So as bitched about Windows the other day, and even earlier today on Twitter, I've read another article about the Microsoft product that was interesting and pissed me off.

Earlier today, I was a little incensed to read that signs are pointing for Windows 7 to be more expensive than Vista (link).  Usually, this type of pricing for a new piece of software is normal.  But Windows is loosing serious ground - and Vista was seen as too expensive in a market where computer ownership is becoming cheaper and cheaper (not to mention free if you go with Linux).  I really want to build a windows box, but one of the biggest barriers is the cost of a transferable Windows license (only legit licenses here).  Why not price it just under Vista?  At the very least price it the same...

So what's my latest gripe?  Basically, Microsoft defines the specs that a PC segment can not surpass to get certain deals on the OS per certain segments. I didin't know this before, but it makes sense...  And now, it pisses me off...

Basically the specs Microsoft has set for a machine to qualify for Windows 7 "netbook" pricing is complete crap.  Here's the article (link).  Once you exceed those specs, the cost to license windows on that machine goes up.

Why is this a big deal, because it's hindering the development of a new processor class in the Intel Atom that I happen to think could be a big deal if it were allowed to develop as a mainstream processor choice.

This policy guarantees that there will never be a dual-core Atom in a netbook.  That was a specific requirement for me to consider one.  Hell, Microsoft even hit reverse in terms of maximum screen size (12.1" for XP/Vista will become 10.2" for Win 7).

While we don't know what the prices for Windows 7 will be, the price for a netbook license of XP is 1/3 of what a normal computer license is.  That's a lot of negative things in a short while for someone who wanted to put a few Windows machines into a stable that's primarily OS X.  Apple could hit pretty hard if they came out with their rumored netbook...

What got me to want to write this morning is my laptop, and it's weird effects on my current computer outlook.  It's just over 3 years old, but it's still got decent enough specs to do just fine for most things (dual core, 2gb RAM, 256mb dedicated video).  It needed a clean install about 8 months ago, so I put a nice, fresh copy of XP on there (not Vista approved).

What's got me is that it's so much crap for Windows to be there.  I'm fine with the occasional patch update, but the frequent "validation" of my completely legit software pisses me off to no end.  I'm software legit, and I don't like having my computer automatically question the legitimacy of my copy of Windows at regular intervals when I completely registered/activated it from the start.

I've had the OS X machine for around 18 months, and it still runs well without problems that couldn't be fixed with basic troubleshooting...  And I punish that machine with a lot of intensive work.  When I'm not working on it, it's doing charitable computing...  It's one hell of a machine.  And I've never had to validate the OS other than upgrading from 10.4 to 10.5.

Anyway, on a side note...  I am really getting sick of the marketing on both sides.  Apple is getting trivial and overusing a campaign, and Windows has just never got advertising to the likes of me (especially hiring actors and calling them regular people).

I'm still looking forward to Windows 7, just not as much as I would have been if things like this didn't happen.

I was very anti-apple until mid 2006. When I was offered a job, I chose to go the Apple route because the performance per price was much better than in a PC. The biggest performance gain came from OS X, but the hardware package was flat out cheaper than buying the same specs on a Dell or HP workstation.

In terms of the current Mac Pro, I'm not sure if that is still the case. But when I could have bought an 8-core mac pro for $2,800 on March 2nd. On March 3rd, an 8-core Mac Pro would cost me $3,300. Isn't the price of comparable computer technology supposed to go down with time? I'm well versed about the specifics...  I know all about the newer CPU's, more RAM, and a different video card... but none of those components are new enough to the market to command such premium rates. Looking at the upgrade options for the Mac Pro is even more crazy to me. I know Apple always has premiums on components, but we're talking up to and over 100% or twice the cost over buying the same pieces elsewhere.

The other head scratcher was the Mac Mini. I'm really glad it's still on the market, but there is no way to justify a $200 increase between models with the only differences being 1gb of ram and 200gb hard drive space. That's complete BS with not even the possibility of any rational explanation.

Right now, none of this has any real impact on me. I'm not in the market for a computer, nor is the business. If I was, I'd have to do some serious pondering about whether the premium is worth it. Right now, I'm not thinking so.  After that, I just don't get it because they're in the midst of a spike in PC market share, so why would you do anything to jeopardize further increases in market share by unnecessarily raising prices - especially in this economic climate?

I'm just hoping that by the time I'm in the market either the price will come down on the Mac Pro (not very possible) or Windows 7 will be out and stable enough to consider...

So how does this impact me? No, I don't have a rogue computer contacting me that likes to be called Joshua... But I have a program on my machine that allows me to choose which projects I'm donating computation time to. My desktop is no supercomputer, but it's no slouch. I'm currently donating computational time to a climate experiment. I could donate time to environment models, protein folding, genetic mapping, mathematical experiments, even SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). In a given day, my computer doesn't make a huge dent in the portion of the experiment I'm working towards, but when hundreds of people sign up, a super computer of sorts is created that completes the project faster and with multiple results in the same relative time of many mainframes or a super computer working on the same problem.

I remember reading some time ago that Sony was throwing around the possibility of placing a distributed computing client on the new Playstation 3 (which has a great CPU inside). If only 10,000 PS3's run the client, then it'll essentially be a supercomputer on the peta-flop scale which is more than twice as fast as any super computer currently in existence. Despite the expense of a PS3, one must remember that the PS2 was the best selling console of all time (at over 4 milion if my memory serves). This is exciting in that it's possible to have a piece of the worlds most powerful computer in my living room that is trying to make a difference. That or it's the beginning of Skynet.

Yeah, I know about two people read this... But the ability to give a little towards the research is so easy. I'm currently giving climateprediction.net my newer desktop at home 100% of my time. Here's a little article explaining this project. Each core of my computer's processor is crunching a different area of project just about 1% a day if left on 24 hours at a time (all of my power comes from wind power, so I don't feel guilty at the possible irony of wasting energy). I'm not sure if I endorse that everyone I know does this (some level of technical knowhow is useful)... But it's another way to assist in a cause you are passionate about.

The two best places for information are distributedcomputing.info and Boinc. And remember - in terms of Tic-Tac-Toe and Global Thermonuclear War - the best move is not to play.