Print 71 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on Jul 11 at 11:13 AM

Microsoft hopes to lure bargain hunters with new subscription model, perhaps hints at changing business plan

There have been some in the software industry who have advocated a subscription model for their programs.  They suggest that rental programs could save both the consumer and the software companies.  Microsoft seemed to validate those advocates as it announced that it will begin distributing rental copies of its popular Office productivity suite.

The new deal will bring copies of the software to over 700 Circuit City stores across the country.  The latest version of the Office suite will be bundled with Microsoft's Live OneCare computer security software and will work for $70 per year.

Bryson Gordon, a group product manager for the Office group said that Circuit City does not have an exclusive distribution agreement; it was merely the first to jump on the opportunity.  He said other retailers and PC manufacturers such as Dell may be offering the software bundle soon as well.

The new software bundle is named Microsoft Equipt and comes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote, plus OneCare and a handful of existing free Windows Live applications.  It was rumored for months, under the codename "Albany". 

Mr. Gordon explained that Equipt is aimed at people who when buying a new computer would skip and Office purchase and merely reuse old Office disks or pirate a friend's copy.  He said that the $70 price tag falls in the middle of McAfee Inc. and Symantec Corp's security offerings, so users can justify the purchase merely as a security suite and get the productivity software as a bonus.

Matt Rosoff, an analyst for the independent research group Directions on Microsoft remarked that while Office is the industry standard, the OneCare security suite has seen slow adoption.  However, he feels the low price and creative business model may help it catch on, probably part of Microsoft's intention with the bundle.

He argues that Microsoft's main focus, though, is increasing the number of Office users, and trying to keep them from an increasing number of free solutions, such as Google's popular Docs software.

Equipt, like Office Home and Student 2007, allows installation on up to 3 machines.  Minor updates are automatically provided, through Window's update software.

The software will be available mid-July.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MaulBall789 on 7/4/2008 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Three installations with each package is a great idea for Office and I am happy they have wised up to this method. The problem is that One Care is ranked near the bottom of all AV/security apps, worse even than Norton, which is saying something. If MS can get One Care up to par with Kaspersky or NOD32 this would be a real game changer.

Fingers crossed.

By middlehead on 7/4/2008 5:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is pretty much what I was going to say. I currently use free security apps (not stolen-free, free-free) and have stuck with the nearly-free Office 2003 I got senior year of college. I'd move up if they'd boost their security programs.

By foxtrot9 on 7/7/2008 1:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Technically that student office version you call free is now stolen free - the license expires after you graduate

By callmeroy on 7/11/2008 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
What? Not unless they changed in the 10 years since I graduated college.

when you buy an academic license of a product WHILE honestly in college, you are now out of compliance if you still use and install the product after you graduate.

That's ridiculous.

By callmeroy on 7/11/2008 11:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
typo edit : now should have been NOT.

By daftrok on 7/4/2008 6:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Or just get AVG Free 8.0 and use Google Docs.

By FaceMaster on 7/4/2008 6:46:56 PM , Rating: 3
My sister got a virus which AVGV successfully detected. However, it only removed one file. After installing Kaspersky on the same computer it found 2 other traces. AVG is okay, but to be honest if you're getting something for free you're going to have to pay the price. No you don't. But you do. What ever.

By Kenenniah on 7/5/2008 2:05:58 AM , Rating: 5
Actually you are the one deluding yourself. There are giant differences between anti-virus programs. Take a look at researchers that do real testing of anti-virus programs. (requires free registration)

Look at the comparatives found at
Especially the Retrospective /ProActive tests. The range on % of found viruses between different antivirus programs ranges from 6% to 74%.

Don't pay attention to sites like PC World that throw a few viruses at a progam to see what it catches. Places like av-comparatives test with over 11,000 malware programs on the retrospective tests, and over 1.6 million on the on demand tests.

By Kenenniah on 7/5/2008 2:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
And just in case you don't understand the difference, the Proactive comparitives are using unknown virues that aren't in the definition files. That is where the largest difference exists between antivirus programs. For viruses that are well known, yes most programs can do roughly the same job (with some exceptions). It's in finding those yet unknown viruses through advances heuristics etc. that truly sets good scanners apart from the bad.

By GaryJohnson on 7/5/2008 7:57:40 AM , Rating: 3
Read: advanced heruistics as advanced CPU usage

By Cogman on 7/5/2008 10:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
Though, to be honest unless you are in a corprate environment or downloading a lot of pron/illegal material. The chances of getting a virus are fairly slim.

In all my years of computer usage I have downloaded 1 maybe 2 viruses (I had AV at the time) an yes, I was pretty sure there might be viruses in the programs. The only virus I caught without my knowledge (ok, with my knowledge, but without my consent) was the RPC (Or RDP, I can't remember which) that exposed a fairly big explote in MS windows, making your computer shutdown several times.

Yes, I think it is safe to say that getting a virus on the internet isn't easy for someone that uses their head. Its next to impossible for us linux users :D;

By Spivonious on 7/5/2008 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 3
I haven't had a virus in 15 years of being on the Internet. It really is just common sense and staying up-to-date on security patches.

By larson0699 on 7/5/2008 2:57:31 PM , Rating: 1
That wasn't a virus, that was a "worm" which basically killed a crucial service, forcing a reboot.

The real viruses (such as the last one I ever got, "Win32.CIH" in 2000) are those which attach to files, usually corrupting their data (or worse yet the boot sector, though those kinds were scarce). I remember being upset having to format (it was the Win98 day, no getting around that) but now it's just standard practice every half a year (that was the incident which prompted me to store my data separate from the system).

TBH I have not had an AV permanently installed or otherwise RAM-resident since first installing Windows XP, though I occasionally toyed with favorites as new releases. The most unavoidable problem a few years ago was unpatched worms like Blaster, but SP3 and *maybe* an immunize run of Spybot is all I need.

"Browse smart, not hard."

If I am ever suspicious of something and can't track it in my running processes, a HouseCall ( will turn up anything I didn't know about, but that was usually just a few tracking cookies, before I disabled disk caching in my web browsers and fixed that too.

It's always the Kazaa crowd in hot water I suspect. And to that I say the problem exists between keyboard and chair. Let 'em get burned, and eventually something will click, if it isn't the "call larson0699 over to fix" button.

By FastLaneTX on 7/9/2008 12:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
Though, to be honest unless you are in a corprate environment or downloading a lot of pron/illegal material. The chances of getting a virus are fairly slim.

Yeah, and the subset of Internet users that do not fall into one of those two groups is what, maybe 1%?

By Diesel Donkey on 7/5/2008 10:23:48 PM , Rating: 3
I suppose you're correct that I should have done my research a little better before making the claim I did. However, one of the points I was trying to make, and I see now that I did not make it clearly, is that whether or not the software is free probably has nothing to do with how effective it is. The detection engines and heuristic algorithms that you mentioned are always evolving with the software, so an anti-virus that is on top now may no longer be the best after some detection engine updates across the board. Thus, I still hold the opinion that the OP is deluding him/herself if he/she believes that forking over the money for one anti-virus solution will lead to a permanent solution that will always be the best.

By Kenenniah on 7/6/2008 5:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
Very true also. Just by looking through the past results from AV Comparatives you can see major changes between each year's test of the same software. One program can have great results one year, then bad results the next. On average though you can find trends of those companies that seem to regularly do well (Eset Nod32) for example. There is always that caveat that trend might not continue for the next year :P

You are also correct that you can't jude based on price. There are many times that free programs have fared better than quite a few of the paid for suites.

By zolo111 on 7/6/2008 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have never had a virus infection in my pc for years, and I don't use AV software either; but I do a search every once in a while to see how things are going.

I've always recommened AVG till 6 months ago when friends have had viruses in thier pcs and AVG didn't get red of them, even clients running NOD32 have had thier share of trouble, same with people who have kaspersky running.

A friend of mine brought his laptop that had tons of viruses, and kaspersky couldn't heal the problem, I've tried different software but nothing seemed to fix it, till I installed Panda 2008 which got red of the problem. The virus was pretty new at the time, and it was a matter of who released the proper definition which in this case Panad did first.

Since I moved back to my home country, Saudi Arabia; my brother started using my pc, and I find Kaspersky Internet security suit to be the best so far.

The thing is, you shouldn't blame the AV program, if you use virus infested programs like some P2P ones and download a freaking 250kb .exe file labled hot teen sex and then moan about the AV program not doing it's job.

By callmeroy on 7/11/2008 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone really serious about virus/keylogger/spyware detection does NOT rely on a single product....I don't care WHAT product it is either.

I run more than one AV and more than one Spyware/Keylogger detection package and the ones I run are all given good to high reviews from multiple sources as well.

There is NOT a single package that even exists in the world today that catches everything.

Don't fool yourselves thinking there is.

By wordsworm on 7/6/2008 12:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
Since I got Vista 64, I've been using Avast (AVG doesn't work on Vista 64). I like it better than AVG to boot.

I really hate Norton. I can't tell you how many computers I've run into with it running where the owner says, "My computer is slow." I delete Norton, and voila! 'Fast' once more. Just installed Avast and the computer starts running quickly. Norton is a real computer killer. It's not great at dealing with viruses either. I had Norton for 1 year, and it did little for me. I got into ZoneAlarm for awhile, but their renewal process was a hassle, so I gave up on them and went with AVG.

Since getting rid of Norton, I've never had a virus.

By spluurfg on 7/6/2008 7:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here... That the subscription model is more of a rip-off than the regular version?

By sxr7171 on 7/5/2008 5:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't know the difference. They buy Norton after all. They just need to market the hell out of it.

By gramboh on 7/6/2008 11:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
First thing I thought as well. Come on MSFT, you have the resources, just buy Kaspersky or develop something as efficient/better UI/low footprint.

MS Office Home and Student is not 200
By aftlizard on 7/4/2008 6:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
You can get MS Home and Office(which is essentially what the Office side of the package is) for $109 at newegg ( With a 3-4 year release schedule, why would I want to pay $110 more for it?Even though it includes OneCare(an inferior security service) it still doesn't seem like it has any sort of value to me.

RE: MS Office Home and Student is not 200
By kmmatney on 7/4/2008 6:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
RE: MS Office Home and Student is not 200
By aftlizard on 7/4/2008 6:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the direct linking, I thought I had done it but I think I fumbled somewhere.

By MarkHark on 7/5/2008 7:34:59 AM , Rating: 3
You forgot to put a space after the link, so the ")." were interpreted as being part of that.

By kmmatney on 7/4/2008 6:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I'm still using Office2000 at home and it works perfectly fine. You can buy the $109 5-server license for Office, and you'll get at least 5 years out of it. Most high speed internet providers provide free antivirus - I'm using Comcast's free McAfee suite, which works quite well.

By JosefTor on 7/4/2008 6:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Even $109 is much more then I paid for office. I think I paid $89 with my military discount and my school offers it for free. How is $70 a year good deal? Office should only be a $50-60 application in my opinion anyway. It isn't like they have major updates... and no... Office XP to 2007 wasn't big... just a UI change. They didn't update a lot of their formulas or fix there long standing problems. Office updates are like free money to Microsoft. It is sad though they have a monopoly over the productivity software though.

By AlexWade on 7/5/2008 8:22:43 AM , Rating: 4
I've seen it on sale at retail stores for $110 and at Sam's Club for $130. Within two years, you lose money.

I think this is nothing but an attempt by Microsoft to push their inferior antivirus product.

By TreeLuvBurdpu on 7/5/2008 4:02:30 PM , Rating: 3
Very true. And at the end of that release cycle your old version still works. It still opens documents, allows you to edit... I doubt the subscription version will. It has always struck me as odd that one of the early criticisms of Microsoft was that they make you pay for versioned releases. It was called the Microsoft Tax because they would come out with new versions and make you pay for an upgrade. People used to complain about that. Now they are truly renting, and not complaining? This is a real tax taken annually. I think purchased versions are the best way to pay developers for developing, and to keep it going. Why does everyone want to rent instead of own?

Why is Google Apps the competitor listed?
By wrekd on 7/4/2008 8:22:59 PM , Rating: 5
I work in IT and I ready plenty of tech news and trends. Who the hell uses Google Apps? I mean, I hear Google Apps mentioned a lot, but do not know one person who actually uses it. Why not Open Office, or Lotus?

By Master Kenobi on 7/4/2008 9:31:42 PM , Rating: 5
Google Docs, Lotus' lousy suite doesn't really rank up there either. Open Office isn't bad but its still years behind Office 2007. Frankly anyone that thinks there is a real Office competitor is kidding themselves.

RE: Why is Google Apps the competitor listed?
By Larrymon2000 on 7/4/2008 11:59:26 PM , Rating: 4
Freakin amen to that. I've used Open Office on my linux box,'s not that great. The fact that it doesn't have the application extensibility of a mature system like VBA is one example. It's like saying GIMP is as good as Photoshop. No competition.
Free, yes, great for those of us who only need basic formatting and document editing/spreadsheets. And it's not from an "evil" monopoly, so it must be cool. Must be like jumping on the indie movie/music scene.

RE: Why is Google Apps the competitor listed?
By JoshuaBuss on 7/5/08, Rating: 0
By GaryJohnson on 7/5/2008 10:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Can't they both be infinitely expanded with plug-ins, and what functionality is in GIMP that's not in Photoshop?

There's a few things in Photoshop that I use regularly (for example: vector shape/text layers and layer effects) which aren't in GIMP.

By Pottervilla on 7/4/2008 11:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
The cheap decentralized company my mom works for uses it, and it stinks. It takes sometimes 5 minuets for them to make and her to see a simple change--and there's high speed internet on both ends.

By wa3fkg on 7/5/2008 12:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
I also work in IT and know a number of people currently using Google Apps. I know one local ambulance service using them for scheduling shared documents and email. And I would be willing to bet that they are not the only small business in the area using them or Open Office.

I personally use them with family members so that we can share photos, documents and spreadsheets. I also encourage everyone that I know who gets a computer to install Open Office. I use MS Office at work because my employer provides it with every computer deployed in the company. The company sticks with MS Office because it is so tightly integrated with Windows and other Microsoft applications like Share Point.

I agree in a corporate environment Microsoft makes sense at this time. For home and small business though I just don't think it is worth what they are asking for it.

Nice package, but...
By ultimatebob on 7/5/2008 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think that I'm going to "save" myself $70 a year by using OpenOffice and AVG Free Security Suite instead.

I have a hunch that these will sell well, though. Some people still have a free software=lousy software mindset, and those people will be the ones who are picking up these boxes at Best Buy and Staples.

RE: Nice package, but...
By SecTech767 on 7/6/2008 12:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hey guys, just a couple of points to make.

1- AVG is being dropped because of the release of 8.0, so the owners dont really care about the free version anymore.

2- Equipt is aimed at student's heading off to collage. Its a damn good deal and anyone who isnt a cheap bastard could see that.

3- One care has stepped up to par since its release. It has improved in many ways and is one of the best security suites on the market.

my two cents.

RE: Nice package, but...
By just4U on 7/6/2008 3:30:44 AM , Rating: 3
I accually agree with you. I like Onecare. It's fairly decent overall and not to complicated for novice computer users. Which is a plus in and of itself.

RE: Nice package, but...
By JustTom on 7/6/2008 10:45:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where did you learn the AVG is dropping its free version? I have 8.0, it is free, and it works fine.

RE: Nice package, but...
By xsilver on 7/7/2008 12:33:35 AM , Rating: 2

there is a different problem with avg8 though.
esp. if you have low bandwidth.

RE: Nice package, but...
By drebo on 7/6/2008 11:38:52 AM , Rating: 3
Most colleges now are requiring a specific antivirus to be loaded on students' computers, and are furnishing that antivirus to them free of charge. This immediately makes one whole facet, perhaps the only facet for which the "deal" made sense, completely worthless.

Office Home and Student, the retail version which allows you to install it on up to 3 computers, can be had for less than $160. Permenantly. Tell me again how good a deal this is.

RE: Nice package, but...
By SecTech767 on 7/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice package, but...
By ultimatebob on 7/6/2008 9:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I'm not a fan of Office 2007 or OneCare. My new laptop came with Office 07, and the interface still seems goofy to me after using it for a few weeks. I went back to using OpenOffice for consistency's sake.

OneCare doesn't impress me at all. My sister's PC got totally hosed by spyware while she had OneCare running, which totally corrupted it. I needed to use both AdAware Free and Spybot to clean it up. So much for the superiority of paid software.

RE: Nice package, but...
By purefat on 7/6/2008 5:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about being cool. It's about price/NEEDS
MS Office > Open Office

No if one only uses basic formating, doesn't use VBA and nearly never uses spreadsheets like me. Microsoft Office may have a ton of usefull features but I don't need them!!! The only reason i have office 2000 installed in my PC is to open .doc, .xls and other proprietry formats.

Windows > Linux

Largely true, but to me not so because the operating systems themselves but because there are hardly any popular games/programms/etc that support linux

One Care > AVG and Spybot combined

As already mentioned, not if one knows how to take care of himshelf

itunes, napster, raphsody > limewire and frostwire combined.

You are comparing totally different things. For one, that leaves in a country like Greece,Russia and other and doesn'thave RIAA up his ass, filesharing is definetely an option

Your just another cheap bastard who refuses to belive in real production and that everything in the world should be free

Cheap bastard, as in a someone who demands to get value out of his money

Real production, as in products who offer nothing else than their brand name and boasting rights

Then yes i am a cheap bastard who doesn't believe in real producrtion

getting there
By 4wardtristan on 7/5/2008 2:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
this is certainly a step in the right direction, but there are 2 minor issues i see with this

1) onecare SUCKS

2) no outlook

apart from that, it certainly beats paying for retail office!!

RE: getting there
By TechGOAT on 7/5/2008 7:34:12 AM , Rating: 1
I installed Office 2007 on my laptop a while back. It lasted less than a week before I restored an old image of my HDD to go back to Office XP. It was amazing how much longer EVERYTHING took in 2007 because the stupid ribbon hides all the commands until you figure out the secret context that will display what you want. It's funny how MS claims users couldn't find things in previous versions since MS started hiding the commands in Office XP and 2003 by not showing full menus (which fortunately you could disable); now they ensured you can't disable their stupid ideas. (The scary thing is the same person responsible for ruining Office is in charge of the interface for Windows 7.)

I think the only problem with this deal is that MS would have to PAY ME to put Office 2007 back on my computer, not the other way around... and probably more than $70/year.

RE: getting there
By Spivonious on 7/5/2008 10:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
You are in the small minority then. Office 2007's UI is 5000% easier to find things than 95/97/2000/XP/2003. There are so many features of Word that I didn't even know existed until I used 2007.

RE: getting there
By TechGOAT on 7/5/2008 4:27:12 PM , Rating: 1
I've often been entertained by the senseless rants and "fan-boys" on DailyTech. It's curious how the first time I post something with an honest assessment of a product, I get ranked down to zero.

Just because you couldn't find out how to do stuff in previous versions of Office, doesn't mean the new UI is any better. I wrote my entire dissertation in MS Word 2002 (XP), much to the amazement of my classmates using LaTeX and other fancy tools. It wasn't that hard to figure out how to do things. Now that commands are all hidden (unless you're in the right contextual menu) it'll be much harder. Yes, if you never took the time to look through menus in previous versions, you can find things that you didn't know existed, but just because you found them now doesn't make them any better or mean they weren't there before. (Part of my point in the previous post is that MS claims people didn't know about features, but that was a result of MS defaulting Office to hide full menus.)

I'll grant 2007 has a couple improvements not related to the UI: 1M+ rows in Excel, much improved conditional formatting, XML file formats, etc. Still, if MS wants to water down the interface for folks who need training wheels, at least give the rest of us the opportunity to take them off and use the more efficient menus (with proper keyboard shortcuts which didn't all make it into 2007 despite MS claims). It's infuriating to constantly have to go back to the mouse to do things that took <2 seconds with the keyboard (Alt+i S, Alt+e e, Alt+o e, etc.).

RE: getting there
By JustTom on 7/5/2008 11:46:06 PM , Rating: 5
It's infuriating to constantly have to go back to the mouse to do things that took <2 seconds with the keyboard (Alt+i S, Alt+e e, Alt+o e, etc.).

Did you even use Office 07? All those shortcuts work, when you hit alt and the first key an info box pops up to tell you you are accessing 2003 shortcuts. When you hit the second key the proper command is executed.

Now that commands are all hidden (unless you're in the right contextual menu) it'll be much harder. Yes, if you never took the time to look through menus in previous versions, you can find things that you didn't know existed, but just because you found them now doesn't make them any better or mean they weren't there before.

On one hand you are complaining that you can't find the commands you want because you haven't learned the system, on the other you are complaining people couldn't find those same commands because they didn't learn the system.

RE: getting there
By TechGOAT on 7/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: getting there
By JustTom on 7/6/2008 10:43:37 AM , Rating: 3

It's infuriating to constantly have to go back to the mouse to do things that took <2 seconds with the keyboard (Alt+i S, Alt+e e, Alt+o e, etc.).

Those specific shortcuts DO work. I have not checked each and every shortcut from 03 since I don’t use a large number of them; however I have not found a single one of my favorites that does not work. If you have real examples of ones that don't I'd be happy to agree with you. But since you picked 3 very specific shortcuts, and since all three behave exactly how they do in Office 03 what I posted was a valid critique of your argument.
As a side note, those commands that have a keyboard shortcut typically display a tooltip indicating that shortcut; once again I cannot be sure this is universal since I do not have the entire Office shortcut list memorized.
I read your original post; you claimed to have had 07 installed for less than a week, hardly a reason to claim expertise in this piece of software.
I feel like I'm dealing with students here... RTFQ: read the full question, or in my state of frustration you can substitute another word for the F.

I read your post, found very specific faults with the logic and you reply with an ad hominem attack, very nice.

RE: getting there
By Spivonious on 7/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: getting there
By Spivonious on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
In perspective $70 is a good deal
By kibets on 7/4/2008 7:32:39 PM , Rating: 3
One thing I can't stand is paying Intuit $80+ for a small business upgrade of TurboTax every year. This is for software I use 1 time. The home version is nearly as expensive. It is not like they have to completely re-write the software each year, they simply update a few variables and I am forced to buy it over again...

Compared to TurboTax this Microsoft offering sounds like a great deal. Software you can use every day. I already use the full version of Office 2007 so I won't be needing this.

Why don't these open source folks come out with a line of tax products, then I'll stand behind that line thank you.

RE: In perspective $70 is a good deal
By Spivonious on 7/5/2008 10:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
I did my own taxes this year and found that it really wasn't that hard; you just have to read all of the instructions. The IRS even provides PDF forms so everything stays neat. Even Schedule D was cake after I got all of the correct forms from Vanguard.

By yourwhiteshadow on 7/6/2008 1:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
i'll just stick to my OEM/network admin versions of office, and free antivirus from my school. yeah, the stuff from my school probably sucks, but it works for me. just stay away from the pr0n.

Darn good value
By skaaman on 7/4/2008 7:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well given it supports 3 users, that would be $23.33 per year for the most used application software package on the planet. OneCare is evolving. I switched to it because I found it seems to do its job and stay out of my way. Also, OneNote is also included which isn't part the MS Office Home & Student package. If you haven't used this you are missing a gem of a product.

I guess $0 would still be to much for some people but consider the millions of development man hours in these products and I would say MS has a winner on it's hands with this new model. Time will tell...

RE: Darn good value
By Totemic on 7/4/2008 7:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also, OneNote is also included which isn't part the MS Office Home & Student package.

Actually OneNote is part of Home & Student suite. What's being offered is Home & Student suite + OneCare for $70/year.

Which is still a pretty decent price given that OneCare is $50/year by itself.

So you're basically paying $20/year for Office Home & Student edition.

Of course, whether OneCare is worth $50/year or not is debatable since I personally think Vista + common sense (actually any OS + common sense) trumps any sort of malware detector/remover.

RE: Darn good value
By Stacey Melissa on 7/4/2008 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a good deal. The retail version of Office Home and Student allows installation on 3 computers, and I think OneCare does as well.

Office can be had for $110, and OneCare for much less than $50 if you look around. Or get Office for $110 and NOD32 for $30. The NOD32 is good for one PC for one year, but if you get it directly from ESET, you can get multi-PC and/or multi-year discounts.

Having used OneCare, Kaspersky, Norton, Trend, and NOD32 all in the last couple years, I'd go with NOD32 hands down. The awful UI used to be a deal breaker, but they overhauled it in v3.0.

Would Office + NOD32 be more expensive? Sure, a little bit more for the first couple of years, but after that, it's less expensive. And the whole time, you'd be getting a tremendously better security product.

Lawsuit waiting to happen
By EntreHoras on 7/4/2008 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
Mr. Gordon explained that Equipt is aimed at people who when buying a new computer would skip and Office purchase and merely reuse old Office disks or pirate a friend's copy. He said that the $70 price tag falls in the middle of McAfee Inc. and Symantec Corp's security offerings, so users can justify the purchase merely as a security suite and get the productivity software as a bonus.

Yeah, and Symantec and McAffe will seat quietly seen this happening. I smell a lawsuit based on a monopolistic behavior.

On the other hand, if One Care is as good as Norton 360 this offer should be a no brainer.

RE: Lawsuit waiting to happen
By omnicronx on 7/4/2008 5:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft got in trouble in the past for trying to integrate products into the operating system itself. Seeing as this will be a seperate piece of software that you have to pay for, I really doubt it can be considered monopolistic.

As for onecare, I currently have a subscription and I love it, much more seemless than McAffe, and on a different playing field than norton, which I hate with a passion. Can't say how many bad experiences I have had with Norton and their inability to remove malware/spyware effectively, which is a big no no, considering viruses are almost non existant these days compared to the spyware and malware out there.

RE: Lawsuit waiting to happen
By JustTom on 7/4/2008 10:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
It could be seen as leveraging their monopoly in office suites to control the security market.

By jay401 on 7/7/2008 8:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
The whole push for a subscription model is the lame part. Everyone wants to get you, the consumer, on a subscription so they can suck your wallet on a regular schedule instead of just once. I hate that.

RE: well
By JediJeb on 7/7/2008 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree on this. To me it's like the difference in paying rent for my house or buying one. Everyone rants and raves about having the newest version of Office, heck I'm still using Office97 and it works great for what I need to do. Had I been paying $70 a year for that I would now have paid out over $700 for the software, but then Microsoft would have forced me to upgrade by no longer allowing me to pay the yearly fee for Office 97.

I drive a 96 model vehicle that still runs great and is paid for and has insurance of less than $400 per year, why upgrade. I use Office 97, still works and cost me nothing now, why upgrade. No use wasting my money on things I don't need, especially now that I need that money to buy gas and food and other things that are just getting more expensive.

open source
By mjw on 7/6/2008 5:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
I run Linux with Open Office and a slew of open source software - all free, of course. More secure, of course, Source code available, And, more stable. No virus or spyware issues.
Microsoft wants to "rent" software to be used on a less secure operating system; Windows. No source code available and, on a less stable operating system - Windows. Plenty of virus and spyware issues.
So, it's Linux which is free. Or, Windows which costs money.

Yay circuit city
By Chernobyl68 on 7/7/2008 7:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
the company that brought you the failed DIVX player now brings you software rental.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki