On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Cayze <sam.ca...@rollouts.com> wrote: > But I just paid for all new system that shipped with Vista Business :( I > would think the upgrade would be cheaper.
You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. Despite the fact that Volume Licenses are "Upgrade Only", they cost almost as much as a FPP license. There's a reason Bill Gates is so rich. > Alright, what's the point of SA ... More profit for Microsoft. Oh, you meant *for you*? For Windows, I think SA is a loosing proposition for the end customer. *If* you want to be on the latest release of Windows, it might make sense, but *only* if you don't also buy a new computer to run the new Windows. (Otherwise, you're buying an OEM Windows license again anyway.) And since every release of Windows typically has increased system requirements, that means Windows will get slower and slower with each upgrade. Why would you want to do that? SA might makes sense for other products, since Windows is the only product you have to buy twice to use with VL. Say you want to keep on the latest version of Office all the time. So you buy a heap of VL Office licenses and subscribe to SA for upgrades. That makes sense. If you tend to stick with what you have, or otherwise don't get enough value from running the latest and greatest, SA doesn't make sense then, either. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
