many people will see that as a downgrade BUT its not free because it is still a separate product that someone had to produce.
Let's see you go into a computer store and get them to install Windows 95 for free.
MS isn't charging the fee, the manufacturer is. It is a cost of labor + increased support costs.
"Let's see you go into a computer store and get them to install Windows 95 for free.
MS isn't charging the fee, the manufacturer is. It is a cost of labor + increased support costs."
That depends on how the OEM reseller license is worded. If Microsoft offers the OEM the ability to sell any license of Windows with the PC then sure, it's the OEM. However, if the customer is forced to buy a Vista license that they didn't want just to get the PC then they have to pay on top of that to get XP, then MS is to blame.
The problem is that Microsoft is still supporting XP for more years because of all those people who want to downgrade. That costs money. To discourage people from doing so and to defray the costs they charge money. This seems completely and utterly reasonable.
oh idiots, downgrade is not microsoft program. you buy a vista machine but you want xp so you go and buy xp. you must pay for that xp. its like you buy a car with michelin tire but you want a goodyear one so you must buy that extra tires.
"The problem is that Microsoft is still supporting XP for more years because of all those people who want to downgrade. That costs money. To discourage people from doing so and to defray the costs they charge money. This seems completely and utterly reasonable."
How is that reasonable? They don't have to support XP. They've extended the support themselves. People/Consumers should have a choice no matter what that choice is. Forcing an upgrade by charging more for the customer's preferred system is abuse of market power. It's not up to the company to decide what the consumer wants. If there are still XP licenses available, people should not be charged more for them.
There is a unique problem that comes up because this is digital media. If Hasbro stopped selling the Monopoly board game, people could always buy it at a garage sale and continue playing it. Hasbro would be forced to continue making the game in order to make money. That's consumerism. Basic Supply and Demand. If people still want to use XP, they should be able to. Microsoft doesn't NEED to support it. They choose to. It's pretty obvious there are people out there that don't want Vista. The only method they have to obtain the system is illegal if Microsoft doesn't sell it to them. This is a very unique problem with digital media. Consumers (and their money) have lost power.
Next week: Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia.
You want a custom job, you pay extra. Them's the rules.
"Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia"
1.) Physical vs Digital
2.) Both Vista and XP licenses were still available
3.) If both were still on the market, and they charged you double for the Vectra ... would you be happy with that transaction? (If you could walk into the dealer and you _really_like_ the Vectra and you went to buy it, but they said it would cost more than it's newer counterpart... would you truly be happy paying more?)
"1.) Physical vs Digital"
Yes? And?
"2.) Both Vista and XP licenses were still available"
Yup, and Lenovo chose to penalise stupid people by charging more for XP. That's their call because they don't actually have to give you a choice at all.
"3.) If both were still on the market, and they charged you double for the Vectra ... would you be happy with that transaction? (If you could walk into the dealer and you _really_like_ the Vectra and you went to buy it, but they said it would cost more than it's newer counterpart... would you truly be happy paying more?)"
No, I'd buy a used one and not whine like a little bitch. It's up to Vauxhall and their dealers what they sell. I mean I really liked the Cavalier but it's history now. Move the hell on.
really, i was going to say the exact same thing as paul did, and when i read his comment i thought i wouldn't say anything. but just for the amount of douchebags that think that its wrong for a company to charge people for something the company provides... i dont think you guys understand the idea of a business. Microsoft is not a charity, live with it, they wont give you free XP. if they sell vista now, and you buy vista, then xp is not considered a downgrade, its considered an additional software purchase. if you bought Microsoft office 07, would office 03 would now be free? NO. the fact that they dont charge you the whole cost for xp is actually a generosity on their part.
@mink:
If you wanted to buy XP, why should you have to pay for Vista, then pay extra for XP? That's the debate here. It's not about her getting both. She wanted XP and from the sound of it, didn't want Vista. Since the OEM is required to sell Vista with every purchase, Microsoft is essentially forcing her to buy two operating systems, when she only wants one.
How does that make sense?
@Mark:
You just argued my point. You CANNOT buy a used XP license. It's non-transferable. So you may be able to buy a used car, but you cannot buy a used OS. This is why Digital vs Physical matters (as you apparently didn't understand...)
She bought a computer with windows vista...she didnt like it...she payed to "downgrade" it to xp...an xp license costs money...she had to pay for it.
I dont see her problem. If she didnt want vista in the first place then why buy a computer which comes with it? If i went out and bought something that wasnt what i wanted in the first place and had to pay more to get it the way i liked it can i go ahead and sue the manufacturer of the part i changed?
Shes an idiot, if she didnt want vista she shouldnt have bought a computer with it installed.
"You just argued my point. You CANNOT buy a used XP license. It's non-transferable. So you may be able to buy a used car, but you cannot buy a used OS. This is why Digital vs Physical matters (as you apparently didn't understand."
No my point was that if I'd accept that a manufacturer has a right to sell what they want and charge people who are stupid enough to want to buy an older product more money. If I want an older model then I get one from stock (and may have to pay an order and shipping fee to do it) or accept that I have to buy one second hand - just as I could buy a second hand Lenovo laptop with XP installed.
Apparently that kind of escaped you. :)
The downgrade should not be FREE, however, it should be -$30 in the shopping cart (and you don't get a vista license). :)
@Paul:
Yeah but Paul, since when have you ever seen a car where the 4 cylinder model cost more than the V6???
wow this new car is great but can you install an 8-track instead because I don't have any CD's....
What? you want to charge me for old technology?!?!?! you mean I'm paying for the CD player that comes with this car??? and the 8-track??? this is nonsense!!!
if you don't want vista build a custom PC and by XP seperate... better yet try vista!!!... most people that I sell computers to hate vista but yet have never used it...
This car analogy is not working, you guys aren't getting it. Getting a 4 cylinder model isn't exactly a downgrade either if you're talking about same model year w/ same options.
It's more like this, paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 08 model, now does that make sense???
"Next week: Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia."
Wrong analogy: the Insigna is actually a better car. Problem here is that dumb people are happy with Vista just because it's newer and don't realise/care it's actually worse than XP.
@mynk
"if you bought Microsoft office 07, would office 03 would now be free? NO."
Oh yes you can, you fool. From http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc
"Which 2007 Microsoft Office system suites are eligible to downgrade to Office 2003 suites?
Customers who have licensed Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007 are eligible to downgrade to Office Professional Enterprise 2003 and all previous versions as described above. Customers who have licensed Microsoft Office Standard 2007 are eligible to downgrade to Office Standard Edition 2003 and all previous versions of Office Standard Edition."
It's better to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
If people really thought the "downgrade fee" was so unreasonable, they wouldn't buy it. It's not like Vista is a worthless operating system, it's quite nice. If you prefer XP, though, you can pay for it.
@andir3.0
Hey, why don't you just shut up?
Does the truth hurt?
It's fine to say people should have to pay for XP, no one is arguing that. Use all the metaphors you like, it doesn't change the fact that isn't the issue.
The issue is, MS is saying you have to pay for a Vista license (or some Vista premium) in order to install XP, a completely unrelated and PRIOR product. Now, if they had competitors this would not be a problem, as even one competitor would undercut them and drive their XP sales to zero (which they might claim they wouldn't mind). However, because they are a monopoly (can anyone else sell you XP?), they can get away with charging exorbitant prices unless courts intervene.
@ big J
"It's more like this, paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 08 model, now does that make sense???"
Rather, it's more like paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 88 model.
Vintage models that aren't produced anymore do cost more. However, just as vintage cars are still "supported", so is XP. Nobody is forced to buy a new car every year as new models are produced; but with every year comes the discontinuation of the old. I can still drive my '88 Corolla -- it's still "supported" by repair shops and the like, but in no way is Toyota forced to reproduce it. XP is still supported by Microsoft (for now, at least), but in no way should they be forced to keep producing it.
People aren't forced to change. Even if Microsoft eventually stops producing XP, it will still be widely available. That's the big difference between cars and Windows XP, as many people have been stating. But many people, I would suspect, aren't thinking about the car as if it were a computer. Just as you eventually have to replace or upgrade old parts in a car, so do you have to at least upgrade the internals of your computer if you want it to run newer software. I remember when I tried to upgrade my computer that had Windows 98 to XP (Note that I hadn't upgraded to Windows 2000 between then). I had originally bought this computer with Windows 95 installed. Well, by XP I had had enough. But I'm getting too far into this. The point is, you can't expect a computer from 2001 or before, to be able to run a new operating system, six or seven or eight years later, very well.
Regarding the "extra charge" for XP, I think RoboDan explains it very well above: "The system would likely come with Vista Home Basic. To upgrade to Vista Business it would cost ~$60. Windows XP Professional is the "equivalent" to Vista Business, not to Vista Home Basic. MS was still selling XP legally, and maintained its MSRP. The customer chose of her own free will to purchase the equivalent of Vista Business to be installed on the product purchased. The choice was not forced upon her."
This is verified by going onto Lenovo's site and customizing a computer. The downgrade to XP Professional is the same price as Vista Business. Lenovo even says that you're buying "Genuine Windows Vista Business with Windows XP Professional Downgrade." Even if you don't want Vista, you still have to buy the operating system.
"Since the OEM is required to sell Vista with every purchase, Microsoft is essentially forcing her to buy two operating systems, when she only wants one." - Andir3.0
This is flat out wrong.
She chose to buy a computer from a company that bundles Vista with that system. She knew when she purchased that this was so. She could just as easily have bought a computer from a different company that does not bundle Vista.
Just because there is demand for an operating system that is approaching 8 years old does not mean Microsoft has an obligation to continue selling it. There are many alternatives to Windows.
"Now, if they had competitors this would not be a problem, as even one competitor would undercut them and drive their XP sales to zero (which they might claim they wouldn't mind). However, because they are a monopoly (can anyone else sell you XP?), they can get away with charging exorbitant prices unless courts intervene." - Josh
Who else can sell you XP besides Microsoft? Well let's see...
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=368
Newegg can!
Of course that doesn't have anything to do with being a monopoly, but you're wrong just the same. As for there being no competitors, you're wrong about that too.
@Josh - "The issue is, MS is saying you have to pay for a Vista license (or some Vista premium) in order to install XP, a completely unrelated and PRIOR product."
Actually, Microsoft ISN'T saying that. Lenovo is. And it wasn't really a downgrade, despite how much this consumer (and those supporting /profiting off her) would like everyone to believe. She went from Vista Basic to XP Professional. That's an upgrade. XP Professional has many services that XP Home does not - not the least of which is the domain services, which costs money. Period. She does not have two Vista license keys, and she did NOT pay the full retail price of XP Pro (Somewhere between $200 and $400). She paid the difference that Lenovo charged between their OEM fee for Vista Basic - which MS had discounted to encourage sales, and XP Pro, which they had no need to discount.
She did not have to install, or purchase, a Vista license. There was no Vista license on the bottom of her laptop (or if there was, it wasn't required by MS to be there). And despite what you may think, it is MUCH cheaper to buy a new, failing product than an established, respected one.
What it comes down to is that she, like many MS customers, has a poor understanding of the difference between XP Home, XP Pro, and the myriad of Vista versions. She didn't NEED XP Pro, it just sounded better (or was all Lenovo offered) and so she got that. And there is no law that requires new products to be more expensive than older ones. That's how you establish a new product - discounts to help it get into customers hands so they'll actually use it, because it's better for you (and them) in the long run.
Last I checked, it's free to downgrade to XP from any Business equipped PC.
¬_¬
so many microsoft fanboys replying on the first post, in attempt to make their posts appear on the first page.
*yawn*
Man, americans are sue happy. Stub your toe - sue the forest.
Microsoft wants to move past XP because of vunerabilities. The more vunerabilities out there, the more MS has to work at getting rid of them.
And, indeed, the less "ammunition" that overzealous fuckwits have against Microsoft.
i think we should implement punishment for frivolous lawsuits. sue microsoft for something they didn't do? go to jail for a year.
why is our health care so expensive? malpractice insurance. people, the money has to come from somewhere, and i guarantee you the CEO's not taking a pay cut. people who sue large corporations end up punishing all the other legitimate customers out there. quit looking for that perfect opportunity to sue and get rich off the rest of america's rising prices for goods and services.
The lady and her ambulance chasing attorney should be laughed out of court.
And given a bill for Microsoft's legal expenses and related court costs.
What a brain dead idiot. Like others have said, MS can charge whatever it wants. XP is a different product as well!
It's the wording that's getting MS into trouble, doesn't it sound ridiculous to pay for a DOWNgrade?
So...it's not MS. When you buy a license, you can use it for any older version you want (granted the key will not work, but the way bulk licensing like Dell and others have works, is that you can use any older version with a license for whatever version you buy). This is the OEM's who choose to do this and make the money doing so.
MS isn't making a dime on the downgrades. It's the OEM's who are charging the difference and I am sure the reason for the fee is because supporting a 3rd OS beyond it's expiration can be costly. Dell, if it could would prefer to sell only VISTA and drop XP, but consumer demand is keeping it alive long past it's prime.
This has been over at pc world since Wednesday. They've generally come to the conclusion (that iss the readers) that's it's bull and they Microsoft will win. Microsoft don't offer XP to consumers other than on netbooks. It's OEMS that are to blame.
OEMs are to blame that M$ has forced everybody to /upgrade/ to Vista?? And charges extra license literally double license for the XP????
That's preposterous.
If OEMs are to be blamed for something - then blame them that they forced M$ to give the XP downgrade option at all.
@Dummy00001
Its the OEM charging for dual support on a machine. The machine was built to run Vista(Business), they had a cost in validating the same machine to use Windows XP Pro. Being a business they like to pass additional costs due to customers requests onto said customers. Would you be happier if Lenovo had just charged everybody $50 more bucks for the machine and let everybody choose which OS they wanted on it? The license fees to Microsoft are the exact same, they get paid for 1 Vista Business License which has a free option to drop to Windows XP Pro.
Yep.
That's like them charging you for Windows 7 when it comes out, absolutely shocking of them to make you pay for it's Operating Systems imo.
*shakes head at MS*
Whoops, that was meant for Ryan.
mine too was meant for ryan, and i double-checked the "replying to" note. engadget, fix your comments please!
@acidox
It's absolutely shameful that Microsoft will charge its customers for using Windows 7 when it comes out! How dare they try to earn a profit! They're just trying to take advantage of consumer demand to line their fat wallets!
j/k ;)
I wonder if she ever thought that it cost something to support an OS that is going on a 8 years old. Just hink of the service packs and patches. They dont program themselves.
If she wanted to do it herself she could do it for free, she has the license, this cost is probably just a service charge for installing the operatinf system rather than actually paying for XP itself.
No. It's M$ who imposed fee for XP downgrade option.
So from her reasoning is sounds like she is suing because Microsoft is making money? It is "simply a case of Microsoft taking advantage of consumer demand for XP" - isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? She didn't have to buy a computer preloaded with Vista.
it seems this woman has not heard of economics
Many people argue that you cannot use an OS besides Windows because of interoperability. So people assume that you MUST buy Windows if you buy a computer. If the OEM is forced to buy a Vista license for each PC they build based on the License from Microsoft (not sure on this...) then she has a case. If the OEM could sell her only an XP license without Vista but they are stiffing their customers, then she should be suing the OEM. However, I think there's a stipulation in the OEM reseller contract that states that Microsoft provides a discounted price on licenses and provides unlimited license rights to any OEM as long as they return a certain percentage of the cost of every PC to Microsoft which is referred to many as the Microsoft Tax. This would be the cost of Vista. If the OEM is powerless to remove this cost and only charge her for XP, they should be. I don't think they have that option.
There are different laws for a company that has been convicted of anti-trust violations. They have to play by different rules than other companies so the argument of "what business is supposed to do" doesn't work because MS is a recognized monopoly risk. Not all businesses are the same. When you reach a dominating position, you risk becoming more powerful than the government you reside. (Control the people, their rights, and their money...and other business)
Many people also argue the moon landing was faked. If there's no option other than Windows, I think the millions of people use use Linux, Unix, Mac OS (a pretty shell over Unix, but still), and so on, need to stop deluding themselves into thinking that everything is working for them. Or, maybe those people who make that argument are just rabid anti Microsoft third rate economists who tried to install the Windows version of office onto their Macbook.
yah... she's an idiot, the manufacturers offer the downgrade program themselves its not through microsoft. Microsoft is a monopoly but they're not that evil.
oh and what was that last law suite about... yeah it was MS in cohorts with OEMs ... this has been going on for YEARS killing off the competition
too bad for MS you open source is killable
What more sucks is that if you have windows on a computer it makes it quite difficult for most people to install another OS without inadvertently deleting windows which makes adoption of other OSes slow
Perhaps a better case against MS would be that they make it hard to try out alternative OSes
and if you have the free time a blank CD and an old PC from 2000 or so try out BeOS Max PE http://www.beosmax.org/ (you can burn the .cue files with imgburn which i used or alcohol 120% i hear) it really impresses me or Haiku on newer PCs once it is released
So...
If this bullshit has any merit, then people still get to have XP BECAUSE of these "fees"?
I thought people wanted XP. Surely the only way for Microsoft to give a shit about an OS is when they're profiting from it?
If this bint wins her case, she should be paying scientists to remove the "absolute moron" alleles from her children.
Uhm.. I guess she better sue her lawyers for not investigating the problem, it's the OEM's that charge for the downgrade, not MS, and the OEM's charge for the downgrade because it costs them a lot of money to have to support XP (let's not forget they have to check every change in the configuration with their hardware, and that's costly if you have a big lineup)
Indirectly....its Microsoft. Microsoft drops all incentives for the OS so in short the cost of XP goes up for the OEMs and they pass the cost on to the consumer. Neither Microsoft or the OEMs want to spend money supporting XP so if you want it, you pay for it.
@DuperDre: It's M$ who charges the XP "downgrade" fee - not OEM. By normal M$ OEM agreement, OEMs are not even allowed to put extra stickers on their systems - least install another, M$-unapproved OS.
This kind of behavior on M$ part should have been forbidden by anti-trust ruling. But since DOJ lost the case... I mean won... but de facto lost the case, M$ does as it pleases. Main charge was that enjoying monopoly position in market, M$ overcharged customers for its OSs.
The downgrade fee is precisely how M$ overcharges its customers. The headline might be wrong ("XP fees"), yet they can't deny that OEMs are forced by M$ to bundle/charge for Vista nobody wants. And that kind of agreement between vendors is precisely what IMO (IANAL) constitutes abuse of monopoly.
Thats why its an option. They dont demand you downgrade they just ask if youd like to....... Is she going to sue because they charge extra to get ultimate...... "Microsoft is trying to make money for different editions that are entirely optional and mostly unnecessary".........
It's funny, because that last point about Ultimate is probably somewhere on the train of thought of many of the readers here.
lol its their product they can charge whatever the hell they want for it
that's like suing Comcast cuz they wanna charge me for Cable
But somehow I doubt that Comcast can one-sidedly change contract overnight and next day demand that you either sign it or loose the service.
Microsoft doesn't charge the XP downgrade fees, the PC manufacturer does. A vista license gives you downgrade rights to XP, 2000, windows 98, 95, windows 3.1, whatever you like....This is silly, she should be suing Lenovo to install XP on her PC.
Never ever did any M$ license gave end-users such rights.
Your addiction to MSDN subscription seems to cause hallucinations.
Pointless lawsuit, ruined by the offset by suing the wrong company! Lenovo would have perhaps been a better case.
I hope she wins
Seems kinda silly for a lawsuit
my grand slam was supposed to come with sausage
go home to your cat.
cats*
XP is history and lets all get over it. What a great time to be a lawyer...
While I think the case has no merit, I do think it's absurd that people are charged a fee to avoid Vista....
Sure, anyone can charge whatever they want, and it's legal...
Doesn't make it moral, or right.
Capitalism sucks and is awful and disgraceful.
People who are all "LOL THEY CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT!" are damned monsters.
Freedom isn't a perfect policy, it's just the best.
1) Anti-Capitalism is for lazy slobs who want to be spoon fed
2) This lady has too much time on her hands
3) This downgrade fee... is probably so someone can get paid to spend an hour formatting the hard drive and installing something else
btw,
THEY CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT! EGAD LOLICOPTERS BATMAN
-Velik
@Stellar
Anti-Capitalism is against brualism as a basis for civilization... it has nothing to do with productivity. Basically, by your logic, you're a whore... Only do something if you are paid... great attitude. It's astounding you and many others don't see the problem in that logic. You do realize that the most brilliant thinkers who ever lived did things because they were driven, right? Many of them died poor... but their efforts benefited humanity immensely. And the current world economy shows us what capitalism achieved. http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
By the way, those Fascist / Communist pigs achieved / invented a hell of a lot of stuff that the Capitalists later emulated / used. The only thing Capitalism offers is busy-ness, a means of social control, and "equal-opportunity" malfeasance... I'll dig the hole and you fill it in... OK? Social-Democracy is a much more humane system as is evidenced by the best research facilities in the US... schools which do primary research, and agencies like NASA / ORNL / operated by the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_laboratory
Back @ Kwikit
Anti-Capitalism is against brualism as a basis for civilization... it has nothing to do with productivity.
>> haha... what? well, i made out the last part. and your right! Anti-Capitalism has nothing at all to do with productivity.
Your comments because they are crap, illogical, and provide no real means to your crock of an argument.
I'll only comment on a few of your replies because Im "busy" making "money".... unfairly right?
Basically, by your logic, you're a whore.
>> I dont remember posting any logic, but let's dissect that shall we?
1) (The view) Anti-Capitalism ( where the private sector manages itself ) is for lazy slobs who want to be spoon fed.
** This is my, and many other Capitalist, opinion and has nothing to do with logic.
2) This lady has too much time on her hands
** This is a fact! lol. Again, this is not a logic, but an observation.
3) This downgrade fee... is probably so someone can get paid to spend an hour formatting the hard drive and installing something else
** This also is an educated guess. This is not logic, since it ( focus, it refers to logic ) deals with processing of facts.
I, and everyone else, are still waiting for the quotes of logic and references to working street corners for money : |
Only do something if you are paid... great attitude.
>> You think so? So do the greater two thirds, that's two pieces out of three, of the United States population. The other third doesn't work for free though. They get paid by social programs in order to afford drugs and alcohol in between doing nothing, for free.
ok, one more...
I'll dig the hole and you fill it in... OK?
>> Ok, I'll even post it in "Logic" form
1) Begin
2) While hole not 6 feet deep
3) You dig with shovel
4) You Lie down in hole
5) While hole is not filled
6) I'll add dirt
7) End
XP is history and lets all get over it. What a great time to be a lawyer...
Wow. You have to double post to make sure your website that is in a comment gets linked. We don't like self-plugs. If your site is that great, people will visit it on their own.
That website sucks worse then Vista.
For once I am with Microsoft on this. They are very different products. They can charge a little extra. They just sell the licenses to the PC manufacturers to use the OS. If she wants to have XP, then bother the PC manufacturer. MS just wants to charge for their trouble. They are not on the charity giving away OS business.
Your comment would make far more sense if Microsoft actually got any of that "downgrade" money. Which they don't.
And this is why Windows 7 (like Vista) will fail.
This is the majority of people... they just won't upgrade.
I hope she knows the the actual OS costs money.
Also. the lawsuit against them including IE with their OS is BS, if they didn't include it then about 70% of people wouldn't be able to get on the internet
We just got our new work computers (T3400 Dell maxed) at the office today. Other than using outdated software from the 90's there's really no point of keeping XP around now-a-days, Vista handles normal day tasks a lot better.
(IT is updating us to Windows 7 when its released, most here have it as their main OS on their personal laptops or their dual booting it on thier Macintosh).
Wow. I wonder how much M$ is forking for such nice astroturfing...
Sigh, only in America... Was she not aware that she was charged 56 bucks, or is the new "moral police".. aggrr.. I hate these people.
Microsoft is right - I used to work for a major PC MFG and it was the company that took advantage of the downgrade right bundled in Vista Business and did the downgrade for them. The reason it cost money was because its more complicated to do. Its not simply loading XP on - because they actually are licensed with Vista and downgrading to XP - so it required a different process to get it done...but it was a loop hole in the EULA for people to get XP. Then the MFG also had to include a recovery CD for XP and then the originals for Vista too. It isn't as straight-forward as just 'getting' XP. For 50 bucks extra - she got XP installed and got the right to both OS's. Try buying XP and upgrade to Vista...it would have been twice that at least. Plus, to downgrade you have to have a valid XP cd to do it - and those CD's, if purchased directly from Microsoft through the MSDN store are 29 dollars. So, they did all the work, all the configuration, gave her an XP CD and 2 OS's for 50 bucks. If anything Lenovo should have charged her MORE. The time and effort to go through all the loop-holes and install the OS she wanted for her was more costly to them. This will get tossed. It wasn't Microsoft that did the downgrade option - its a loop-hole in the EULA that Lenovo, Dell and others took advantage of to HELP the customers.