[clug-talk] Why is Software Assurance so bad.

[Curtis Sloan]

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 08:26, Roy Souther wrote:

> I need help. This guy I work with is trying to spend tons of money to
> buy M$ Software Assurance in the hope that some how Vista will run on
> systems that can barely run XP.
>
> I need URL's for real reason not to buy M$ Software Assurance. As most
> of us already know, M$ is only trying to get more money out of people
> with this.

Perhaps this will come off sounding harsh, but anti-MS sentiment is one of the 
things known to turn off potential open source users of all kinds.
 
I would suggest laying out realistic figures for upgrading to Vista.  You will 
have to upgrade your hardware, there is no question about that.  The 
requirements are ridiculous.  They will have definite costs attached and I'm 
sure you can give a reasonable idea of what those will be just by checking 
the minimum/recommended requirements.

Once you've done that, perhaps a comparison to a Pentium III running Kubuntu 
or some such comparison would be in order.  I'm not really fluent in these 
matters, but it seems like basic Linux evangelism to me.  There's lots of web 
pages out there and I know it's been discussed more than once on this list.

Basically, trying to convince him not to use MS without a comfortable 
alternative won't help anyone.  If someone runs an MS shop, Software 
Assurance is very much in order.  If they're not solely using MS product, 
then perhaps you have an opportunity to make a case for something, instead of 
against it.

Curtis