Dell: Windows 7 pricing is a potential obstacle for users

We've learned a vast amount about Windows 7 over the last few months, but there's still one thing that's been bothering those in the technology world (and even those not in it): pricing. How much will Windows 7 cost users? Nobody can be sure, but Dell doesn't seem too keen on it, according to CNET. They're reporting that Darrel Ward, the director of product management for Dell's business client product group, is a bit concerned on how high the new operating system from Microsoft will cost.

"If there's one thing that may influence adoption, make things slower or cause customers to pause, it's that generally the average selling price of the operating systems are higher than they were for Vista and XP," he said. "In tough economic times, I think it's naive to believe that you can increase your prices on average and then still see a strong swell than if you held prices flat or even lowered them. I can tell you that the licensing tiers at retail are more expensive than they were for Vista." This is rather troubling when you think about it, especially because Ward believes that it may cause delays for schools, government agencies and smaller businesses in terms of upgrading. He stated that they may not be able to afford the "additional cost".

Aside from pricing, Dell seems very keen on Windows 7. "We do have a visible number of customers, large and small, who are actually waiting for Windows 7 and who have already put plans in place to target the transition to Windows 7, they're asking Dell for help. That demand and this opportunity is stronger than it has been in the past," stated Ward, and he also strongly supports Windows 7's XP Mode. "It's one of the things that Microsoft is doing that we think is helpful. Putting an instance of XP virtual machine in the higher end SKUs. This is another alternative for compatibility. We'll fully support that in our product and consulting services."

Adding to this, Dell says that other things are looking much better too, like driver support. It's shaping up to be a much healthier launch than Vista, and we hope that pricing won't be too bad.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony sees first loss in 14 years

Next Story

Napster lives, $5 a month subscription package

97 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think Microsoft probably needs to make adjustments for the current economy woes afflicting the industry. It really isn't any different than any other company. I would be happy with the following pricing scheme:

Windows 7 Home Premium $399 ($250 upgrade)
Windows 7 Professional $499 ($299 upgrade)
Windows 7 Ultimate $599 ($399 upgrade)

I think it is very unrealistic to assume that Microsoft can keep their prices at XP standards given that it is the year 2009. It will be eight years next fall. I think the price increase with Vista was a bit of a gift. The markup was only $50 for the consumer version as an upgrade.

The way I look at it, I think if Nero can get away charge $100 for their "trash", Microsoft should be able to charge at least three times this.

After-all, it is there product. They can do whatever they want. If they want to charge $999 for the Ultimate edition, good for them. If they want to require very intrusive product activation (so be it). It doesn't matter. There is only one standard and that is Windows. They can do whatever they like.

It really "must" be good to be the King...

You just know with all the hype surrounding 7 that Microsoft must realize there onto a winner. Accordingly they also know that they will be able to set a highish price for the product and there will be more than enough people/companies willing to shell out for something that`s good but not great.
For the vast majority of home compute users, what are the benefits of buying Windows 7?

Windows 7 is like a new beginning. I'm going to buy a retail copy, because this might be the 2nd time Microsoft actually succeed(Windows XP) with something!

Dezent said,
Windows 7 is like a new beginning. I'm going to buy a retail copy, because this might be the 2nd time Microsoft actually succeed(Windows XP) with something!

I'll go with that. I bought XP on the day it came out and used it ever since.

After trying out Windows 7 I'm loving it. Sod the price

MS is making a big mistake by putting Win7 out there so early for everyone to enjoy. Think about it, most never knew how to format let alone install a new os. Now with it being free and they are requesting everybody and there brother to try it. They have to d/l it, turn it into an iso. and then install it.
And then find drivers if need be.
Just how many do you think now are going to go out and try either os x or linux with it being free. Why shouldnt they, MS taught them how to do it. Thanks guys.
Once they find out that the alternatives do it much less expensive or in some cases, better than what they have(VISTA). Why step up to 7. Especially if it will save them 100, 200, and possibly 300. I will tell you, id think twice.

Heaven forbid that companies should try to compete based on merit rather than on customers being locked to their products.

I don't think us, the end user buying windows, will see a price change.
However, it sounds like the OEM's are not getting as much of a discount as they use to.

Dell can suck on my coin purse... there is no prices and they are already bitchin'... How about making a reliable product that people may want to buy then we'll talk...

I think the prices may remain the same as Vista, I don't see any huge price increase that will bring people to not buying it... they are not going to lower prices... that would just **** people who bought Vista off... OEM is the way to go though...

I made the mistake of buying vista and regretted it from day one, if the price is even remotely close to what it was with vista I won't be paying it. (snipped) That and whatever the final price is in America you can be sure it'll be double that in Europe.

It's interesting to see everyone so outraged about a price that hasn't been stated yet. I find no evidence in the source article that anyone from Dell actually said anything, nor do I see prices listed.

It is an obstacle somehow, but if you look what you pay for other software that you use less, for games or even for a meal in your local restaurant (when you work in a city)... there is absolutely nothing to say against the price.

Just use Linux no need to worry about M$ cash cow cause, Linux is more stable then windows and it's all "Free"
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.

mvent23 said,
Just use Linux no need to worry about M$ cash cow cause, Linux is more stable then windows and it's all "Free"
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.


Yet, I've had Linux crash on me and throw kernel errors more then I've ever had a windows NT based product do *straches head* odd...

mvent23 said,
Just use Linux no need to worry about M$ cash cow cause, Linux is more stable then windows and it's all "Free"
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.


Well, I'm sure glad you created an account just for that. Thank you so very, very much for this awesome piece of information. But please, tell us more about this strange and new thing you call "Linux"!

mvent23 said,
Just use Linux no need to worry about M$ cash cow cause, Linux is more stable then windows and it's all "Free"
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.

The honeymoon period. Just wait. It won't last.

VIVIsectVI said,

The honeymoon period. Just wait. It won't last.

Not sure what that comment means, Myself and My hubby and children are not techies by any means and we've been using Linux for over a year now, so whatever "Honeymoon Period" your referring to has been and gone, and we're still loving it.

dead.cell said,
Have you guys made little distros yet?! :D

eheh I see what you did there :P

But for example Linux isnt the answer for all your problems , Can you play games ( dont say Macs dont have games and dont say if i want to play games i play on a console )

I want to play Games on a PC with Linux i cant ( and also dont say vmware or vine or something similar since using MS defeats the purpose of using Linux

Akaruz said,
eheh I see what you did there :P

But for example Linux isnt the answer for all your problems , Can you play games ( dont say Macs dont have games and dont say if i want to play games i play on a console )

I want to play Games on a PC with Linux i cant ( and also dont say vmware or vine or something similar since using MS defeats the purpose of using Linux

Umm What's Vine?

I play Guild Wars, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, and WOW. My kid plays CS & Half life 2 through steam and a few others as well. Not to mention some the native linux games we play. The DVD version of BF2 also works fine.

So you telling me Linux isn't the answer to all my problems, is you assuming you know what my problems are and for your information I have no problems with my computer not doing what I need. My computer does what I want it to do. Yes some hard core gamers might want some things which Linux doesn't provide but that is not the fault of Linux but the fault of the game developer who doesn't support Linux. Most computer users aren't hardcore gamers, plain and simple.

Akaruz said,
... and also dont say vmware or vine or something similar since using MS defeats the purpose of using Linux

You mean "wine", and how is that either using Microsoft (which it doesn't), or defeating some "purpose" you imagine?

I use Linux because I enjoy using it. Once set up, administration is effortless. I would never go back to Windows willingly.

You are free to use Windows for whatever reason you prefer. But Linux can play many games through wine - my kids use it to play WoW and such. I will agree that it is not the recommended gaming platform, though. But your so-called points are nonsensical.

What's with all these people against OEM, before I changed to Vista I had been using an OEM Xp that had gone through 8 full builds and never once did I have any issues with calling them up and getting a new key.

How's that shiny over sized plastic box treating you? I bet it was worth the extra $75-$200!

I will get Windows 7 Home for $99. Pro for $149, and hopefully the activation thing won't be a lot of trouble this time. We have been pretty much lauding W7, but we can only judge after RTM is ready to be registered.

Atlonite said,
who here can tell me what the US price was for vista ultimate when it was first released was (retail not oem)

wasn't like $400? I remember seeing a guy buy one copy and going back to my house to read more about the "exclusives" and they weren't available to get.

So it'd be wise then to buy a PC on July with Vista which has a free upgrade to Windows 7 with the Vista price... I'll wait for the MSDNAA release though for my current PC.

@ naT

Most PC games are no longer $50

thats a joke right do you realise they are nearly or more than a hundred bucks here for a new release game

Atlonite said,
@ naT
thats a joke right do you realise they are nearly or more than a hundred bucks here for a new release game

That's $50 USD dude which works out round $75-$100NZD

Atlonite said,
$ 80.79 NZ Dollars

It may work out to be $80, but they still sap us for a good $120 And that, my friends, is why I rent my games!

A lot of new games on Steam are released at $35 or less, and you can buy some $50 games for about $30 on some places like play.com.

well if they plan on pricing it higher than vista im sorry but i wont be buying a copy as a solo parent trying to make ends meet on a week to week basis my computer budget isn't a whole lot and wont cope with hundreds being spent on just the os and believe me it'll will be in the high hundreds here in new zealand just like vista was and still is here..
and they really wonder why MS's OS's are the most pirated software in the world

It's price should be really lowered. Something like $150 for Home Premium and Business, and $200 for Ultimate.
As it is now, it's more expensive than a netbook. Even if it is optimized for netbooks, it won't be cost efficient to have it pre-loaded on an Eee for instance.

Seriously, most people here either:
1) Use the OS that came pre-loaded with their computer.
2) Use their Technet/MSDN/etc. subscription.
3) Download the OS and activate it illegally.

Why #3? Because it costs more to upgrade than to buy a mainstream graphics card. Computer software prices are dropping. Most PC games are no longer $50. Linux distros are free. Mac OSX is $150.

Thinks about it. I could go for a GTX275 with $300. I could almost go i7 with that too. I could buy a netbook. It would be almost more expensive than a standard business pc (dual core, 2gb ram, int. gfx, 500gb hd).

Agreed.

I personally think Microsoft need to change their approach to selling Windows and hack the prices right back. So many people I know still don't pay for a copy. And whilst I don't think Windows represents bad value for money (like they use the OS all day, every day..) I think if it was the cost of a video game or something, people would buy it in droves. Hell, I get free Windows legitimately through where I work but I'd buy a copy if it cost around £50.

Ok think about it. If you already have a OEM copy on your machine (XP, Vista etc), you can easily upgrade your computer with a cheaper upgrade license.

Do not forget the full retail (with the hefty price) is forever. It doesn't tie you to any specific set of hardware. You could use it forever and ever.

Option #1: Ok what the point then? If Win7 HP comes on a laptop, that's good enough for people.
Option #2: That's illegal. Check your license agreement. You aren't allow to use MSDN/TechNet for production purposes. It's still possible but that's still illegal.
Option #3: That's still illegal.

The whole point is buying/using it legally. So point 2 en 3 don't make any sense at all.

PC games are still 50 ~ 60 USD upon release. And buying a i7 CPU will set you back 300 USD .. however the new i7 motherboard and DDR3 that you'll need to actually use the CPU will make the whole upgrade 600USD++. So the whole upgrade-to-i7 dream kinda floats out the window like fluffy cotton candy

MMaster23 said,
Ok think about it. If you already have a OEM copy on your machine (XP, Vista etc), you can easily upgrade your computer with a cheaper upgrade license.

Do not forget the full retail (with the hefty price) is forever. It doesn't tie you to any specific set of hardware. You could use it forever and ever.

Option #1: Ok what the point then? If Win7 HP comes on a laptop, that's good enough for people.
Option #2: That's illegal. Check your license agreement. You aren't allow to use MSDN/TechNet for production purposes. It's still possible but that's still illegal.
Option #3: That's still illegal.

The whole point is buying/using it legally. So point 2 en 3 don't make any sense at all.

PC games are still 50 ~ 60 USD upon release. And buying a i7 CPU will set you back 300 USD .. however the new i7 motherboard and DDR3 that you'll need to actually use the CPU will make the whole upgrade 600USD++. So the whole upgrade-to-i7 dream kinda floats out the window like fluffy cotton candy


I have no idea why people apologise for Microsoft's pricing. Lets face it Microsoft are competing with Mac OS X which costs roughly £80 and Linux which is free. Both are gaining market share. It is time for Microsoft to wake up and stop this draconian pricing scheme and live in current times, thus dropping the price to the £140 mark for retail Ultimate.

Also why are you bringing up Ci7 when many C2D machines and AMD based AM2 machines will run Win7 just as well?

ccuk said,
I have no idea why people apologise for Microsoft's pricing. Lets face it Microsoft are competing with Mac OS X which costs roughly £80 and Linux which is free. Both are gaining market share. It is time for Microsoft to wake up and stop this draconian pricing scheme and live in current times, thus dropping the price to the £140 mark for retail Ultimate.


Linux had already cost me more money than Windows 7 Ultimate. All those times Gentoo breaks after a simple emerge --sync... etc. etc.
Even a fool understands that Linux is free only as long as your time is worthless.
And don't even try to slither away with some "there other distros" nonsence. That troll tactic wouldn't work on me.

RealFduch said,
Linux had already cost me more money than Windows 7 Ultimate. All those times Gentoo breaks after a simple emerge --sync... etc. etc.
Even a fool understands that Linux is free only as long as your time is worthless.
And don't even try to slither away with some "there other distros" nonsence. That troll tactic wouldn't work on me.

If you use Gentoo, then you take a lot in on yourself.

I can look at your post, and I clearly see the "troll tactic" you prefer.

RealFduch said,
Linux had already cost me more money than Windows 7 Ultimate. All those times Gentoo breaks after a simple emerge --sync... etc. etc.
Even a fool understands that Linux is free only as long as your time is worthless.
And don't even try to slither away with some "there other distros" nonsence. That troll tactic wouldn't work on me.

Surely you're not implying that Windows is somehow administration free? I don't personally find the process of installing and performing post-installation on something like Ubuntu (especially on a known environment like VM's on a VMware ESX server) any more time consuming than doing the same for a Windows host!

So where is this additional overhead to which you refer?!

RealFduch said,
Linux had already cost me more money than Windows 7 Ultimate. All those times Gentoo breaks after a simple emerge --sync... etc. etc.
Even a fool understands that Linux is free only as long as your time is worthless.
And don't even try to slither away with some "there other distros" nonsence. That troll tactic wouldn't work on me.

I wasn't trolling... My arguments are totally valid... Linux, Mac OS X and even freeBSD offer the same functionality of Windows for a fraction of the price or free. As for the amount of time spent testing and deploying system updates, and investement of time in deploying 3rd party securities for Windows... I fail to see how it takes any less time than that of Linux or Mac OS X for that matter. And yes, I am going to say there are various flavours of Linux, each offering varying levels of east of use.

As an FYI I use Windows as well as aformentioned alternatives... I can like a product but feel it isn't worth its money, and that's where Windows lies for me.

Same functionality? No they don't! Most people argue the price of buying a Mac as they can simply run Windows. Without Windows, you can kiss your massive software and game libraries goodbye. Apple doesn't offer any real comparison with their operating system AT ALL. Period.

You're stuck with the very few number of games, and if your business runs any software that isn't available with OS X, well, you'd probably be out of luck without Windows. Honestly, I feel OS X is quite possibly the most limited operating system of them all. My post much higher up explains this. Bottom line:

- Doesn't run on most computers.
- Doesn't allow for many games or have the same library of software available for it. In a business world, that sort of matters.
- Costs what now? $130? Yeah.

By comparison though, Linux runs on most computers, doesn't get hacked in contests within a really short period of time, still lacks of software and games, but hey, it's free!

If $130 is the base line for what an OS "should cost", then paying say... $150 even is still worth it considering what you get: an OS that runs on most computers, looks great and easy to use (this is where Linux also has issues), massive software and game library. You can pull various minor OS features to compare, but in reality, no one is probably going to be deciding, "Hey, I like the dock a bit more, so I'll shell out the extra money for a Mac," unless they actually do have that kind of money to throw around and can make big decisions off of small likes and dislikes.

Just to play devil's advocate, sure Mac OS X offers a real comparison to Windows.

I'll give you the games thing - I believe a number of firms have arisen that port games to Mac OS X, but in general there are fewer games and the games that you do get will be delayed relative to the PC releases. My gaming days have been over for a while now, and the environment that I work in (research) has no use for games either, so I have a hard time caring about this point for my own personal use. This is certainly a consideration for hard-core gamers, though.

Otherwise, Mac OS X is far from inferior to Windows. I've worked in environments where OS X 10.3 through 10.5 systems were in use, and all networked effortlessly. I've used Windows for a solid 10 years, and I have to say that by comparison, networking was embarrassingly simple between the Mac systems. That's very appealing when trying to set up a network. The old operating systems do pose a security risk but the reality is that, at the moment, Windows is very heavily targeted whereas OS X is not. When worms are targeting and effective against OS X this'll be another story, but as of now you can either do work on a system that you know is not targeted, or you can go with Windows and worry about the countless patches and security software. (Note: this is not a claim that OS X is invincible - not by a long shot. When OS X is actively exploited it's going to be very ugly, because many people have that perception that their operating system is invincible and there isn't much security in place. However, as of now it's safe because it is not being targeted.)

From an administrative standpoint, OS X is still pretty easy compared to Windows, as well. You can lock down user accounts without needing special training. With Windows, accounts not running as an administrator tend to be on a network that has had some heavy customization done, and is also working with very specialized software. It isn't something quite as easy to set up, which is difficult for a research lab that doesn't have their own IT staff or must customize their own computer systems. I'd imagine that the same could apply to small businesses.

Lastly, software. My lab has one lonely Dell sitting in a corner, and the reason for that is because we use one piece of software that has no Mac version. The Dell is no longer used, because we now have VMWare Fusion and just pop into Windows XP whenever we need to analyze results with it. Aside from games and some graphical applications that might demand the latest DirectX, virtualization means that there is no Windows program that we can't run. We're not limited at all, and approximately half of our computers are still running OS X 10.4.

Put it all together, and OS X is an incredibly appealing platform to run on. In fact, I'm now entrenched in it, because I'm discovering software that makes research much easier and there is no equivalent on Windows. And while I can virtualize under OS X to access Windows-only programs, I cannot virtualize OS X under Windows (which is Apple's fault, if you want to play the blame game, but it's still a fact).

So there you have it, from the research standpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if many small businesses face similar challenges and scenarios.

If you reached this point and want to argue about the technical merits of Windows vs. OS X, you missed my point. I'm not attempting to argue that one is superior to the other. Rather, I'm pointing out some differences that exist between the two that, at this moment in time, makes one a bit more appealing (in my personal opinion). Ultimately an operating system is a tool - one that you'll work with intimately, but a tool nonetheless - and you should use what supports your needs best.

That's true, but I'm speaking in terms of the businesses that would have to spend millions of dollars just to upgrade their whole computer line. Why? Because OS X is only capable of running on specific hardware. It doesn't run on most computers. For that reason, they'll have no other option than to come to Apple for both their hardware and software needs. Further, whatever applications they already use that may have no equivalent on OS X would have to be run through virtualization or simply dual booting. Still, they're having to fall back on Windows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that cost more money to have virtualization software and/or simply licenses for those versions of Windows being used? Also, all the devices and other such equipment they use would have to be taken into consideration as well. This is very very important, considering the economic situation we face today. Many businesses are having trouble upgrading their outdated systems to a reasonable standpoint, as well as being able to use the new version of Windows decently. It doesn't make much sense for them to even so much as consider OS X if it's really going to push their limits even further, not to mention getting the staff situated with the OS, and having IT that can support it...

Overall, you're looking at a headache. I'm not saying OS X can't work in the business world, but for existing businesses, there's a real lack of appeal.

The place I was aiming at was the end user though. The guy who may want to take his laptop to work, hook up to the network, and be able to use it with his existing work. If he's required to use software that isn't available or compatible with his company, well, he's wasting time, isn't he? Sure, he can boot up using Windows, but won't that still be another OS for him to worry about? At $130, is he really getting his money worth when virtualization software and/or a copy of Windows is required to do what he wants? Doesn't seem that way to me.

The question I was truly trying to address here though was the price of the OS. $130 is pretty expensive to me, but if Windows can cover your bases better, doesn't it seem like it should be priced similarly, if not more considering what you have available to you?

I dunno. It's up to the end user overall. I don't have money to kick around as others do, and I'm simply viewing this from a money standpoint, considering the economic situation we sit in currently. Funny thing is, even if Windows 7 is more than OS X, you'll still be able to pick up a computer or laptop at a cheaper price than Apple has to offer. At least, at this moment in time anyway.

ccuk said,
I have no idea why people apologise for Microsoft's pricing. Lets face it Microsoft are competing with Mac OS X which costs roughly £80 and Linux which is free. Both are gaining market share. It is time for Microsoft to wake up and stop this draconian pricing scheme and live in current times, thus dropping the price to the £140 mark for retail Ultimate.
You can't just compare MS and Apples OS's dollar to dollar. You have to also remember Apple has already sold you the hardware at a premium too where MS is only taking a cut from the software.

I agree it could be cheaper, but comparing to Apple is a bit unfair if you disregard hardware costs and when you look at freeBSD and Linux your comparing two different business models. Also the software doesn't provide the same experience or people wouldn't be paying for windows.

Judging by previous releases of Windows it will not be expensive. But this statement does not include the "Ulimate" version though !
Which was expensive last time with Vista.

Most people won't need Ultimate at all though. Professional covers the base for most users, including the guys that like to toy around with their machine as myself.

AnthoWin said,
Neowin users will a) Ultimate; (because they think they know better, and want the bragging rights b) professional (see reason (a))and most of the general public will c) Home premium.

dead.cell said,
With Ultimate comes a bigger penis!

Meh... I don't need a bigger one of those... I'll be happy with just reliable software with lots of features. :P

Frazell Thomas said,
But gets tied to that motherboard so you can't ensure it will last you "forever".


That's why you just ring up MS when it refused to activate online and they'll issue you an activation code, problem solved.

Yep OEM here also. Far Far cheaper. Either transfer the license to the new motherboard or worse case, buying a second copy still remains cheaper than a retail license I believe.

I doubt theres any issue calling up but.

Smigit said,
Yep OEM here also. Far Far cheaper. Either transfer the license to the new motherboard or worse case, buying a second copy still remains cheaper than a retail license I believe.

I doubt theres any issue calling up but.


That's illegal. It's possible but it's still illegal.

You can also get a Technet / MSDN subscription and use the Windows 7 that came in that subscription. It's illegal. It's possible but still illegal.

MMaster23 said,
That's illegal. It's possible but it's still illegal.


Not if you're in Europe. And personally I wouldn't care even if I weren't, the prices for the retail-versions are ridiculous. MS should just price them like the oem-versions and I really hope they don't botch the pricing after doing everything else right with W7.

MMaster23 said,

That's illegal. It's possible but it's still illegal.

You can also get a Technet / MSDN subscription and use the Windows 7 that came in that subscription. It's illegal. It's possible but still illegal.

Neither of those are illegal. Transferring an OEM license is dishonest and a EULA violation. Using Windows 7 from your Technet or MSDN subscription is exactly what the software is provided for.

as long as they keep WMC on all win 7 versions ( maybe except the basic ) I'm all good ( aka if there's a bussines i want WMC in it )

That was true for Vista, but Windows 7 Professional will have Media Center. Each level up is a superset of features now, from Starter -> Home Basic -> Home Premium -> Professional -> Ultimate/Enterprise.

dead.cell said,
That's not correct at all. Most people won't need Ultimate, as the only features in there are pretty much for high end businesses. Professional has everything Home Premium has and then some.

Here is a comparison chart for you to view.

well at least they made the wise decision of keeping WMC on the Professional , since that one should be the one that will hit msdn-aa at the university ( it was stupid to have Vista business for download and no WMC in it :P ( had to keep my xp so i could use my tv turner )

And if you say use the program that comes with the tv card , well i can tell you that WMC is much better ty

Sounds like a plan. Dell dude's comments contain an interesting phrase: "...generally the average selling price [is higher]..." (emphasis mine).

One possible interpretation of that? OEM copies are taking a big jump. Why might Microsoft do that? Perhaps to subsidize retail versions and keep the price down.

If I read that right, MS is taking a big risk; they're hoping there are so many customers--consumer AND business--ready to upgrade hardware that OEM sales won't suffer with a price bump to cover new, higher licensing fees.

I truly think lower retail prices for Win7 would be a smart move on MS' part, leading to faster adoption and lower piracy. I hope I'm right

To be honest I am dead set on purchasing 7 a retail copy and a possibly upgrade for my laptop which came with vista. I really hope the price isn't too high. I refuse to pirate 7.

I'm buying a copy too. I still haven't gotten a disc copy of Vista, just the one that came with my PC. So I've been waiting to buy a copy, and I just decided that I might as well buy Windows 7.

Pricing will make or rape Windows 7. Because MS could appeal this OS to the average joe whos current computer is running Vista and convince them otherwise - it won't work with lousing marketing and bad pricing schemes.

For me the price is making the final decision, I have two Vista PCs I'd consider upgrading if the price is reasonable. However, I can't honestly see MS dropping the price of it's cash cow, not even a tiny bit. MS knows if people want it bad enough, they'll pay any price, but hey if I'm proven wrong great, but I'm not holding my breath.

Xerxes said,
MS knows if people want it bad enough, they'll pay any price, ...

This theory apply more to hardware then software. No matter where you live in the world it's not hard to find pirate software online or at a flea market. So overcharging will actually works against them.

dead.cell said,
Hopefully, they won't wait too long before putting it on the MSDNAA.

As long as it's before the RC expires, I'm happy.

I am seriously considering (gradually) migrating to Mac OS. Maybe that'll put a little fear into Microsoft.

Then again, majority of revenue generated by Windows sales comes from the corporate sector?