Office XPensive

Office XPensive

Post by Rick » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:36:06



I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something about
how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at $379.70
for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off the
net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think free
or $800 for buggy crap.
 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Linux Ma » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:55:43



> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
> about
> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
> $379.70
> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off
> the
> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think free
> or $800 for buggy crap.

$379.70? No thanks, I'll stick with the stuff that comes with my Linux
distro for free. I does every thing I need AND saves me enough money to
take a weekend trip to Tahoe. *, shows, meals, hotel, transportation
and even picking up a couple of tee shirts.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Peter Haye » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:33:45



> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something about
> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at $379.70
> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off the
> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think free
> or $800 for buggy crap.

It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

Peter

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Linux Ma » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:14:02




>> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
>> about
>> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
>> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
>> $379.70
>> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
>> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off
>> the
>> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think
>> free or $800 for buggy crap.

> It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

Or lack of a competitive marketplace (proven in a US court and UPHELD)
Quote:

> Peter

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Mart van de Weg » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:02:08




> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
> about how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get
> it". LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
> $379.70 for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp.
> Shopper.  Is the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice
> for free off the net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.
>  Let me think free or $800 for buggy crap.

In the Netherlands, the retail version is HFL 1600, up from HFL 1200 for
Office 2000. That's a 33% price hike, and I've heard several people say
that they will *not* upgrade because of that. Even MS apologists among my
friends (and one of them works in software retail) see it as a *
monopolist's power play.

Mart

--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:51:02



Quote:> In the Netherlands, the retail version is HFL 1600, up from HFL 1200 for
> Office 2000. That's a 33% price hike, and I've heard several people say
> that they will *not* upgrade because of that. Even MS apologists among my
> friends (and one of them works in software retail) see it as a *
> monopolist's power play.

Hmm.. Are you comparing the same version?
 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Matthew Gardine » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:10:56



> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
> about
> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
> $379.70
> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off
> the
> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think free
> or $800 for buggy crap.

I've just finished evaluating it for a client. I suggested to him that he
is best to either stick with what he had, Wordperfect Suite 2000, or
upgrade to Wordperfect Suite 2002. 1/2 the price, no-macro virus's and has
all the features and more at a non-bloated price.

Whats XP big hoo-haa, rotating graphics! wow, something I could do on
Wordperfect since version 8. Version 9 had improved capabilities, including
enhanced anti-aliasing for text-art and pictures that are resized.

As I have always said, Office will always be behind the 8th ball. The only
reason why Office is "popular" is because:

1. Hype
2. The people who make the decisions, the management, don't have a clue
what they are doing.

If the Office Sutie wars was purely on quality, MS Office would be
non-existant.

Matthew Gardiner
--
WARNING:

This email was written on an OS using the viral 'GPL' as its license.

Please check with Bill Gates before continuing to read this email/posting.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Matthew Gardine » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:12:07




>> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
>> about
>> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
>> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
>> $379.70
>> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
>> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off
>> the
>> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think
>> free or $800 for buggy crap.

> $379.70? No thanks, I'll stick with the stuff that comes with my Linux
> distro for free. I does every thing I need AND saves me enough money to
> take a weekend trip to Tahoe. *, shows, meals, hotel,
> transportation and even picking up a couple of tee shirts.

How about $NZ1300 +GST for the basic standard edition.

Matthew Gardiner
--
WARNING:

This email was written on an OS using the viral 'GPL' as its license.

Please check with Bill Gates before continuing to read this email/posting.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Matthew Gardine » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:13:15




>> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something
>> about
>> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".
>> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.  Prices start at
>> $379.70
>> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
>> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off
>> the
>> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think
>> free or $800 for buggy crap.

> It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

Whats stopping companies from adopting Wordperfect 2002 or Lotus Smart
Suite ME? idiotic management.

Matthew Gardiner
--
WARNING:

This email was written on an OS using the viral 'GPL' as its license.

Please check with Bill Gates before continuing to read this email/posting.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Matthew Gardine » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:14:46




>> In the Netherlands, the retail version is HFL 1600, up from HFL 1200 for
>> Office 2000. That's a 33% price hike, and I've heard several people say
>> that they will *not* upgrade because of that. Even MS apologists among my
>> friends (and one of them works in software retail) see it as a *
>> monopolist's power play.

> Hmm.. Are you comparing the same version?

Pretty hard when they have rejiggied it AGAIN. Now there is only:

1. Pro
2. Standard
3. Developer

Whats worse, you get less for MORE!

Matthew Gardiner
--
WARNING:

This email was written on an OS using the viral 'GPL' as its license.

Please check with Bill Gates before continuing to read this email/posting.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Rex Ballar » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:20:39


Welcome to the world of the inbred corporate mind.


> I heard an adverti*t about Office XP on the radio saying something about
> how we the people  "we need it, we want it, now we can finally get it".

Microsoft paid lots of money for that ad.  They probably paid the
equivalent of the station manager's salary to have it played several
times an hour.  And the station manager knows *y well that if his
jocks start talking about how great Linux is, or why not use "Star
Office" instead, it will cost him at least that much in lost ad
revenue.  Since Microsoft also controls co-op on several OEM ads, they
could pull enough ads to take a station running nicely in the black,
and put it in the red.  Not a nice thing to do.  Notice that Sun isn't
spending $2 billion in television and radio ads to promote Star
Office.

When I was working at Dow Jones in 1993, Walt Mossberger said to many
nice
things about OS/2 and some not nice things about NT (3.1).  Microsoft
called
up the owner, said "If you don't like us, we'll pull a few pages out
of your
paper".  The loss of several full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal
was much
more than Mossberg's salary.  It was more than the salary of Mossberg
and his editor.  In fact, it was more than the CEO's salary.   It was
enough of a message
that I was notified of the problem shortly after speaking out against
Microsoft
in a written recommendation (a survey of operating systems).  My
recommendations
were right on.  But the staff was very afraid of reprisals and I had
to work for the commercialization of the internet very covertly to
avoid further reprisals.

to set up
Linux servers, get connected to the Internet, and set up web servers
and web
pages.  In many cases, the newspapers were so afraid of reprisals from
Microsoft, that the web server was set up under different companies
like Yahoo, Infoseek, Mecklerweb (C/Net), and ZDNet.  Ironically, many
of these Linux powered servers
(many were upgraded to Solaris SparcServers within months using web
generated revenue), were being used to publish content which sang the
praises of NT and
"Chicago" (what would eventually become Windows 95).  Ironically, the
key
to the success of Windows 95 was actually the inclusion of the Web
Browser
which was used to access UNIX systems, both as news servers, and as
internal corporate servers.

Quote:> LOL.  I looked up how much this piece of *was.
>  Prices start at $379.70
> for standard and go up to $799.95 for the Developer on Comp. Shopper.  Is
> the XP supposed to mean XPensive?  Can't we get StarOffice for free off the
> net?  If you ask me what Bill "NEEDS TO GET" is a clue.  Let me think free
> or $800 for buggy crap.

It doesn't make much sense, but most corporate IT managers in the
1990s were willing to spend $800 for the product that funded
Microsoft's advertizing and
promoted Microsoft's business rather than get the same functionality
from Linux
or even Windows with WordPerfect or other competitively priced
products, and
use the other $700 to advertise their own businesses.

Of course, the advertizing department was on a different budget than
the IT department in 1994.  And in the later 1990's there was plenty
of money for BOTH
Microsoft and the Web site.  As long as productivity went up,
everybody was
happy.  The stock price went up, even if you didn't make any money.
Some
companies simply needed to grow their top line by 20%/year and nobody
cared
that their expenses were growing by 25%/year because Microsoft and
Oracle
were taking bigger and bigger pieces of the pie.  In many cases,
Microsoft
was even being paid in corporate stock instead of cash.

Today, the landscape is a bit different.  CEOs are looking to build up
their own businesses, they want to lay off as few people as possible,
and Microsoft and their $3000-$5000/user annual costs are no longer
appropriate.  When you have to pay $3-5 million per thousand employees
for software and overpriced hardware (purchased during times of
shortages
and inflated prices), and another $2-3 million for overpriced server
licenses (6-8 4-processor servers at $20,000 each), and NOW you have
the BSA coming in for another dip, it's time to review the options
available.  Those BSA ads are alienating lots of people.  The
CEO is fed-up with having to give up 3-4 cents/share for royalties
when earnings are only 20-30 cents/share.  Now to add insult to
injury,
the CIO is telling him that they may have to cough up another 2-3
cents/share
to appease the BSA.   And after all that good news, the CTO, whose job
is
to provide the vision and insight for future strategy, comes into the
CEO's
office and tells the CEO that he wants 5 cents/share to upgrade
everybody
to XP, and doesn't even mention Linux or StarOffice.

The problem isn't Bill Gates.  He's doing what he has always done.
He's
telling people that his next release will bring unlimited wealth,
prosperity,
peace and happiness to everybody.   And he's threatening to cut the
throats
of anyone who dares to not go along with the program.

The last year has been an interesting lesson to investors.  The folks
who
purchased shares in the E-100 who used Oracle and Microsoft were
eating
their profits to the point where Microsoft and Oracle were bleeding
them
for growth that wasn't happening.  Microsoft managed to keep up
revenues
by demanding minimum orders and setting stiff penalties which made it
cheaper
to buy what you committed to rather than purchase what you really
needed.
So now we have OEMs who were stiffed for billions by Microsoft, ISPs
who
lost billions in book value due to Microsoft's overcharges, and
Corporations
trying to manage their way out of recessions and lay-offs.

And into this, Bill and Steve are saying:
  "we need it (your money), we want it (your money),
   now we can finally get it (all of your money, using any means
necessary)".

Yes boys and girls, you can have your choice of SuSE, Red Hat,
Mandrake, or
Caldera Linux, complete with StarOffice, for around the price you'd
pay for
a back-up utility for Microsoft.  You don't need to buy it (we just
thought
it might be more convenient than downloading it over a 56K modem), you
will
get more software than you really want (we just threw all that stuff
in
because it was so easy to burn CD-ROMs), and you can get everything
you
really need for a really nice workstation.

  "we don't need it, it's more than you really need or want,
   but heck, it's there and it's so cheap - why not!

Oh, and by the way, we'll give you some SUPPORT when you actually buy
the
little box.

--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.veryComputer.com/

  rballard.vcf
< 1K Download
 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Chris Ahlstro » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:25:42



> Oh, and by the way, we'll give you some SUPPORT when you actually buy
> the
> little box.

You misspelled "Crimosoft".
 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Mike » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:42:17



Quote:> It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

Wow. Do you know what you're saying? "Our product isn't selling! People are
so stupid!"

People buy the product they want. Apparently, you're not offering them that.

I have Star Office on my W2k box, and on a Linux box, and on a Unix machine
at work. Some of you might like it, but it's pretty clear to me why Office
sells better. You might think I'm clueless, but there are things about
Office that drive me nuts, and if there was a better competing product, I'd
switch. The problem is, rather than give me what I want, you'd prefer to
offer me Star Office and an insult.

It's no wonder they can't give it away.

-- Mike --

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Matthew Gardine » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 17:51:13





>> It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

> Wow. Do you know what you're saying? "Our product isn't selling! People
> are so stupid!"

> People buy the product they want. Apparently, you're not offering them
> that.

> I have Star Office on my W2k box, and on a Linux box, and on a Unix
> machine at work. Some of you might like it, but it's pretty clear to me
> why Office sells better. You might think I'm clueless, but there are
> things about Office that drive me nuts, and if there was a better
> competing product, I'd switch. The problem is, rather than give me what I
> want, you'd prefer to offer me Star Office and an insult.

> It's no wonder they can't give it away.

Have you ever used Wordperfect Suite 2002 for Windows?

Matthew Gardiner
--
WARNING:

This email was written on an OS using the viral 'GPL' as its license.

Please check with Bill Gates before continuing to read this email/posting.

 
 
 

Office XPensive

Post by Peter Haye » Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:10:26





> > It's not Bill that needs to get a clue, it's the marketplace.

> Wow. Do you know what you're saying? "Our product isn't selling! People are
> so stupid!"

> People buy the product they want. Apparently, you're not offering them that.

> I have Star Office on my W2k box, and on a Linux box, and on a Unix machine
> at work. Some of you might like it, but it's pretty clear to me why Office
> sells better. You might think I'm clueless, but there are things about
> Office that drive me nuts, and if there was a better competing product, I'd
> switch. The problem is, rather than give me what I want, you'd prefer to
> offer me Star Office and an insult.

> It's no wonder they can't give it away.

I agree with you that StarOffice is awful. far too bloated, loading masses
of stuff when all you want to do is type a letter.

Maybe StarOffice 6 which is modular will be better, we'll have to wait and
see.

But my real point is that the corporate world is full of lemmings that go
with whatever Gates & Co care to shove at them. They can't seem to step back
and look at what they've already got and assess whether it serves them
adequately. They're seduced by the smart advertising, that MS's latest
product will "allow them to unlock the full potential of the digital world",
and "enrich the workplace experience" whatever that's supposed to mean.

No organisation needs OfficeXP, no organisation needs WindowsXP. Except that
the management lemmings are too afraid they'll somehow be left behind if
they don't install the latest from MS. Like trendy *agers needing the
latest trainers.

No, it's the marketplace that needs to get a clue.

Peter