<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Microsoft to Charge for Office Betas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/07/microsoft_to_charge_for_office_betas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/07/microsoft_to_charge_for_office_betas/</link>
	<description>Nerds are for Dorks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:14:48 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mp3idiot</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/07/microsoft_to_charge_for_office_betas/comment-page-1/#comment-30170</link>
		<dc:creator>mp3idiot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=3255#comment-30170</guid>
		<description>Insane! Server costs is incomparable to the amount of money needed to hire QAs to test their beta!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Insane! Server costs is incomparable to the amount of money needed to hire QAs to test their beta!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Griffith</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/07/microsoft_to_charge_for_office_betas/comment-page-1/#comment-30169</link>
		<dc:creator>Griffith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=3255#comment-30169</guid>
		<description>If this was coming from any other company, I wouldn&#039;t be surprised, however, I must admit that coming from Microsoft this is a bit pathetic.

They didn&#039;t even put a WGA validator for people to try it out for free, actually, they didn&#039;t put one up for Windows Vista either. So they wanted to grasp as many people as they could, they shouldn&#039;t be complaining about the consequences now.

If this were a smaller company, I wouldn&#039;t find it surprising, but many, if not all graphics-related websites like Adobe&#039;s site, offer trial versions of all their programs for free.

And when I mention Adobe, I&#039;m also referring to the hundred other sites that follow the same model.

For 1.5$ (if it were the equivalent to euros) I could download 1.5GB of data, and the office package is only 440mb.

Though, on the other hand, after working for a software company for a few years I can think of one or two reasons why Microsoft did this. If there isn&#039;t a time limit (without a crack) on a trial program you present to a company, even if it has restrictions, the person won&#039;t mind not paying you another penny as long as it works, they&#039;d rather live with the restrictions than pay for a license.

And if Microsoft Office, which is Microsoft&#039;s biggest cash cow, gets distributed to way over 3 million computers, those are 3 million people less likely to buy the final version in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this was coming from any other company, I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised, however, I must admit that coming from Microsoft this is a bit pathetic.</p>
<p>They didn&#8217;t even put a WGA validator for people to try it out for free, actually, they didn&#8217;t put one up for Windows Vista either. So they wanted to grasp as many people as they could, they shouldn&#8217;t be complaining about the consequences now.</p>
<p>If this were a smaller company, I wouldn&#8217;t find it surprising, but many, if not all graphics-related websites like Adobe&#8217;s site, offer trial versions of all their programs for free.</p>
<p>And when I mention Adobe, I&#8217;m also referring to the hundred other sites that follow the same model.</p>
<p>For 1.5$ (if it were the equivalent to euros) I could download 1.5GB of data, and the office package is only 440mb.</p>
<p>Though, on the other hand, after working for a software company for a few years I can think of one or two reasons why Microsoft did this. If there isn&#8217;t a time limit (without a crack) on a trial program you present to a company, even if it has restrictions, the person won&#8217;t mind not paying you another penny as long as it works, they&#8217;d rather live with the restrictions than pay for a license.</p>
<p>And if Microsoft Office, which is Microsoft&#8217;s biggest cash cow, gets distributed to way over 3 million computers, those are 3 million people less likely to buy the final version in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tris Hussey</title>
		<link>http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/07/microsoft_to_charge_for_office_betas/comment-page-1/#comment-30168</link>
		<dc:creator>Tris Hussey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forevergeek.com/?p=3255#comment-30168</guid>
		<description>I agree.  This is lame and short-sighted.  We, as beta testers, are doing them a favour by testing and sedning feedback and crash reports and they want to CHARGE us for the privledge.  Not.  Pass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  This is lame and short-sighted.  We, as beta testers, are doing them a favour by testing and sedning feedback and crash reports and they want to CHARGE us for the privledge.  Not.  Pass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
