Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: bjanes on January 31, 2007, 08:37:12 am
-
Tiger Mac OS X 10.4.6 Retails for $129 at PC Connection (http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?Sku=6759691). There is no confusing maze of versions good, better, or best and you don't have to waste time and money determining which version you need.
Vista upgrades (http://www.pcconnection.com/B2C/PM/Brands/Microsoft/WindowsVista.htm) range from $102 for the basic version without the Aero interface to $259 for the ultimate version. Since I have a dual processor machine, I think I would need to upgrade to the Business version for $203.
I would also have to replace my professional level NVida level Quadro video board with a gaming video card to run the Aero interface. Of course, these 3D features are not needed in Photoshop and my image quality could suffer. In addition, Microsoft's initial releases tend to be infested with bugs.
My answer is to Just Say No to Bill. If you think you might like Vista, wait until you upgrade to a new computer where you will get the OEM version for a fraction of the retail cost. Also consider switching to the Mac. Their high end machines are priced very competitively with Windows workstations.
Bill
-
Who is pointing a gun to anyone's head to demand a Vista upgrade? XP is currently available, stable, and runs Photoshop just fine. It will likely be supported for several years; Microsoft still supports Windows 2000 with security updates and such. The next version of MacOS will likely cost more than the current one, and isn't even in beta yet. And if history is any clue, OS prices drop some after they have been out for a while.
This pointless anti-Microsoft/PC carping gets so tiresome...
-
Who is pointing a gun to anyone's head to demand a Vista upgrade? XP is currently available, stable, and runs Photoshop just fine. It will likely be supported for several years; Microsoft still supports Windows 2000 with security updates and such. The next version of MacOS will likely cost more than the current one, and isn't even in beta yet. And if history is any clue, OS prices drop some after they have been out for a while.
This pointless anti-Microsoft/PC carping gets so tiresome...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
By the same token, no one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to read this thread. My point was that monopoly pricing does not benefit users. The Tiger successor may not even be in beta yet, but from what I read, Vista is just starting to match many features already present in Tiger. Monopoly does not favor innovation either.
Bill
-
And Mac application software is sometimes much more expensive than the direct Windows equivalent.
As is, I believe, the favoured Macphile phrase: "Shit happens - get over it."
-
By the same token, no one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to read this thread. My point was that monopoly pricing does not benefit users. The Tiger successor may not even be in beta yet, but from what I read, Vista is just starting to match many features already present in Tiger. Monopoly does not favor innovation either.
Microsoft is not a monopoly; if it was, Apple and MacOS wouldn't exist, and neither would Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. You can bitch about Microsoft's pricing and bugs and whatever, but the fact that you have a Mac to use as an alternative to Windows/PC disproves your own specious argument. Regarding whether MacOS or Windows is better, either option is a sufficiently mature product to meet the needs of anyone. There are many serious professional users in both camps, and religious debates over which is "better" are no more useful than the Canon vs Nikon debate, or the 35mm digital vs MFDB debates. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and what's best for one individual user is not necessarily the best choice for someone else.
If you want to whine about pricing, why not complain about Adobe, which has a greater market share of graphics/photo/image processing software than Microsoft does of operating systems, and whose standalone products are far more expensive than Microsoft's operating systems. And I don't see anyone complaining about Adobe's image editing software "monopoly" stifling innovation in Photoshop.
-
Most companies are not in business to advance the state of the art for the public or to produce (near) giveaway stuff. They are trying to make a profit. Therefore, even without a monopoly or a niche, there is little incentive to give away or sell products (including trade secrets) at a price that does not maximize their return.
Just saying no to Bill will work fine if you can get enough other real buyers to do it too. Pay what you want, and if what you want is too much, do without or find another source and let Bill know when you buy.
-
Microsoft is not a monopoly; if it was, Apple and MacOS wouldn't exist, and neither would Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. You can bitch about Microsoft's pricing and bugs and whatever, but the fact that you have a Mac to use as an alternative to Windows/PC disproves your own specious argument. Regarding whether MacOS or Windows is better, either option is a sufficiently mature product to meet the needs of anyone. There are many serious professional users in both camps, and religious debates over which is "better" are no more useful than the Canon vs Nikon debate, or the 35mm digital vs MFDB debates. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and what's best for one individual user is not necessarily the best choice for someone else.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98550\")
Jonathin, you are using monopoly in a literal sense, and this shows your lack of subtlety. [a href=\"http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1215&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en]Monopoly and near monopoly [/url] have been used by the EU in reference to Microsoft's behavior, and my argument is not specious. You can read more about monopoly power (http://economics.about.com/cs/microeconomics/a/monopoly.htm) here. Specific reference is made to Microsoft. You assume that I am a Mac user, but actually I use Windows as you could have ascertained if you had read my post, rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions (as you did in the thread about Costo shadows).
Bill
-
Most companies are not in business to advance the state of the art for the public or to produce (near) giveaway stuff. They are trying to make a profit. Therefore, even without a monopoly or a niche, there is little incentive to give away or sell products (including trade secrets) at a price that does not maximize their return.
Just saying no to Bill will work fine if you can get enough other real buyers to do it too. Pay what you want, and if what you want is too much, do without or find another source and let Bill know when you buy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Howie,
Quite true, but that is why we have anti-trust laws which make the use of monopoly power illegal.
Bill
-
Bill,
I understand your frustration with the pricing for Vista, et al. But honestly, all the various iterations of Mac OS X are basically small tweaks and small feature addition to the original. And for that, Apple charges for almost each and every minor upgrade, justifying their changes by calling it something -- Leopard, Panther, Tiger etc. -- and charging the consumer. Additionally, many times software patches are need to make your existing programs work with these OS X tweaks.
Microsoft -- good or bad, doesn't matter -- does one major OS revision every few years (in this case, over five!), and doesn't charge you for the patches and corrections.
This isn't a battle of the OS, it's the difference in the business model. My wife works on a Mac (graphic designer). She's laid out over $500 in recent years for her OS upgrades. In that time, I've laid out $0 for my WinXP Pro. The way I see it, I'm further ahead. And with what I spend every year in software upgrades, Windows is the least expensive on my list.
Nemo
-
Howie,
Quite true, but that is why we have anti-trust laws which make the use of monopoly power illegal.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmmm... Clear Channel, Gannett, WalMart, .......
-
Howie,
Quite true, but that is why we have anti-trust laws which make the use of monopoly power illegal.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think just because I have the only game in town makes me illegal. I can charge what I want for a piece of sftware or a photo. (I have a monopoly on images by Howie Smith.) Charge too much, I have no sails. Charge too little, I have to work too hard to make the same living I could with a higher price/lower volume business.
I am going out on a limb here, but I think Microsoft got into trade difficulties, not because they were expensive and had a moat around their product, but because they tried to tie their product and others together. If you want A, then you must buy B.
-
Howie,
Quite true, but that is why we have anti-trust laws which make the use of monopoly power illegal.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that is why Microsoft and others have big legal departments. Protect their market from intruders, legally. They may be shadey, but legal.
I used to work for a large company that made, among other things, light bulbs. They could make them really cheaply because they made so many and had a good market. What they could not do was drop the price so low that they lost money to drive the competitors out of the business and then raise prices. Except for regulated maonoploies, like cable TV, gas or electric power, most companies can charge whatever they want. There is no law that I know of against making high margins.
-
I'm with Jonathan here. I have been a Mac user since I started using a computer and even tho in the past I used to defend Mac over PC, I don't any more. I just don't care what you use nor do I care if you know what I use. I'm so sick and tired of constantly hearing this nonsense about which is better!!
No problem... if you don't like it, don't use it. JUST STOP HARPING ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON ad nauseum. As Jon said, both systems are mature enough to do whatever you need done.
How about just agreeing to disagree and get on with your life and leave the rest of the world alone. You people are like the Jehovas Witnesses that used to constantly come around our home trying to convert us. If I was unhappy with my religion ( substitute OS here) I am quite capable of looking for something different on my own without you all harping on about how yours is better than mine.
PLEASE...just drop it!!!
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...1,1013254.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-complain27jan27,1,1013254.story)
-
Tiger Mac OS X 10.4.6 Retails for $129 There is no confusing maze of versions good, better, or best and you don't have to waste time and money determining which version you need.
Much better to have the single option I agree.
But there's the near annual Mac Pussycat Tax. If you bought XP when it came out and used it ever since, it would work out much cheaper as all updates and patches are free.
In addition, Microsoft's initial releases tend to be infested with bugs.
Cough, ahem Aperture! 9 updates/revisions I read the other day and a drastic price cut. It was as much as beta as the LR beta, but with a $500 tag.
Also consider switching to the Mac. Their high end machines are priced very competitively with Windows workstations.
Recently PCPro tested a Mac workstation and were very impressed with it, the highest scores they'd ever seen.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/95175/apple-ma...-in-the-uk.html (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/95175/apple-mac-pro-is-crowned-the-fastest-pc-in-the-uk.html)
The next month, they tested a PC workstation which scored identically. [Can't find link, sorry] The Mac was nearly £5000 and the PC was £2000!!
Not such good value! I was looking at getting a MacPro recently and for the same price one could get a Wintel box with far more memory and a decent monitor. Going from a paltry 1G on a £1,700 MacPro to a more reasonable 4G would cost an extra £740
Which would buy one of these http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.p...aa00d4b4f05ee24 (http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=1581&xSec=117&jssCart=4d695d4fcad768782aa00d4b4f05ee24)
-
Much better to have the single option I agree.
But there's the near annual Mac Pussycat Tax. If you bought XP when it came out and used it ever since, it would work out much cheaper as all updates and patches are free.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98635\")
Since I do not own an Apple, I was not familiar with their upgrade practices, but this upgrade policy of Apple was brought to my attention earlier. Still I think that the Vista upgrade is too much, especially if you have several computers in the household. According to [a href=\"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6191812.stm]The BBC [/url], Microsoft gets 80% of its windows revenue from OEM installations (at an undisclosed low price per unit) and relatively few people upgrade their existing computers. Personally, I will sit tight with what I have now since it does the job well enough as others have pointed out.
Recently PCPro tested a Mac workstation and were very impressed with it, the highest scores they'd ever seen.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/95175/apple-ma...-in-the-uk.html (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/95175/apple-mac-pro-is-crowned-the-fastest-pc-in-the-uk.html)
The next month, they tested a PC workstation which scored identically. [Can't find link, sorry] The Mac was nearly £5000 and the PC was £2000!!
Not such good value! I was looking at getting a MacPro recently and for the same price one could get a Wintel box with far more memory and a decent monitor. Going from a paltry 1G on a £1,700 MacPro to a more reasonable 4G would cost an extra £740
Which would buy one of these http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.p...aa00d4b4f05ee24 (http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=1581&xSec=117&jssCart=4d695d4fcad768782aa00d4b4f05ee24)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98635\")
I'm not familiar with UK prices, but the top of the line Apple workstation (Mac Pro 2.66 2(4x512) 2x500 SD 7300GT) costs USD $4549 from [a href=\"http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?Sku=7044372]PC Connection[/url] and I checked out the price of a Dell workstation (Dell.com (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB1727&s=biz)) with similar specs and it was $4885 (you will have to enter the specs). This is without a monitor, 2GB of memory and a 1000GB (Apple) or 750 GB (Dell) SATA hard drive, so the prices are comparable. You could do better with an offbrand PC.
Bill
-
Bill:
Since March of 2001 Apple has released 6 versions of OS X, each price at $130. A $780 total.
Microsoft released Windows XP in October of 2001 at a retail price of $300 for the professional version. Since that time Microsoft has had 2 major updates release as SP1 and SP2 at no additional charge. In additon, Mircrosoft has commited full support through year 2010 with security updates through 2014. SP3 is expected later this year. Microsoft's stated support policy for an OS has been 7 years. They extended both Windows 2000 and XP support so far. Apple's support is currently "until the next $130 release" . . .
If you are having a problem sorting through the various Vista version offered please note that MS is simply responding to the demands of the market place offering versions from $99 to $400. The $200 price for the Pro upgrade is same price MS charged for Win NT 4.0, Win 2000 and Win XP-Pro upgrades. By your math you would be into Vista for $503 assuming you paid full retail for XP Pro, which I'm sure you didn't.
I'm not sure how to respond to your "professional" nVidea adapter . . . my Dual Head $800 Matrox is currently blown away by a $69 256MB ATI clone from Tiger Direct . . . so what?
Did you realize one of the chief benefits of Aero is the offloading of basic screen window managment from the computer's CPU to the video card's GPU? This frees resources for your applications.
Speaking of security - please compare Secunia's compilation of security advisories comparing the two platforms since 2004 (see below)
Bottom line? DON'T buy it, but please make an informed decision, based on facts.
-
Jonathin, you are using monopoly in a literal sense, and this shows your lack of subtlety. Monopoly and near monopoly (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1215&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en) have been used by the EU in reference to Microsoft's behavior, and my argument is not specious.
Yes it is specious. It isn't a matter of subtlety, but simple common sense. As a pro photographer, you can buy a Mac and MacOS, and run all of the same major image processing applications (Photoshop, etc), use all of the same printers (Epson, Canon, HP, etc) and most of the same hardware peripherals (spectrophotometer, scanner, etc) without spending a single cent on a Microsoft product, and get everything from major retailers at reasonable prices without having to wait any longer to receive the merchandise, and without significantly more difficulty setting it up and getting it to work. You'll pay a little more for the Apple hardware and software, but many people find the Mac hard/software to be preferable and are willing to pay a premium for it. We may not care for some of Microsoft's business practices, but they are not a "monopoly" in any rational sense of the word.
I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Adobe, either. Microsoft has less market share among graphic/imaging/photographer professionals than Adobe, and I don't see many people calling Adobe a "monopoly" or bemoaning a lack of innovation in their products.
-
I'm not familiar with UK prices, but the top of the line Apple workstation (Mac Pro 2.66 2(4x512) 2x500 SD 7300GT) costs USD $4549 from PC Connection (http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?Sku=7044372) and I checked out the price of a Dell workstation (Dell.com (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB1727&s=biz)) with similar specs and it was $4885 (you will have to enter the specs). This is without a monitor, 2GB of memory and a 1000GB (Apple) or 750 GB (Dell) SATA hard drive, so the prices are comparable. You could do better with an offbrand PC.
Dell are expensive compared to many other brands, so Macs are always priced against them. I was also comparing machine with identical performances, a more valid comparison than just specs.
And the Mac was well over twice the price of an identically performing machine, so the fact you can find a PC as pricey as a Mac says nothing.
Apple have the highest margins [by a long way] of any computer company when it comes to hardware, so they will never compete favourably on price and non Apple products at Apple dealers can be twice the price as the same product at a PC shop.
I would buy Apple products, but not when they are so expensive and the money I save can buy me a new L lens, a much better monitor or a month's holiday somewhere exotic.
-
Yes it is specious. It isn't a matter of subtlety, but simple common sense.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98673\")
On appeal of [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft]United States vs Microsoft[/url], the US Court of Appeals did sustain in part Judge Jackson's finding that Microsoft was a monopoly. The US Supreme Court declined to review the case and the case was subsequently settled. These are the facts as determined by the Court and Microsoft did settle--Gates did not win the case. Many conservative economists such as Milton Friedman did not think that the case had any validity, but this does not mean that the governments arguments were "specious". Note, however, that Milton wanted to legalize narcotics and thought that doctors should not be required to obtain licenses. However, he was a great economist and man and I would not consider his arguments "specious" either. In a democracy, there is room for honest debate without resorting to name calling.
I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Adobe, either. Microsoft has less market share among graphic/imaging/photographer professionals than Adobe, and I don't see many people calling Adobe a "monopoly" or bemoaning a lack of innovation in their products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And I notice that you did not respond to my GamutVision plots of the Costco profiles that refuted your argument about saturation . Adobe has not been dragged through the courts both in the USA and EU for anticompetitive practices. Also, their software are not copies of a more innovative firm's products. Adobe has acquired their dominance in graphics software the gold old fashioned way: outclassing the competition.
Bill
-
On appeal of United States vs Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft), the US Court of Appeals did sustain in part Judge Jackson's finding that Microsoft was a monopoly. The US Supreme Court declined to review the case and the case was subsequently settled. These are the facts as determined by the Court and Microsoft did settle--Gates did not win the case.
Not so, according to the article you cite. While the Supreme Court did not hear the appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did, which "unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization", except for a small part of the monopolization ruling, which led to the settlement thet required Microsoft to share their browser-related APIs with third-party software companies. Microsoft was not broken up into two separate entities, and was not required to alter their marketing practices regarding Windows, or to stop bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The only effect the settlement had on most consumers was the inclusion of the "set program access and defaults" utility in Windows Update. Microsoft spent more money fighting the case in court than settling it once litigation was complete. If I was Bill Gates, I would certainly consider that a "win". Not necessarily total victory, but certainly nothing near what the prosecution (and Microsoft's detractors) wanted.
Stating that your arguments are specious is not name-calling, it is reality. Windows is not more expensive to own than MacOS. It may cost more for the initial purchase, but is less expensive over the life cycle of the product, in the same way digital is much cheaper than film in the long run for a busy pro who shoots 50,000 frames per year. And if every feature of Windows really showed up in MacOS and then found its way into Windows, Apple would have sued Microsoft out of existence years ago.
As to your GamutVision plots, I'm reserving judgment until I can get the RAW to work with instead of a badly-processed JPEG, and see where things go from there regarding making a decent Costco print out of it.
-
Not so, according to the article you cite. While the Supreme Court did not hear the appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did, which "unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization", except for a small part of the monopolization ruling, which led to the settlement thet required Microsoft to share their browser-related APIs with third-party software companies.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98759\")
You are confusing the overturning of the remedies with the appeals court's confirmation that the Sherman Antitrust Act was violated in the ways that Microsoft maintained its monopoly. Judge Jackson became so outraged at Microsoft's outrageous behavior that his judgment was compromised and most of his remedies were thrown out.
The following is quoted from the [a href=\"http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f204400/204468.htm]US Court of Appeals[/url] ruling:
"We upheld the district court's ruling that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by the ways in which it maintained its monopoly, but we reversed the district court's finding of liability for attempted monopolization, and we remanded the tying claim to the district court to apply the rule of reason rather than the rule of per se illegality."
The whole case is reported on the DOJ Web Site (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm#appeals). Some of the testimony does not put Microsoft in a very good light and I'm not sure why you are defending some of this behavior. So far as I know, the EU anti-trust actions are still pending.
As to your GamutVision plots, I'm reserving judgment until I can get the RAW to work with instead of a badly-processed JPEG, and see where things go from there regarding making a decent Costco print out of it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98759\")
I would be interested in your analysis and hopefully some forum members and I will learn from this exchange of ideas.
I did do a couple more GamutVision plots using the Costco Eureka profile showing the input pixel value (expressed as log [pixel value/255]) for with black point compensation turned on and off as related to the output density of the print. Since many readers may not be familiar with these expressions I have supplied two tables showing conversion values to the more familiar input and output expressed in 8-bit pixel values.
Here is the plot with BPC on:
[attachment=1721:attachment]
and with it off:
[attachment=1722:attachment]
Log pixel value to 8 bit pixel value:
[attachment=1723:attachment]
Output density expressed as percent reflectance, CIE L*, and 8-bit gamma 2.2 pixel values according to [a href=\"http://www.brucelindbloom.com/]Bruce Lindbloom's[/url] companding calculator:
[attachment=1724:attachment]
Readers should note that log plots can't contain zero and that the dynamic range of a file with maximum and minimum pixel values of 255 and 0 would be infinite. An 8 bit integer value of zero would occur when the 8 bit value underflows and is rounded to zero. A 16 bit file could express greater densities and I think processing the raw file as 16 bits would be a good idea. White paper has a reflectance of about 90% and a density of about 0.05. According to the plot, the Costco printer has a Dmax of about 1.7 with the luster paper.
Bill
-
Bill, You are most likely wrong on Windows Vista. The price is irrevelant if it brings as much promise as this huge upgrade may provide. (2008)
IMHO, it will become the OS that changes how we photographers work. The WCS and the Iview may make how we manage our images - separate from how we now use Adobe products. I love PSCS2 (ACR), but look forward to another option in color management - if only for the fact that Adobe may alter its 'old school' approach. Adobe seems to have Apple and Aperture so tightly in it's sights - that Microsoft may finally use all that money and brains to push another workable system in place.
We will all benefit from real competion. The other guy may be Microsoft, not Apple!
Just an opinion, I may be wrong.
-
Who is pointing a gun to anyone's head to demand a Vista upgrade? XP is currently available, stable, and runs Photoshop just fine. It will likely be supported for several years; Microsoft still supports Windows 2000 with security updates and such. The next version of MacOS will likely cost more than the current one, and isn't even in beta yet. And if history is any clue, OS prices drop some after they have been out for a while.
This pointless anti-Microsoft/PC carping gets so tiresome...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not in beta yet? Define that. Developer's have had the beta version for some time now. Not in public beta is typically Apple's policy. And it is on schedule to be released before summer.
What crystal ball have you been using that tell's you that Apple is going to charge more than their $129 that they've always charged for OS X upgrades?
-
Not in beta yet? Define that. Developer's have had the beta version for some time now. Not in public beta is typically Apple's policy. And it is on schedule to be released before summer.
What crystal ball have you been using that tell's you that Apple is going to charge more than their $129 that they've always charged for OS X upgrades?
I was referring to public beta. If Apple doesn't do them, perhaps that would explain why MacOS had 237 security advisories between February 04 and February 06, while Windows had 92. I hadn't heard anything about a new release in the works. As to the initial pricing, I stand corrected.
You are confusing the overturning of the remedies with the appeals court's confirmation that the Sherman Antitrust Act was violated in the ways that Microsoft maintained its monopoly. Judge Jackson became so outraged at Microsoft's outrageous behavior that his judgment was compromised and most of his remedies were thrown out.
Please keep in mind here I'm not basing my argument on torturous and easily disputable legal grounds, but rather on common sense and the actual definition of a monopoly, and how well Microsoft fits the definition. The legal ruling agasinst Microsoft is not relevant, really; the penalties imposed were a slap on the wrist at best, and Microsoft was not forced to change its behavior in any meaningful way. If Microsoft had been a pedophile, the settlement would have made it disclose how it selects its victims to certain interested third parties, but would not have made it stop molesting children.
Let's look at the actual definition of a monopoly, from Wikipedia:
Primary characteristics of a monopoly
Single Seller: In this type of market, there is only one seller producing a particular commodity. 'Mono' means single & 'Poly' means seller. Thus, Monopoly means a single seller.
No close substitutes: Monopoly not only implies a single seller but it also means a single seller producing a commodity having no close substitutes. if the substitutes are available, there will be a competition among the firms. Monopoly means a complete absence of competition. so under monopoly, the commodity has no close substitutes.
Price maker: In a pure monopoly, a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. An example of this would be the situation of Viagra before competing drugs emerged. In subtotal monopolies (for example, diamonds or petroleum at present), a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity or raises its prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share. However, if a monopoly is not protected from competition by law (if it is not a legal monopoly), it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising.
Microsoft is not a single seller, nor can it be said that there are no close substitutes. Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set, and many would argue that it is easier to use and has other advantages over Windows. MacOS is also readily available in most stores selling computer software, as well as numerous online retailers, worldwide. Microsoft does not qualify as a price maker, either. While its initial retail purchase cost is higher than that of MacOS, Microsoft's upgrade policy is such that Windows users get free upgrades (service packs with additional features, etc.) while Apple charges for incremental OS updates, causing MacOS to be somewhat more expensive over time, but not excessively so. While Microsoft is certainly a dominant player in the operating system market, it does not meet any of the criteria of a monopoly.
-
This thread reminds me of the comments (http://tech.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=468409#comments) posted in response to a Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek/) about Bill Gates, Vista and Apple. But it's way more nasty than we have here!
I used to get into the OS fray often but it never goes over well ;-). Now I run both OS-X and WinXP on my Intel Macs as needed, and the flexibility is great.
-
Jonathan said, "Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set..." Actually, it's the other way around (mostly), so perhaps you meant "mirrors" or "offers" ;-).
(See how easy it is to get sucked in?)
-
That wasn't intended as a commentary on who had what first, merely a statement that both operating systems' feature sets are fairly similar.
-
Oddly enough, I just got this in my email...
(http://visual-vacations.com/images/AppleAd.jpg)
-
See I'm a Mac spoof (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/01/im-mac-im-pc.htm)....
BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?
John
-
See I'm a Mac spoof (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/01/im-mac-im-pc.htm)....
BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That so sums up the weekend that we had to wait for the Mac based agency to try and get their video editing software to work - easy to use and bug free - My Arse!
Hip, cool and trendy it may be. Reliable, boring and predictable it sure is not.
-
BTW don't you agree this thread was inevitably misguided, Bill?
John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=99008\")
Misguided? Possibly. Mac vs Windows or Nikon vs Canon arguments are doomed, but my point was not which operating system is best (they both get the job done) but that Microsoft uses anticompetitive practices to maintain a de facto monopoly and charge high prices. Apple is not noted for low pricing either and Steve Jobs is not generally regarded to be a nice guy.
The history of these players is well portrayed in [a href=\"http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/pirates/frame_index.htm]Pirates of Silicon Valley[/url].
Bill
-
Please keep in mind here I'm not basing my argument on torturous and easily disputable legal grounds, but rather on common sense and the actual definition of a monopoly, and how well Microsoft fits the definition. The legal ruling agasinst Microsoft is not relevant, really; the penalties imposed were a slap on the wrist at best, and Microsoft was not forced to change its behavior in any meaningful way. If Microsoft had been a pedophile, the settlement would have made it disclose how it selects its victims to certain interested third parties, but would not have made it stop molesting children.
Let's look at the actual definition of a monopoly, from Wikipedia:
Primary characteristics of a monopoly
Single Seller: In this type of market, there is only one seller producing a particular commodity. 'Mono' means single & 'Poly' means seller. Thus, Monopoly means a single seller.
No close substitutes: Monopoly not only implies a single seller but it also means a single seller producing a commodity having no close substitutes. if the substitutes are available, there will be a competition among the firms. Monopoly means a complete absence of competition. so under monopoly, the commodity has no close substitutes.
Price maker: In a pure monopoly, a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied. An example of this would be the situation of Viagra before competing drugs emerged. In subtotal monopolies (for example, diamonds or petroleum at present), a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity or raises its prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share. However, if a monopoly is not protected from competition by law (if it is not a legal monopoly), it may still be subject to competitive forces that pressure it to keep prices low in order to dissuade competition from arising.
Microsoft is not a single seller, nor can it be said that there are no close substitutes. Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set, and many would argue that it is easier to use and has other advantages over Windows. MacOS is also readily available in most stores selling computer software, as well as numerous online retailers, worldwide. Microsoft does not qualify as a price maker, either. While its initial retail purchase cost is higher than that of MacOS, Microsoft's upgrade policy is such that Windows users get free upgrades (service packs with additional features, etc.) while Apple charges for incremental OS updates, causing MacOS to be somewhat more expensive over time, but not excessively so. While Microsoft is certainly a dominant player in the operating system market, it does not meet any of the criteria of a monopoly.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98983\")
Jonathan,
Your literal and narrow definition of monopoly is naive. Perhaps we should drop use of the word monopoly and monopoly power and instead concentrate on anti-competitive behavior that is not in the public interest and is illegal under the current anti-trust laws. Do you think that with regard to the Carnegie Steel Co, Standard Oil, and De Beers cases cited in your reference on Wikipedia, users had no alternative sources for steel, gasoline, or diamonds?
That Microsoft got off with a slap on the wrist is in large part due to political considerations. With the advent of the Bush II administration, the Justice Department was staffed by pro-big business, laissez fare, and conservative people. Do you really think that Bill Gates has no influence in these circles or that the government would want to shoot itself in the foot and cripple one of our most prominent and successful companies?
In the EU the battle is not yet over as reported in the [a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600357.html]Washington Post[/url]. Since you are in Germany, perhaps you could comment.
Bill
-
Yes it is specious. It isn't a matter of subtlety, but simple common sense. As a pro photographer, you can buy a Mac and MacOS, and run all of the same major image processing applications (Photoshop, etc), use all of the same printers (Epson, Canon, HP, etc) and most of the same hardware peripherals (spectrophotometer, scanner, etc) without spending a single cent on a Microsoft product, and get everything from major retailers at reasonable prices without having to wait any longer to receive the merchandise, and without significantly more difficulty setting it up and getting it to work. You'll pay a little more for the Apple hardware and software, but many people find the Mac hard/software to be preferable and are willing to pay a premium for it. We may not care for some of Microsoft's business practices, but they are not a "monopoly" in any rational sense of the word.
I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Adobe, either. Microsoft has less market share among graphic/imaging/photographer professionals than Adobe, and I don't see many people calling Adobe a "monopoly" or bemoaning a lack of innovation in their products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
it's not illegal to be a monopoly, if that's what the market allows you to be. it's illegal to abuse monopolistic powers. so it's okay if you have 95% (or even 100%) of the PC OS market, if your products are so favored by the market, but you can't then use that power to keep others from developing competing products. for instance, you can't say to the 95% of buyers that want your product that they must also use only your internet browser. or, even, require OEM makers to feature your browser on the desktop and not those of other browser makers if they want to sell your (preferred) OS.
it's not monopolistic to charge whatever you think the market will bear for your product. assuming that 'computing' is an important task that deserves government protection (like driving, or emergency room treatment), so long as there are alternatives like mac and linux i don't think MS is in danger of violating the law.
-
it's not illegal to be a monopoly, if that's what the market allows you to be. it's illegal to abuse monopolistic powers. so it's okay if you have 95% (or even 100%) of the PC OS market, if your products are so favored by the market, but you can't then use that power to keep others from developing competing products. for instance, you can't say to the 95% of buyers that want your product that they must also use only your internet browser. or, even, require OEM makers to feature your browser on the desktop and not those of other browser makers if they want to sell your (preferred) OS.
it's not monopolistic to charge whatever you think the market will bear for your product. assuming that 'computing' is an important task that deserves government protection (like driving, or emergency room treatment), so long as there are alternatives like mac and linux i don't think MS is in danger of violating the law.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It seems this issue has kept the US Dept of Justice, the EU and the Microsoft legal department busy for a few years. Arguable better legal minds than found on LL. Seems unlikely an LL forum will find a solution agreeable to all.
-
It seems this issue has kept the US Dept of Justice, the EU and the Microsoft legal department busy for a few years. Arguable better legal minds than found on LL. Seems unlikely an LL forum will find a solution agreeable to all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said
Bill
-
Well said
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes, i agree too. no judge learned hands here, certainly not at this keyboard. but it's just entertainment and chatter. i can't design lenses but i still like the fervent pros/cons that sometimes flares up and sometimes i join in the fun. anyway, i do agree this topic's just about tapped out. at least for me. back to photo threads!
-
Jonathan said, "Apple's MacOS duplicates most of Windows' feature set..." Actually, it's the other way around (mostly), so perhaps you meant "mirrors" or "offers" ;-).
(See how easy it is to get sucked in?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple sued MS over look and feel. some years back and lost as they'd nicked it from Xerox. I've noticed several MS features appear in Apple software and vice versa. Adobe + Macromedia sued each other over similar ideas and as products evolve and better ideas win out, they is going to be some natural convergence. I have placed my programme icons along botton of screen for nearly 10 years, just like the Mac Dock, but without the annoying bouncy graphics. Maybe I should sue them!
-
And I don't see anyone complaining about Adobe's image editing software "monopoly" stifling innovation in Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Allow me to disagree, I think that we would have had 64 bits support in PS CS3 had the application had some serious competitors.
I also feel that PS CS2 is overal too expensive, even if the upgrade pricig policy of Adobe is more reasonnable that Microsoft's. On the MS side, I for one find the upgrade price of MS Office way too high. I could have bought an upgrade had the price been half, no way with the current pricing policy, but that is just me.
Regards,
Bernard
-
And the rapidly maturing open source movement is nipping at the heels of them all (Linux, GIMP, Paint.net, OpenOffice, Audacity, etc.). Those dependent on Microsoft products (OS and apps) especially should be looking elsewhere for their software needs.
-
don't you guys have anything better to do like take some photographs? This whole mac vs windows operating systems is senseless. My brother in law has been an apple engineer for ten years and dosn't own a mac computer. I have owned macs since the early 90's so what. I have used every operating system known, it's almost like the argument about which cameras you choose. The answer is it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that whatever you use does the job for you. G
-
True, but the computer and software are an integral part of the imaging workflow lately ;-).
So, what's the deal with your brother-in-law? Does he not use the software he creates?
-
And the rapidly maturing open source movement is nipping at the heels of them all (Linux, GIMP, Paint.net, OpenOffice, Audacity, etc.). Those dependent on Microsoft products (OS and apps) especially should be looking elsewhere for their software needs
As someone who's just implemented a Joomla! web site for a client, I had to snort with laughter over that one.
-
As someone who's just implemented a Joomla! web site for a client, I had to snort with laughter over that one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no experience with the open-source Joomla, but you seem to have been using it professionally despite your amusement at the concept. So how did the project go?
-
I have no experience with the open-source Joomla, but you seem to have been using it professionally despite your amusement at the concept. So how did the project go?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A bit of a nightmare (especially integrating the VirtueMart shopping cart): the documentation is terrible (I'm also a tech author!), lots of the functionality is entirely unintuitive, and it is entirely a matter of luck whether you can find the answer to your problem in the support forums.
The client wanted a "free" solution, but ended up paying far more for my time than if she'd just bought Actinic and done it herself.
OS is a fine concept - like communism. And like communism, not so good in the real world.
Joomla!/VM is great if your time is free and unlimited, but not a very realistic proposition in a commercial setting for SMEs unless you are prepared to put in large amounts of time for nothing learning by trial and error, and then documenting and maintaining tens of little fixes that all have to be redone at every new release.
Written by people who enjoy a technical challenge but often seem to have little experience of the practical needs of the business world.
That is my experience of this one product - but of course YMMV.
-
Thanks Lois. I was thinking more in terms of desktop applications, especially image editing apps.
I know open-source is beginning to hurt at least one major well-known company, ACD Systems (makers of ACDSee). If you dredge up their financial reports from their website, they speak of competition from free image browsers, etc. as contributing to their steep decline in sales.
I'm a Mac user who enjoys the occasional open source app (Audacity for audio editing and various free imaging apps), but I think their attractiveness is mainly for those wishing to escape Microsoft's clutches in regards to the OS and productivity apps.
My web host is using Linux, FWIW. I've played with Ubuntu Linux and am impressed with the effort, though as an OS-X user I'm spoiled by the abundance of my software toys and would consider that direction a step backwards. But for those building a box from scratch, it's a very cool thing to have the option without the investment.
-
I won't get in the Microsoft/Mac argument -- I went to Macs basically because they're more like using a toaster. I don't have to think about what I'm doing (I have little interest in computers per se), and it works because I only use a few programs, like Word and Photoshop and Lightroom. I know from my long experience with Windows, though, that there is a heck of a lot more software out there for Windows -- try to find a really good road-map progam for Mac...
But I'm more interested in Bernard's observation: it's Adobe that really acts like a monopoly, with rapacious pricing and rules. A full Photoshop now costs $700 or so, and several hundred dollars every eighteen months if you want to keep up with the upgrades. And they limit how long you can go without upgrading, before your eligibility to upgrade expires. And what really winds my clock is that they only allow you to run it on two machines at a time, without jumping through your ass to turn off one while you're turning on another, etc. The fact is, many pro photographers and I suspect quite a few serious amateur photographers take two laptops (or more) with them on a shoot, in case one goes down; and they run a Photoshop on a big machine back at the studio. The two iteration limitation sucks; they say it's to keep down piracy, but in fact, they're using their monopoly power to troll for more sales even as it hurts their customer base.
I use Lightroom, and if I had an inclination to say bedtime prayers, I'd get down on my knees every night and pray that Apple keeps upgrading Aperture; I'd like to see Aperture become the most-kick-ass photo program out there, just so Adobe would be forced to keep improving Lightroom. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Apple buy some fairly-well-developed PS-like program, just to scare the crap out of Adobe, and do something about their ridiculous prices.
Sorry about the spit on your computer screens; I tend to rant about Adobe, even as I buy their products.
JC
-
I won't get in the Microsoft/Mac argument -- I went to Macs basically because they're more like using a toaster. I don't have to think about what I'm doing (I have little interest in computers per se), and it works because I only use a few programs, like Word and Photoshop and Lightroom. I know from my long experience with Windows, though, that there is a heck of a lot more software out there for Windows -- try to find a really good road-map progam for Mac...
But I'm more interested in Bernard's observation: it's Adobe that really acts like a monopoly, with rapacious pricing and rules. A full Photoshop now costs $700 or so, and several hundred dollars every eighteen months if you want to keep up with the upgrades. And they limit how long you can go without upgrading, before your eligibility to upgrade expires. And what really winds my clock is that they only allow you to run it on two machines at a time, without jumping through your ass to turn off one while you're turning on another, etc. The fact is, many pro photographers and I suspect quite a few serious amateur photographers take two laptops (or more) with them on a shoot, in case one goes down; and they run a Photoshop on a big machine back at the studio. The two iteration limitation sucks; they say it's to keep down piracy, but in fact, they're using their monopoly power to troll for more sales even as it hurts their customer base. We all win!
I use Lightroom, and if I had an inclination to say bedtime prayers, I'd get down on my knees every night and pray that Apple keeps upgrading Aperture; I'd like to see Aperture become the most-kick-ass photo program out there, just so Adobe would be forced to keep improving Lightroom. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Apple buy some fairly-well-developed PS-like program, just to scare the crap out of Adobe, and do something about their ridiculous prices.
Sorry about the spit on your computer screens; I tend to rant about Adobe, even as I buy their products.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, That was beautiful - lets all hope pitiful Apple can keep their company together long enough (this time) to scare Adobe. Clearly they don't scare Microsoft - which this thread was about.
Vista may scare both Apple and Adobe this time. Windows Color System may have legs, but either way, competition helps everybody equally. Lets all hope 3 strong players in our field all stay healthy - prices will fall and the quality will rise.
-
Vista may scare both Apple and Adobe this time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How so? It's basically XP with an Aqua face (yes, I used RC1...) and is Microsoft playing catch-up.
As for scaring Adobe, somebody besides Microsoft should have bought Creature House's Expression and kept that vector technology away from them.
-
How so? It's basically XP with an Aqua face (yes, I used RC1...) and is Microsoft playing catch-up.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=100289\")
Vista is certainly nothing revolutionary. It does similar functions that OSX has had for a couple years or more but doesn't do them nearly as well. It is certainly allot better than XP in many regards, but an OSX challenger? Not by a long shot but in reality, and despite snips taken at each other, they aren't really competing products.
In two and half years MS plans on releasing Vienna. [a href=\"http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/89174243/]Their next operating system[/url] with a "radical new user interface." Maybe they will have something solid then?
-
Thanks for the Vienna info; I had not heard that. They'll soon have Apple's Leopard to copy, so maybe that's the cause for their confidence in the next version of Windows ;-).
-
Bill,
I understand your frustration with the pricing for Vista, et al. But honestly, all the various iterations of Mac OS X are basically small tweaks and small feature addition to the original. And for that, Apple charges for almost each and every minor upgrade, justifying their changes by calling it something -- Leopard, Panther, Tiger etc. -- and charging the consumer. Additionally, many times software patches are need to make your existing programs work with these OS X tweaks.
Microsoft -- good or bad, doesn't matter -- does one major OS revision every few years (in this case, over five!), and doesn't charge you for the patches and corrections.
This isn't a battle of the OS, it's the difference in the business model. My wife works on a Mac (graphic designer). She's laid out over $500 in recent years for her OS upgrades. In that time, I've laid out $0 for my WinXP Pro. The way I see it, I'm further ahead. And with what I spend every year in software upgrades, Windows is the least expensive on my list.
Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what software did she pay for? apple charges for each new OS...just like MS does...apple just comes out with one version (not pro, light,....) and charges 149.- for it....that ususally includes i life which now means iDVD, iMovie, Itunes, iPhoto, iWeb, iCal,....none of which are included with windows (at least not in similar quality)....
vista is at best on mac 10.4 level...in a couple of months 10.5 comes out which simply is year ahead of vista....
since the intel switch there really is no reason to buy a pc anymore...even PC magazines are starting to agree....and with bootcamp you can even run games on macs now......
i remember how my brother (who, like everybody else works on pc in his company) bought a mac for at home and saw how much better MS office is on the mac....
as far as i know software prices are the same for mac or windows....either way it does not matter now anyway...just run bootcamp...
-
what software did she pay for? apple charges for each new OS...just like MS does...apple just comes out with one version (not pro, light,....) and charges 149.- for it....that ususally includes i life which now means iDVD, iMovie, Itunes, iPhoto, iWeb, iCal,....none of which are included with windows (at least not in similar quality)....
vista is at best on mac 10.4 level...in a couple of months 10.5 comes out which simply is year ahead of vista....
since the intel switch there really is no reason to buy a pc anymore...even PC magazines are starting to agree....and with bootcamp you can even run games on macs now......
i remember how my brother (who, like everybody else works on pc in his company) bought a mac for at home and saw how much better MS office is on the mac....
as far as i know software prices are the same for mac or windows....either way it does not matter now anyway...just run bootcamp...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just got to get my $0.02 worth in here.
First, Apple charges $129 for OS X upgrades (not $149).
Second, Apple does not upgrade OS X software every year. They are on an 18 month upgrade cycle. And all the 10.X.x upgrades for that 18 month period are free.
I agree Vista is about in line with Tiger, but missing a few features
When Tiger (10.4) was announced, approximately 2 years ago, the banner read... "Redmond, start your copy machines!" Bill G's comment about Apple copying MSFT search technology was bull.... they didn't show Longhorn until 2 months later!
I feel better with that off my chest
-
Apple nick ideas from other people or buy the companies that have good ideas, just like Microsoft does. The only real difference between them is market share.
-
I won't touch Vista for a long time, and with any luck, never. Until SP1 is released, you get what you deserve if you upgrade. It is likely to be unstable, incompatible and insecure for some time and offers basically no additional value.
Who cares what OS you use? It's only the applications that matter.
I'm still on Win2K for my main desktops. But regardless that Microsoft continues to support Win2K, and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, Adobe's newest Photoshop CS3 requires XP. Ugh! Like I want to give Microsoft $400-500 bucks on top of Adobe's upgrade fees just for the pleasure of running CS3? Frankly, that sucks.
And if I can get CS2 (and eventually CS3) running on Ubuntu Linux, then I would drop this windows crap in a heartbeat. I hear there is a solution for running CS2 natively on Linux (using WINE). Have to investigate that further. Then again, CS3 may not have enough value to make it worth upgrading. Have to see.
And as the installation instructions said:
"Install Windows 2000 or better".....so I installed Linux! ;-)
-
Now that Vista and OS/X are essentally running on the same hardware - direct comparisond are inevitable - this series is balanced and informative:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/topic/Vista-Mac+Showdown.html (http://blogs.zdnet.com/topic/Vista-Mac+Showdown.html)
I won't touch Vista for a long time, and with any luck, never. Until SP1 is released, you get what you deserve if you upgrade. It is likely to be unstable, incompatible and insecure for some time and offers basically no additional value.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I'm well impressed with Vista to date! After seeing the first "patch tuesday" go by after the official release I show:
4 Updates to Vista, none Critical - the most serious being a user notification issue regarding reporting of application errors to Microsoft.
All the rest of the updates are a/v/spyware defs and tools - the snapshot below shows all updates to my home system installed on Novemember 17th - when Vista was released to developers.
It is important to note that Vista's codebase is Windows Server 2003, *not* Windows XP. Server 2003 has had an excellent security track record to date
Finally - that updated Dell 2407WP ICM file definition results in the display *still* being to damn bright :/
Regards - John