Microsoft retires Office Genuine Advantage program

[Leeky]

I totally agree that GNU has serious draw backs in Linux distros. I like Ubuntu a lot, and know it has drawbacks due to funding issues.

Most users use Office programs and print... that's it. Put Ubuntu and Open Office on their PC and setup a printer for them and then a little training and you have competition for MS. Even if the user wants to browse the Internet, that's no biggy either. Works very much the same.

Funding isn't really so much of an issue as far as I am aware as they have huge backing.

The theory, and your logic are sound, but unfortunately its never as simple as that. There are many printers compatible with Linux, but many aren't. Its not so much an issue though, because you could always purchase Linux certified printers, guaranteed to work.

The issue comes from the day to day suitability for the tasks in hand.

Open Office is very good, but it still suffers with issues relating to formatting of text between MS Office and Openoffice and other formats. Even with identical fonts between both packages I can never get the formatting to remain consistent between both applications.

I think this seriously frustrating because I prefer to do my day to day work, and studying inside of Linux, and leave W7 for purely gaming. I now find myself studying and writing assignments in W7, just so I can present them correctly to my tutors. They're aware I use Linux, but I still feel embarrassed presenting work with formatting all over the place when done in OpenOffice Writer.

Other issues are with updating. It doesn't matter how you look at it, some time or another your going to have to use the terminal, and at that point your have a seriously upset and overworked sys admin running around trying to resolve everything. There are ways around it like remotely doing maintenance, but either way it creates an awful lot of work, and the savings made in using free software/OS' are replaced by paying a lot of money for experienced Linux engineers.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see it happen, but from years of using it, I've come to realise that sometimes its easier not to recommend it to some people. Give it 10 years and the story will likely be different though; least I'm hoping so.

 

[Benny26]

slh28 said:
Office isn't the same as a Windows OS - not everyone needs it.

Some would say, not everyone needs a windows OS...Just look at those guys on "un-bung-too" and Linux.

I do need a Windows OS though, cos i'm a mediocre person.

 

[Guest]

It's good to see at least some PC users finally waking up to realize how MS has been seriously taking us for a ride. When one finally puts it all together, Apple Mac is a better value from practically every angle at the moment.

We should not let the up-front price of a PC fool us; there are a lot of shenanigans going on to get that seemingly bargain sticker price on there with "crapware" (including Windows Home edition and Office Starter/30-day) being only the tip of the iceberg. The expression "Time is money" is highly applicable here.

As a PC/Mac consultant having hundreds of client relationships, the writing has been on the wall for a number of years now. In the vast majority of cases the Mac users are getting considerably more years, problem-free up-time, resale value and overall satisfaction out of their purchase than my PC clients. With my colleagues the results are the same.

This does not necessarily mean every one should buy Apple but I believe it is a very strong indictment of where the long-term value is for most users in this sector.

 

[Archean]

You must be communist... or maybe facist? Capitalism guarantees, with anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws enforced, that the buyer and the seller gets a fair price. If buyer doesn't agree with the price he/she walks away from the bargaining table. If producer/manufacturer can't produce the product at a price that guarantees costs are covered and a fair profit is made, then the producer/manufacturer closes up shop and brings nothing to the bargaining table.

If you had bothered to grasp the underlying argument in my remarks, you would have understood that for any system to succeed you need stern checks and balances in the system. Which capitalism lacks in the longer run, hence the higher prices as one entity gets more and more foothold in a certain market (or a niche); which ultimately results in 'wealth's concentration in few hands and far less competition (which is exactly the case being observed in many of the western economies)'; and I don't have to debate about the ways and means through which these institutions try to minimize their taxes etc.

I don't see it as something pro or against capitalism, it is simple logical discussion about shortcomings of a system; which when nations do not address they get mired in social and economic issues. Now do I need to lay out the details how US economy crashed because of so called 'economic freedom' unleashed by Reagon in 1980s which is ultimately the cause creation of ‘bubble economy based on paper’ and of current economic mess, with not much industrial base to initiate a recovery, the treasury is reduced to just keep printing and pumping the dollars to keep it afloat, making US even more reliant on the likes of China and Japan; which is resulting in reduction of US power as an empire.

I think a fair system would not allow the concentration of wealth in 'fewer' hands but rather it would spread it across the society in a more appropriate way; one way of doing so is to keep the business people out of ‘Govt.’s decision making processes completely’, one may ask why is that, the answer is they will always come up with laws which ‘reduce their obligation to pay taxes’; however, I would emphasize that Govt. should provide ample fair & conducive environment for businesses to compete and flourish in a more ‘equal way’.

 

[Guest]

Well said Archean. Typically when one throws around terms like "communist", "fascist" or "right-wing / left-wing" etc. it is a quick indication of a pre-grade four level intellect but you were patient and compassionate enough to try and help him realize that reality is far more colorful and complex than a black & white comic book or a Fox TV "news" segment.

If ones motivation is primarily to increase wealth for oneself or a handful of others then they have no business being in government. If for some time the governments of the world had been solely and collectively interested in the well being of the planet then we would likely be living in a very different world right now. Unfortunately, a great many are attracted to governance simply for their own small minded selfish interests and are utterly ignorant of the disastrous interdependence that results from their foolishness.

 

[SNGX1275]

Aside from the political debate..

I think Microsoft needs a 2 pronged approach to this - eliminating piracy checks is kind of a weak prong, and almost unnecessary if they did lower prices. Student versions aren't that unreasonable since they can be installed on 3 systems, but their retail ones are still way too expensive.

I think they need to address the retail pricing in the near future because the university I'm at has moved all the students off Exchange servers and given us a choice of migrating to gmail or Outlook Live. Well most of us are familiar with gmail so we moved there - in the transition they were really pimping out Google Apps and their ability to allow collaboration on documents. I think Office does this too, but again there is the price thing. If universities start churning out classes of people that are using Google Apps more in their coursework then maybe when they are in decision making positions at their businesses they'll see moving to an online office suite is a good way to cut costs.