Windows... Vista!

[SupSuper]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/microsoft_vista/index.htm?cnn=yes

apparently they didn't like the name Longhorn. personally, i don't find the new name any better.

edit: while i'm at it, screenies to the "new windows": http://www.flexbeta.net/main/comments.php?catid=1&shownews=13839

all i can see is a new fancy look and IE7, but no new features.

[SargeMcCluck]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/microsoft_vista/index.htm?cnn=yes

apparently they didn't like the name Longhorn. personally, i don't find the new name any better.

edit: while i'm at it, screenies to the "new windows": http://www.flexbeta.net/main/comments.php?catid=1&shownews=13839

all i can see is a new fancy look and IE7, but no new features.

Not really... Longhorn was never intended to be the final name. "Whistler" anyone? Longhorn was always the codename.

[OldSkoolCrazy]

I have to agree, the name is stupid.

[FutureWorm]

YEAAAHHHHH! VISTA BABY! (wow, it's even worse) Now look for Disney to sue them over Buena Vista Entertainment.

double post edit

Not really... Longhorn was never intended to be the final name. "Whistler" anyone? Longhorn was always the codename.
I really liked "Whistler", actually. Maybe because of Whistler Blackcomb ski resort.

double post edit

Am I the only one who finds Vista's new IE and Help icons extremely ugly?

[M3ntal]

O..M..G....

Why do they keep making it look worse and worse with every new release? I thought the XP-looks-like-a-4-year-old-with-crayons-designed-it look was bad enough :/.

All i can hope is that they still have a Windows 98 classic scheme in it.

[FatWhitey]

I like the name Vista *gets pelted with tomatoes*

... I'm hoping this OS has new wallpapers, preferably scenery ones.

[Kjatte]

Does it take VISA?

[AndrewTaylor]

O..M..G....

Why do they keep making it look worse and worse with every new release? I thought the XP-looks-like-a-4-year-old-with-crayons-designed-it look was bad enough :/.

All i can hope is that they still have a Windows 98 classic scheme in it.
Idunno, there are parts of those screens I rather like. Better than Captain Patronising's Blue And Orange Abomination, anyway.

I can't imagine there won't be an option to use W95 looks, though.

[FutureWorm]

... I'm hoping this OS has new wallpapers, preferably scenery ones.
Oh, come on. You can download all the scenery papers you want all over the Internet.

[FatWhitey]

Prefered if it was build into the desktop panel, rather than to search on the internet, saves me couple of seconds.

[UnKnown X]

Yeah, but Microsoft aren't nearly as good as many people on the internet with these wallpaper things, so you'd be better off going on the net anyway.

[Star Worms]

I don't particularly like the look of the start menu or the semitransparent windows. They'll probably make them customisable though. I haven't looked at all of the screenshots but it looks better than XP.

Oh and - Yay! Tabbed IE!

[Paul.Power]

*is vaguely curious as to why the Minimize/Maximize/Close buttons are twice as wide as they used to be*

[UnKnown X]

Because Microsoft assume that people are too clumsy to click on something smaller than 100*100 pixels.

[AndrewTaylor]

Oh and - Yay! Tabbed IE!
Tabbed IE is like vomit with a sprig of parsely. It's still ****ing vomit.

[FutureWorm]

I don't particularly like the look of the start menu or the semitransparent windows. They'll probably make them customisable though. I haven't looked at all of the screenshots but it looks better than XP.I actually kind of like Aero, but I'll be changing the theme once the mod community creates a uxtheme patch for Vista.
Oh and - Yay! Tabbed IE!
I prefer to think of it as tossing a dollar at a guy who was just mugged.

[SupSuper]

Oh and - Yay! Tabbed IE!well of course, MS finally figured out that it must be a good thing that every other browser features that.

[AndrewTaylor]

well of course, MS finally figured out that it must be a good thing that every other browser features that.
Then why haven't they made it W3C compliant? That's a good thing that every other browser features.

[SupSuper]

Then why haven't they made it W3C compliant? That's a good thing that every other browser features.because they never figure out the important things. otherwise the new Windows wouldn't seem just like XP but with a new look.

[AndrewTaylor]

because they never figure out the important things. otherwise the new Windows wouldn't seem just like XP but with a new look.
In fairness, are you taking that information from the screenshots?

[FutureWorm]

I've been watching dev on Longhorn/Vista for quite some time now. It seems that with every new release it comes closer to XP.

[OldSkoolCrazy]

I'm probably not going to get it. It's quite pointless to upgrade to a new OS if the one I have works fine and programs will still be made for XP so I don't see no need to get it.

[UnKnown X]

I'm pretty sure you'll want it eventually.

[FutureWorm]

I'm probably not going to get it. It's quite pointless to upgrade to a new OS if the one I have works fine and programs will still be made for XP so I don't see no need to get it.
I wasn't going to upgrade from WinMe either. :p

[OldSkoolCrazy]

WinMe was horrible so it really was the best option. The only way I'll upgrade to it is if I get a new computer. Otherwise there's no use in getting it or if my mom gets a copy from work. I better things to spend my money on.

[SomePerson]

I'm keeping W98SE.

Yay for OS's that don't hog much memory!

[MonkeyforaHead]

I'm keeping W98SE.

Yay for OS's that don't hog much memory!
Peace, brother.

[SargeMcCluck]

I'm keeping W98SE.

Yay for OS's that don't hog much memory!

Yay for OS's that soon won't support new games! And don't support some already! And won't support newer versions of DirectX!

[MtlAngelus]

Yay for OS's that soon won't support new games! And don't support some already! And won't support newer versions of DirectX!
You're always so negative :p

Why won't people make simple OS's anymore? I hate this memory clogging new ones -_-

[SupSuper]

Windows Vista's reqs have been officially released: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

Ok so most were already known, but the 40GB hard disk space (not including free space) is news to me. That's a third of my hard disk!
I wonder if there'll be any resources left for the rest of the applications.

[AndrewTaylor]

Windows Vista's reqs have been officially released: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx
Those are wholly and completely ludicrous. Every other aspect of technology has been either remaining constant or improving steadily or exponentially over the last two decades, so why on Earth should we accept an operating system that is no less than ten thousand times more inefficient than the perfectly adequate one we were using in the eighties?

I wouldn't mind, particularly, if it wasn't for the fact that most of that extra power requirement was devoted to doing things I have to turn off before I can bring myself to use it. I think everyone should just say "Right, we've thought about it and decided XP is good enough. We'll just use that forever" and then Microsoft will be utterly pointless.

I mean, what are they for? They come up with a new version of Windows periodically which usually just annoys people, and they make a rango of office applications that are bloated, vulnerable and expensive, particularly given that OpenOffice.org does exactly the same range of products for free, except that OpenOffice is more secure.

And all the world has to do to make them go away is ignore them and not "upgrade" just because they're told to. And can the world even do that? No. And do you know why?

Because the world is stupid, that's why.

[Star Worms]

Well I'm certainly not getting Windows Vista (not that I'd have got it anyway but that's besides the point).

[thomasp]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx*Vomits in the general direction of that site*

Why do MS insist on making all their websites hideously incompatible with anything Mac? Especially Live.com

Wait a minute, I think I just answered my own question.....


I wonder how well Vista will run on an intelMac?

[worMatty]

Despite the new features of Vista, the bottom line IMO is it's unnecessary for me to upgrade to it, if it can be classed as an upgrade. I don't like the idea of my OS stopping me from using programs it doesn't have a commercial relationship with, and I'm disillusioned with Windows' security and stability because of the way things have been in the past, like many people, I expect. Each time they release a new OS Microsoft make it much bigger and more resource-hungry yet claim it to be faster. The time is right for a change in the winds, I reckon, and if Apple continues to hit hard it will be able to convert many people to Mac, and for very good reasons.

[SupSuper]

*Vomits in the general direction of that site*

Why do MS insist on making all their websites hideously incompatible with anything Mac? Especially Live.com

Wait a minute, I think I just answered my own question.....


I wonder how well Vista will run on an intelMac?If it makes you happier, it also looks odd on Opera.

In any case, I'm sure Microsoft has enough marketing schemes up their sleeve to get people to upgrade. Heck, compare the number of Windows XP users you know with the ones with a lower version of Windows.

[Slick]

Wow, I'm unimpressed.

[AndrewTaylor]

In any case, I'm sure Microsoft has enough marketing schemes up their sleeve to get people to upgrade. Heck, compare the number of Windows XP users you know with the ones with a lower version of Windows.
In fairness, Windows XP is worth upgrading to just for the fast user-switching, hibernation, and driverless USB disk support. So far I've heard nothing about Vista that makes me want it. All I've heard is that it needs a small supercomputing cluster to run it and it will have a new version of DirectX which can no doubt render four extra polygons, if you can afford to hire a team of hyper-intelligent beings from a distant galaxy to code the blasted games for you.

[MadEwokHerd]

And all the world has to do to make them go away is ignore them and not "upgrade" just because they're told to. And can the world even do that? No. And do you know why?

Because the world never upgrades. They buy new computers. And the new computers have new versions of windows preinstalled.

Are you saying they should by them without an os and install windows xp?

[AndrewTaylor]

Are you saying they should by them without an os and install windows xp?
Frankly I think it's time the world switched to Macs or Linux or something. I know that Linux isn't much fun for the average user, but I'm sure someone can find or make a distribution that feels almost exactly like Windows, and Macs are pretty easy to use, aren't they?

[worMatty]

I'm very surprised someone hasn't made an interface which is almost like Windows, that would be an excellent way to switch. I like using the Device manager and things like that in Windows, in Linux I don't know my way around so it can be frustrating, especially when you click OK on something and your configuration changes aren't saved for some unknown reason.

[MadEwokHerd]

GNOME isn't really that different.. And it has a device manager.

[SupSuper]

I'd be all for switching if that also didn't involve switching all my software. If only Windows software remained compatible with other OS.

[MadEwokHerd]

If you just ran all the same programs and did everything the same way, why would you bother to switch?

[FutureWorm]

Windows Vista's reqs have been officially released: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

Ok so most were already known, but the 40GB hard disk space (not including free space) is news to me. That's a third of my hard disk!
I wonder if there'll be any resources left for the rest of the applications.
This is ludicrous. 1GB of RAM and 128MB of dedicated video memory? How the hell do they expect to let you run your games and applications when the OS is eating up all of your system resources?

Even the low-end version of Vista requires a DX9-capable graphics card. As far as I know, the majority of pre-2002 integrated graphics chips are not capable of running 9, and once DX10 comes out, users of legacy machines will be screwed over.

My PC is a Dell from late 2001. It's running Windows XP, has 384MB of RAM (upgraded from 256), and a 1.2GHz Pentium 4. As it stands, if I were to upgrade to Vista, I would get the most barebones experience possible. I would barely be able to run more than one application at a time, because there wouldn't really be enough RAM for the apps to use. I have an NVIDIA 5200FX graphics card, which couldn't come close to churning out the power necessary to show the Aero effects. Overall, I'm stuck at XP unless I do some major upgrading.

Compare this, if you will, to Apple's support for legacy Macs. The last Powerbook G3 (http://www.lowendmac.com/pb2/pismo.shtml), released in February of 2000, supports the latest version of Mac OS X. So does the blue & white Power Mac G3 (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g3c.shtml), which was released in 1999. These are running on 300-500MHz PowerPC processors. Apple has astounding backwards compatibility compared to Microsoft, and this is a fact that they should advertise more. I had a PowerBook G3 for a month or so and ran Panther on it, and aside from the expected sluggishness, it ran brilliantly.

If one says that the average life cycle of a PC might be about three years, the life span of a Mac is twice that. That more than makes up for the supposed cost differences that PC fanboys whine about (which don't exist, but I'm not going to go into that right now).

Additionally, the Quartz Extreme graphics in OS X require very little memory compared to Aero. According to these specs, you'll need a graphics card with 128MB of memory to take full advantage of Vista's various visual eye candy. I can get all of the special visual effects of Mac OS X, including the zooming dock, translucent menus, spring-loaded folders, and rippling dashboard on my iBook. Which has a 32MB integrated graphics chip.

All in all, I can definitely see Vista causing more people to shift to the Mac. Apple needs to realize their opportunity and jump on it and they could be seeing a significant increase in market share.

[Plutonic]

if apple make OS fully PC compatible then yes, people will start to switch. Or at least dual booting. I personnaly wont buy a whole new PC just so I an run Mac.

I know about the hacked OS releases that supposedly work, but they are a ***** to install.

[thomasp]

if apple make OS fully PC compatible then yes, people will start to switch. Or at least dual booting. I personnaly wont buy a whole new PC just so I an run Mac.

I know about the hacked OS releases that supposedly work, but they are a ***** to install.
Apple have said that they will not release OSX for "PC" installation.

The main reason is that they'd have to test it on so many different combinations of hardware, it'd become unreliable. Look how few variations of hardware you can get in a Mac - that's one reason why OSX is sometimes more stable than XP.

[Xinos]

I'm looking forward to Vista. Mainly because it will allow my processor to run at full power (it's a 64 bit one).

Then there will be DirectX 10. Last but not least there won't be hundreds of "windows fixes" listed in the "Add/Remove Programs" list. (for a while)

[MonkeyforaHead]

Then there will be DirectX 10.
I'm not sure if you're aware of the whole "DX10 doesn't directly support any earlier versions and will have to emulate them instead, making system-hog non-DX10 games run like absolute bollocks" thing? Just checking.

[thomasp]

I'm not sure if you're aware of the whole "DX10 doesn't directly support any earlier versions and will have to emulate them instead, making system-hog non-DX10 games run like absolute bollocks" thing? Just checking.
And people wonder why I hate Windows and Microsoft ;)

[Paul.Power]

The odd part is, they used to be really, really good at back-compatibility. It was their strong point.

[worMatty]

There is a 64-bit version of XP, Xinos. There's no need for you to compromise.

[SupSuper]

On another Vista-related topic, I'd just like to comment on this: WTF IS UP WITH THE NEW LOOK? I don't mind the new dark-shiny-look as opposed to the bright-shiny-look, though it strikes me as an odd change.

Also, what is up with the transparent windows?!? Honestly, you're gonna make use of alpha-transparency, something that not every graphics card supports and can be intensive, just so you can make THE FREAKIN' BORDERS OF THE WINDOWS TRANSPARENT?!? Honestly, what's the point?!? Are those tiny border pixels somehow gonna cover up soething majorly important which I wouldn't see otherwise? Couldn't I just move the window out of the way then? Why do you wanna make everything look like glass? So it shatters more easily?

Also, do they have to change the look of the icons IN EVERY NEW WINDOWS VERSION just so every icon for every other application looks like **** next to them?!? Quit trying to make everything look shiny with alpha-blended shadows for christ's sake, and use the new graphics capabilities on something more useful! Or better yet, DON'T, so that old graphics cards can still display stuff without it looking like ****!

Also, the Start button is no longer on the bottom-left corner. UI designing tells you that it's much easier to reach if it's right there on the corner because you don't have to point exactly at it, just scroll the mouse over to the edge of the screen and it'll be there. But no, they decide to go back to the Start button which isn't exactly on the corner but a bit off so we can miss it all over again! GRAAAHJFGHGOJGL...

[MadEwokHerd]

Quit trying to make everything look shiny with alpha-blended shadows for christ's sake

Actually, the icons on Linux (and probably OSX) are scalable and have semitransparent shadows. So microsoft is probably just trying to keep up.

[thomasp]

Also, the Start button is no longer on the bottom-left corner. UI designing tells you that it's much easier to reach if it's right there on the corner because you don't have to point exactly at it, just scroll the mouse over to the edge of the screen and it'll be there. But no, they decide to go back to the Start button which isn't exactly on the corner but a bit off so we can miss it all over again! GRAAAHJFGHGOJGL...

Ahhh, good old Fitts' Law: http://www.xvsxp.com/interface/fittslaw.php (yes, just "coincidence" I found it on an OSX vs XP website ;))

[SupSuper]

Actually, the icons on Linux (and probably OSX) are scalable and have semitransparent shadows. So microsoft is probably just trying to keep up.Personally I wouldn't mind too much if they kept their icons consistent throughout different Windows versions, and making things look bright and shiny when you're going for a darker look really doesn't fit.

[Xinos]

Why is everybody so negative at this forum all the time?

It's liket there is some secret contest here about who can be the most conservative =P

[MtlAngelus]

Why in heavens sake do you want to use Vista?
You changed your post! :p

[Xinos]

Actually, the icons on Linux (and probably OSX) are scalable and have semitransparent shadows. So microsoft is probably just trying to keep up.

That's not compleatly true. Linux is only a console based OS. There are no graphics in linux itself.
However there are many window manager programs so yes, there probably is that feature in some of them.

I pressume you are talking about KDE?

[MadEwokHerd]

They're called desktop environments. Window managers are another kind of thing that tend to be included in desktop environments.

If you want to be really pedantic about what Linux is, it's just a kernel. No console apps are part of Linux. Just to prove you wrong, Linux includes framebuffer drivers which enable the use of graphics. If you want, you can compile some graphics into your kernel to display while your machine boots up. Ubuntu actually does this with their default kernel, and instead of a flood of text, users see an ubuntu logo and a nice progress bar when they start up (unless, like me, they prefer the flood of text and turn the spash screen off).

Modern Linux distributions provide X for guis, and sane Linux desktop users (if there really are any) use it. I'm talking about modern Linux distributions for sane desktop users.

I was thinking of GNOME, but GNOME and KDE use the same kind of program shortcuts (known as "desktop entries"; there are specs for this at freedesktop.org). The icons themselves are just images that happen to have transparency. They'll work for any program that cares to render them properly.

[FutureWorm]

They're called desktop environments. Window managers are another kind of thing that tend to be included in desktop environments.

If you want to be really pedantic about what Linux is, it's just a kernel. No console apps are part of Linux. Just to prove you wrong, Linux includes framebuffer drivers which enable the use of graphics. If you want, you can compile some graphics into your kernel to display while your machine boots up. Ubuntu actually does this with their default kernel, and instead of a flood of text, users see an ubuntu logo and a nice progress bar when they start up (unless, like me, they prefer the flood of text and turn the spash screen off).

Modern Linux distributions provide X for guis, and sane Linux desktop users (if there really are any) use it. I'm talking about modern Linux distributions for sane desktop users.

I was thinking of GNOME, but GNOME and KDE use the same kind of program shortcuts (known as "desktop entries"; there are specs for this at freedesktop.org). The icons themselves are just images that happen to have transparency. They'll work for any program that cares to render them properly.
That's called service, right there.

[SupSuper]

More picking fun at Windows Vista:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/30/windows-vista-ultimate-450-us/

The new Windows, with 50% more bloat and thus 50% more expensive than the previous one!
Then again, how can they make Office even more expensive is beyond me.


http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp

Wow, it's gonna be 8 editions this time (the new Office also seems to feature all these editions). Much more confusion and compatibility problems!
Personally I'd get Starter since it doesn't have Aero (so it uses the Windows Classic interface), but it lacks everything else (heck, it only supports 256MB RAM). So you either you get the non-bloated version which hardly supports anything, or the really-bloated version that supports all of your system's hardware. Clever basts.

And you can't beat Microsoft's naming scheme in naming the full-featured edition "Ultimate" :p

[worMatty]

Yes you can, and you can do so with a large stick. A more fitting name would be Miseur Creosote. Honestly, they were going to call it Uber? That's just silly.

[AndrewTaylor]

(heck, it only supports 256MB RAM)
It will run on only 256MB RAM? I'm suprised.

Then again, how can they make Office even more expensive is beyond me.
Simple. They take the price of the nearest competing product and multiply by INFINITY.

[worMatty]

I think this is one of those nights ;)

[FutureWorm]

More picking fun at Windows Vista:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/30/windows-vista-ultimate-450-us/

The new Windows, with 50% more bloat and thus 50% more expensive than the previous one!
Whee, Mac OS X is only $129! I'll stay away from Windows, thankyouverymuch.

[thomasp]

Whee, Mac OS X is only $129! I'll stay away from Windows, thankyouverymuch.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above-mentioned post.

[MadEwokHerd]

Whee, Mac OS X is only $129! I'll stay away from Windows, thankyouverymuch.

Not that I have any real knowledge about this, but don't you also have to take into account the cost of mac hardware?

[thomasp]

Not that I have any real knowledge about this, but don't you also have to take into account the cost of mac hardware?
Not really. That's to upgrade from OSX10.0, 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3 (or if your computer can run Tiger, upgrading from OS8 or 9) to OSX10.4 "Tiger" - same as upgrading from, say, Win2K to WinXP.

You will have, at some stage, bought the Mac hardware, in the same way that at some stage you will have bought PC hardware to install XP onto.

[MadEwokHerd]

I think most people who have XP get it preinstalled on their computers.

[thomasp]

I think most people who have XP get it preinstalled on their computers.
Same with the current Mac operating system. But, when OSX 10.5 "Leopard" comes out, you'll have to buy an upgrade, just as when Vista comes out, if your computer is running the older OS (or in the case of Vista, by the looks of things, buy a whole new computer ;))

[AndrewTaylor]

(or in the case of Vista, by the looks of things, buy a whole new computer ;))
This is true. I expect it would be cheaper for me to buy a Mac with the new OS than upgrade my PC and then buy Vista on top of it.

[thomasp]

This is true. I expect it would be cheaper for me to buy a Mac with the new OS than upgrade my PC and then buy Vista on top of it.
And then, you can install Vista on your mac (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) :D (eventually)

[SupSuper]

And then, you can install Vista on your mac (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) :D (eventually)I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to make Vista not competitor-compatible. ;)

[MadEwokHerd]

Sure, you can get an os upgrade, but I don't think most people (at least on windows) bother with it.

I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to make Vista not competitor-compatible. ;)

I'm not sure they'll try.

[thomasp]

I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to make Vista not competitor-compatible. ;)
Why? It menas more money for them!

It's probably a heck of a lot easier for Apple to make OSX non-competitor compatible than it is for MS to make Vista non-competitor compatible, since Apple control their own hardware.

[Star Worms]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5059110.stm

[SupSuper]

The 32-bit version of the software weighs in at 3.5GB and the 64-bit edition 4.4GB and Microsoft estimated it would take about 21 hours to download the larger package over a broadband link running at 768kbps.Holy freakin' CRAP! :eek:

[FatWhitey]

I've got the download, downloaded. I'm trying it out tonight.

[SupSuper]

Delete overkill! (http://fun.drno.de/pics/windoof/vistadeletelarge.jpg)

(copy-paste link to your address bar)

[thomasp]

Delete overkill! (http://fun.drno.de/pics/windoof/vistadeletelarge.jpg)

(copy-paste link to your address bar)
I think they're trying to emulate Apple's security, where you have to enter an admin username & PW for "destructive" exercises, like updating OS software and installing software which changes system files...

... but not for moving stuff into or emptying my trashcan!! :rolleyes:

[Plutonic]

and it should ask for a password then, not repeat itself over and over again.

It also when i first installed it asked if i was sure i wanted to play worms over and over again. i think it was twice per running of it..... horrible.

[SupSuper]

Wow, not only do they mess up at lacking security, they also mess up at having security.

[MadEwokHerd]

Keep in mind that they ARE trying to create a secure system that runs programs that were never designed to run on one. That's harder than being secure to begin with.

Then again, if Wine can do it..

[Blinx]

Isn't Halo 2 going to be a Vista exclusive?

I hope not, shelling out £300 for a new OS, filled with more security flaws for just one game is ridiculous.

[MadEwokHerd]

Wait a year after release and see if Wine catches up.

[FutureWorm]

Isn't Halo 2 going to be a Vista exclusive?
Yes. :)

It worked for the Xbox, so why not for the PC? DON'T QUESTION MICROSOFT'S LOGIC HERE

[SupSuper]

As far as I've been reading, Microsoft is making a lot of stuff Vista-exclusive to ensure its success (not just Halo 2). It's like they're actually worried that it won't sell like its predecessors. Gee, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

[MtlAngelus]

Well, with the prize of Windows Vista, I'll rather buy an Xbox and get Halo2 on that. So HA!

[FutureWorm]

Gee, I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:
It has nothing to do with the obscene price.