|
Wuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you are working at the perfect company.
it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. Me too. Mine
I'm sippin on piping hot White Chocolate Macadamia from a good old Kerig I. It's 14.4 degrees out with 1.5 ft of fresh powder and the sun is out.
|
|
|
|
|
Englishmen around the world who would throw away their tea if it fell beneath 88C currently rofl at wimpy Americans while reflecting that this is why they can't have nice things like a proper cup of tea when they visit USA! USA!! USA!!!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Late to the party, but, here is my view.
I want my coffee hot, not warm.
We have a Keurig machine; I make my coffee black - no creamer, no sugar.
I can drink it in under 10 minutes and go back for another cup.
|
|
|
|
|
<Obligatory open-source-evangelist reply>
Then you should get rid of the coffee machine and install Linux!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I read an article about Windows 10 upgrades and the FUD concerning possible subscription schemes. I compounded that mistake by reading the comments where some random idiot out in the web-a-sphere was decrying all the 'sheeple' who've bought into the Office 365 scam.
Besides hating the term 'sheeple', which seems to be a millennial term for 'anyone who participates in anything that is wildly successful', I found myself taking exception to his millennial math skills which demonstrated that the Office 365 annual charge of $99 was off the charts.
Basically, he said that $99 per year was ridiculous because he has a copy of Office 2000 on his laptop that he's been using for 16 years and if he had that via a subscription that would have cost him nearly $1600.00 so far. So much for assuming he's a millennial, this retard is clearly suffering from the effects of toxins released by his neckbeard.
The reality is I spend $99 per year for a subscription but it buys me 5 licenses. That not only includes an entire suite of software but 1TB per person of cloud storage and additional programs and services (email, etc). At $20.00 per license per year over the course of 16 years I'd actually spend FAR LESS per license than what dumbass spent on his license (+Access).
Look, I'm one of the first people to go tell a company to go die in a fire when they start to exploit customers (See: Adobe) but this guy was really off the mark. What makes me upset is that I've been in this game long enough to see Microsoft really reduce the cost of great software - what I have on my home computer today is so much more powerful at a fraction of the cost of software available just a few years ago.
If you want to hate Microsoft load up Linux and Open Office and go play with yourself.
Stop hating on products you clearly don't use or understand.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: If you want to hate Microsoft load up Linux and Open Office and go play with yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention that due to inflation $99 today was about $60 in 2000.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say, I don't like the "subscription" model for software - and Libre Office works (for me) at least as well as Office 2010 did (once I added Live Mail instead of win 10 Mail to replace Outlook)
And it doesn't cost me a thing every year...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
You can get some better deals with a subscription, you also get more frequent updates / bug fixes as they become available instead of hoping a patch is made for your version of the software or waiting for the next major release.
I'm thinking mostly of Adobes 'Photography' plan, which is ~£9 a month and gets you Lightroom (previously about £90 for the standalone version) and Photoshop (CS6 being sold for £600). If you where ever thinking of getting Photoshop then there is a clear saving.
You can also cancel a subscription, so you can have access to software for a small fee use it for a month or two and then cancel.
It's not going to work for everything, but there are definitely benefits to it.
|
|
|
|
|
In general, I don't like subscription but it all depends on your usage scenario. People often write as though their particular scenario is shared by all users.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Good points - when I first started .NET I had to buy a license, I now have free access to the community versions when at home.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
If he had been paying the subscription price for 16 years, he would indeed have paid $1600 by now, but since he doesn't need the newest whiz bang features of the latest Office iteration, he has saved a substantial amount of money by NOT paying an annual subscription. Another point to ponder is that he may be the only person in his household that even needs to use it, so the 5-license benefit is not so tangible (or beneficial) for him.
Furthermore, I am probably one of the few people on the planet that refuses to trust my data to "the cloud" (with your tormentor also belonging to that group), especially when I have a sufficient backup system in my own house, or if I don't need to access said data from wherever I happen to be.
As much as you may like to think your preferred model fits (or should fit) everyone else, that's most certainly not the case.
Looking at it, how many things have turned to a subscription based model? Quite a few, and it's only getting worse. What's really a hassle is when your credit card somehow gets compromised, forcing you to cancel it and get a new one, only to have to go back to your ever-growing multitude of paid subscriptions and reset the goddamn credit card that's used to pay them. I HATE that.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What's really a hassle is when your credit card somehow gets compromised,
Hell, not even that. Credit cards expire every X years (at my bank X=3), forcing you to go make changes even if it never got compromised. I just had mine expire recently and had to go to probably 15 different websites to change nothing more than the expiration date or lose access to my stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What's really a hassle is when your credit card somehow gets compromised, forcing you to cancel it and get a new one, only to have to go back to your ever-growing multitude of paid subscriptions and reset the goddamn credit card that's used to pay them. I HATE that.
Sounds like a business model waiting to happen: Register all your paid services/subscriptions, then when the card gets compromised or expires, you update its details once, then let these guys go out to each service you've previously registered to deal with the update.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a web site begging to be hacked.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I realized I was posting it that any such site would have the biggest bullseye imaginable painted on it. I was certainly not volunteering to do it. 
But if it had half-decent security, would it be any worse than the system we have right now?
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: As much as you may like to think your preferred model fits (or should fit) everyone else, that's most certainly not the case.
Oddly enough that was the entire point of the post.
His math to discredit a successful model clearly doesn't hold across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: compounded that mistake by reading the comments where some random idiot
[...]
MehGerbil wrote: If you want to hate Microsoft load up Linux and Open Office and go play with yourself.
Stop hating on products you clearly don't use or understand.
You sure told that random idiot.
Too bad he's never gonna get to read your otherwise pretty good rant.
|
|
|
|
|
I use office 2013 and visio 2016 at work, and I quite simply cannot express to you how much I hate those useless, time-wasting, bug-filled cr@ppy programs.
All of my machines at home have office 2003 on them -- the last version before it all went to Hell.
I paid the right price for those licenses, and I can, as the person you so harshly deride for having an opinion contrary to yours says, use them for as long as I like.
365 users, on the other hand, will be paying through the nose for ever and ever, not only for their vastly inferior and productivity-murdering version, but for the privilege of having all their documents put at risk/held to ransom, and for the total dearth of privacy that they get as part of the deal.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Please explain to me how 365 Office subscribers are paying through the nose for licenses when my per license cost is $20 per year. If you paid ~$300.00 for your license in 2003 (with Access) your average cost to date is $23.00 per year.
By the time you put a backup scheme in place (1TB per license with Office 365) you are spending more for Office than I am... spending more for the privilege of using 13 year old software that is no longer supported and doesn't get updated.
The rest of your post is FUD.
There has been no risk/ransom uncommon to any Office product.
Choose what you want but the 'paying through the nose' nonsense isn't supported by your post.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: my per license cost is $20 per year Forever!
MehGerbil wrote: your license in 2003 (with Access) your average cost to date is $23.00 per year.
And getting less and less every year, whilst yours will get higher and higher. And I never have to worry about what kind of ridiculous licensing policies they'll pull out of their greedy @rses, next year, or the year after -- 1TB is a damned sight less than before, remember.
MehGerbil wrote: By the time you put a backup scheme in place (1TB per license with Office 365)
Y'know, I know you think it's a good idea for MS to have complete control of your files, your life, your future, and how much advertising cr@p is shoved down your throat, but there are many who disagree.
And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
Perhaps you'll regret your decision in the future, but I'm pretty sure that I won't regret mine.
I have the best version of the tools, and no "nice surprises" can be sprung on me. Stress is the biggest killer, and my way alleviates stress, because I don't have to worry about what stupid and/or greedy decisions they'll make.
MehGerbil wrote: 13 year old software that is no longer supported and doesn't get updated
Office 2003 works. It doesn't need fixing, ta very much, so I don't need it to be updated to an inferior version that they've "fixed".
MehGerbil wrote: The rest of your post is FUD
Bollocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
MehGerbil wrote: There has been no risk/ransom uncommon to any Office product
Can we spell "Yet", children? Can you honestly say, with absolute certainty, that you know that no Damoclean license condition will fall on your head, in the future?
Wait until they go in a direction that you don't like, and you choose to disavail yourself of their services. Have you read and understood every word of their terms and conditions? (Pay particular attention to the part where they say that you agree to let them change the terms and conditions without notice or your approval).
A word of advice, while you're using this wonderful, God-given service:
If a file is important to you, or worth money, keep it in your own storage, and never edit it with anything that takes a copy to a remote server.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: And getting less and less every year, whilst yours will get higher and higher. And I never have to worry about what kind of ridiculous licensing policies they'll pull out of their greedy @rses, next year, or the year after -- 1TB is a damned sight less than before, remember.
1TB per license - I get 5 licenses for the $99.
That is value above and beyond Office 2003 which doesn't offer online storage.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
You didn't include this in your total costs.
A server in your home isn't a one time cost - let's throw in the operating system, hardware, electricity, and maintenance and you'll find your approach is actually costing quite a bit more than mine.
That is okay, to each his own, the point is that your approach doesn't cost less by any means.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Y'know, I know you think it's a good idea for MS to have complete control of your files, your life, your future, and how much advertising cr@p is shoved down your throat, but there are many who disagree.
I don't know what you mean by this as my applications are ad free.
The 'complete control' comment is odd - if you cannot illustrate this happening then I'm going to wave it away as FUD.
If I did have documents that required that level of protection I wouldn't have them on any machine connected to the internet.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And 1TB of *safe* disc space, on your own server, costs precious little -- and, again, is a one-time cost.
It is a one time cost if the server never fails or the OS never is upgraded or you never spend time on maintaining the thing. You didn't include those costs in your original analysis - so the 1TB drive dies tomorrow, what is that going to cost you in time and effort? A server in your home has reoccurring costs which you've left out.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Bollocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
I approached the topic by analyzing cost and your response was "Microsoft is going to steal your documents, make hidden changes to the terms of service, and fondle your 'goodies' when you're asleep."
That is FUD.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Can we spell "Yet", children? Can you honestly say, with absolute certainty, that you know that no Damoclean license condition will fall on your head, in the future?
Can you say with absolute certainty that someone won't hack your server or break into your home and physically steal your server? Are you sure those love poems you wrote to Ricky Martin are absolutely safe? What if a fire destroys your entire home?
You are spreading FUD again.
Mark_Wallace wrote: ocks. Any opinion that doesn't conform with yours is grist for flaming, eh?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The post is a response to some idiot who referred to all Outlook 365 users as 'sheeple'. The accusation was that people who use the service are just blindly following Microsoft into a virtual slaughterhouse. That is insulting.
I honestly don't care what technology decisions you decide to use. The only reasons you need are 'I like it.' However, if you want to jump into the thread and challenge me on the cost/benefit side of this thing and then back it up with nothing but FUD without actually looking at the real costs then I'll call you out on it.
Again: I didn't log on here and flame people who choose a different approach - I logged on here to flame people who call others out as 'sheeple' for making different choices. I cannot stress this enough: I. DON'T. CARE. WHAT. TECHNOLOGY. DECISIONS. YOU. MAKE.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
