Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:07:00 -0400Exactly. Windows costs a fortune. And Microsoft spend billions developing it.
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On 29/05/2024 18:27, Malcolm McLean wrote:May be, for laptps that is true. But for mini-PCs it is very different.On 29/05/2024 13:10, David Brown wrote:>>Yes, I got a job at Cambridge which didn't work out (Cantab dons,
It wasn't the cheapest available, and 64 GB memory (and 4 TB SSD)
don't come free. (And I buy these bare-bones. Machines with
Windows "pre-installed" are often cheaper because they are
sponsored by the junk-ware and ad-ware forced on unsuspecting
users.)
much less tolerant people then their counterparts at another
university, but that's another story). And I was given a brand new
Windows machine, and told that we had to use Linux. So I installed
a Linux version which ran on top of Windows. No good, I was told.
Might cause problems with that "interesting" set up. ...
They're quite right in that regard, as I can testify from personal
experience.
>... So I had to scrub a brand new version of Windows.>
It felt like the most extravagant waste.
Keep in mind that, as David pointed out, the "waste" was probably
negative. You got a better price on the machine than you would have
otherwise, and erasing that malware gave you more space to put useful
stuff on your machine.
Windows is surprisingly expensive in this case. OEM license is sold for
~75% of retail license price.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.