main

Microsoft officially announces Vista RC1 and retail pricing

Steven Parker   on 05 September 2006 - 21:33 · 82 comments & 23784 views

Advertisement (Why?)
In the latest Microsoft press release, Microsoft has announced wider public participating in the Windows Vista beta testing program for Release Candidate 1 scheduled to be released this week. They also state Vista is on track for volume license release on November 2006 and general public release on January 2007.

But what is more exciting is that Microsoft has officially announced the retail price estimates for Windows Vista only a few days after the leak by Amazon.

The software assurance logo program for Windows Vista has also been announced. Partners are encouraged to to enroll in the program to take advantage of Microsoft’s marketing opportunity for Vista-ready applications. This should greatly improve the quantity and quality of applications that will be optimized for Windows Vista when launched.

The software assurance logo program for Windows Vista has also been announced. Partners are encouraged to to enroll in the program to take advantage of Microsoft’s marketing opportunity for Vista-ready applications. This should greatly improve the quantity and quality of applications that will be optimized for Windows Vista when launched.



News source: Long Zhengs' Blog

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 82 additional comments
(10 replies) #1 Yuxi Jr on 05 Sep 2006 - 21:43
A bit on the pricey side, but reasonable I suppose... :/
#1.1 jedimasterk on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:41
Quote - Yuxi Jr said @ #1
A bit on the pricey side, but reasonable I suppose... :/

Yeh right!. Suse 10.1 cost me $69.95. SLED cost $59.99. Mac OSX $149.00. Vista Ultimate $399.00 or $259.00, for an OS that took years to get out, and is still buggy. I don't see to many large businesses moving over to Vista for several years. Look how much it will cost to upgrade your hardware just to get it to run at it's optimum. Now how much are we talking.
#1.2 Dr.Jones on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:07
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.1
Yeh right!. Suse 10.1 cost me $69.95. SLED cost $59.99. Mac OSX $149.00. Vista Ultimate $399.00 or $259.00, for an OS that took years to get out, and is still buggy. I don't see to many large businesses moving over to Vista for several years. Look how much it will cost to upgrade your hardware just to get it to run at it's optimum. Now how much are we talking.


Now, why the fkk are you comparing with Ultimate exactly ?
#1.3 jedimasterk on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:21
Quote - Dr.Jones said @ #1.2
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.1
Yeh right!. Suse 10.1 cost me $69.95. SLED cost $59.99. Mac OSX $149.00. Vista Ultimate $399.00 or $259.00, for an OS that took years to get out, and is still buggy. I don't see to many large businesses moving over to Vista for several years. Look how much it will cost to upgrade your hardware just to get it to run at it's optimum. Now how much are we talking.


Now, why the fkk are you comparing with Ultimate exactly ?


Because Ultimate is essentially the full most feature packed product. Essentially the most the operating system has to offer. With Suse 10.1, no need for stripped down versions, it's already feature complete. Also with Mac OSX Leopard their is one edition sold as well. No need to make multiple editions, because a company is afraid of offfering their full product, in this case Ultimate, at a lower price. Same thing will happen as it did with XP. Alot got Home edition only to upgrade to Pro edition. More money in MS pockets. Their just needs to be one edition, and that is called Windows Vista, at one affordable price!!.
#1.4 jedimasterk on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:29
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.3
Quote - Dr.Jones said @ #1.2
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.1
Yeh right!. Suse 10.1 cost me $69.95. SLED cost $59.99. Mac OSX $149.00. Vista Ultimate $399.00 or $259.00, for an OS that took years to get out, and is still buggy. I don't see to many large businesses moving over to Vista for several years. Look how much it will cost to upgrade your hardware just to get it to run at it's optimum. Now how much are we talking.


Now, why the fkk are you comparing with Ultimate exactly ?


Because Ultimate is essentially the full most feature packed product. Essentially the most the operating system has to offer. With Suse 10.1, no need for stripped down versions, it's already feature complete. Also with Mac OSX Leopard their is one edition sold as well. No need to make multiple editions, because a company is afraid of offfering their full product, in this case Ultimate, at a lower price. Same thing will happen as it did with XP. Alot got Home edition only to upgrade to Pro edition. More money in MS pockets. Their just needs to be one edition, and that is called Windows Vista, at one affordable price!!.


And one more thing. Suse 10.1/SLED, doesn't require me to have a 200 GB harddrive for full install, with over 500 apps, or all new hardware to get the most out of XGL, new graphics engine, which is far more responsive and impressive, then Aero.
#1.5 jedimasterk on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:37
Quote - Yuxi Jr said @ #1
A bit on the pricey side, but reasonable I suppose... :/


My point is this. Don't get su..d into buying this "over priced" os until it has proven itself. Like after 1st or 2nd service pack, unless new pc has it installed. Also if you buy a new computer at a computer store. Tell the sales rep that with purchase of new pc, you want the Vista DVD, and not some backup disc, with your purchase. If they say "no". Then ask them why. And you will see what business practices MS and hardware manufacturers, really have. And thank MS for it's high price scheme which is at the root of not getting your full Vista DVD, with purchase of new pc. Just a thought!.
#1.6 Yuxi Jr on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:54
Actually when I said it's "reasonable", it's all relative to their previous versions (XP, 2000, etc). I've always thought that most of MS's consumer products are overpriced (Windows, Office, etc). You would think if just Windows and Office together didn't cost more than the actual hardware of a computer, more people would actually buy it instead of resorting to piracy.
#1.7 John Ericson on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:10
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.4
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.3


Because Ultimate is essentially the full most feature packed product. Essentially the most the operating system has to offer. With Suse 10.1, no need for stripped down versions, it's already feature complete. Also with Mac OSX Leopard their is one edition sold as well. No need to make multiple editions, because a company is afraid of offfering their full product, in this case Ultimate, at a lower price. Same thing will happen as it did with XP. Alot got Home edition only to upgrade to Pro edition. More money in MS pockets. Their just needs to be one edition, and that is called Windows Vista, at one affordable price!!.


And one more thing. Suse 10.1/SLED, doesn't require me to have a 200 GB harddrive for full install, with over 500 apps, or all new hardware to get the most out of XGL, new graphics engine, which is far more responsive and impressive, then Aero.


Dude, you can get MS DOS 6.22 for like $5 on eBay or something, why don't you compare MS DOS against Windows Vista Ultimate? They are both "the full most feature packed product", surely it's a fair comparing don't you think?

Do you get where I'm going with this?
#1.8 ALUOp on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:27
Quote - jedimasterk said @ #1.1
Quote - Yuxi Jr said @ #1
A bit on the pricey side, but reasonable I suppose... :/

Yeh right!. Suse 10.1 cost me $69.95. SLED cost $59.99. Mac OSX $149.00. Vista Ultimate $399.00 or $259.00, for an OS that took years to get out, and is still buggy. I don't see to many large businesses moving over to Vista for several years. Look how much it will cost to upgrade your hardware just to get it to run at it's optimum. Now how much are we talking.


Exactly.
They seem to think they deserve to charge so much while they actually don't have much innovation.
All they do is keep an eye on any innovative products from small companies and then integrate them into Windows.
This is what usually happened: after they oversaw the potential of some applications they picked it up from other companies, and they use their the monopoly power to kill the small companies eventually.
This is an excellent example of the marketing strategy that a company doesn't have to be a leader in order to succeed.
With a company this big, it is really ironical to see how bad their products compared to others.
Just look at Vista, 6 years after XP, hundreds of engineers, no big new features, and it still no ready.
In addition to no innovation, they rarely get things right the first time.
Before releasing new products, they take advantage of curious people and use them as beta testers.
After releasing the products, they depend on other sources to discover problems of its products.
Virus, security holes, etc. You rarely hear they discover the problems themselves.
Usually users and security companies find the holes and they fix it in a month or two and they never need to pay for any damages due to the holes.
Not to mention when you have problem using Windows you get better support and find workaround from other people or web sites besides Microsoft.
I'm not a Linux or OSX fanboy; I hope I didn't sound like one, but I just can't have any respect to them.
#1.9 Jugalator on 06 Sep 2006 - 06:45
Quote -
Dude, you can get MS DOS 6.22 for like $5 on eBay or something, why don't you compare MS DOS against Windows Vista Ultimate? They are both "the full most feature packed product", surely it's a fair comparing don't you think?

Do you get where I'm going with this?

Suse 10.1 is so much more than MS-DOS. :-p It comes with more features than Vista (yes, Ultimate) in some aspects, less in others.

So no, it's not even close to being a fair comparison.
#1.10 John Ericson on 06 Sep 2006 - 08:18
Quote - Jugalator said @ #1.9
Quote -
Dude, you can get MS DOS 6.22 for like $5 on eBay or something, why don't you compare MS DOS against Windows Vista Ultimate? They are both "the full most feature packed product", surely it's a fair comparing don't you think?

Do you get where I'm going with this?

Suse 10.1 is so much more than MS-DOS. :-p It comes with more features than Vista (yes, Ultimate) in some aspects, less in others.

So no, it's not even close to being a fair comparison.


My point being that you can't take the most feature packad product of each and compare them, that wont give you a fair result. Instead you must match products with equivalent features against eachother.
#2 coolvi on 05 Sep 2006 - 21:49
The pricing scheme hasn't changed much since Windows 2000. Ultimate OEM, here I come!
(6 replies) #3 zachstruck on 05 Sep 2006 - 21:50
I was a little blown away at first when I looked at the graph... $650 for Ultimate.
I think someone needs to fix the graph.
#3.1 Sp3ctranova on 05 Sep 2006 - 21:52
Quote - zachstruck said @ #3
I was a little blown away at first when I looked at the graph... $650 for Ultimate.
I think someone needs to fix the graph.


yes indeed. like buying freakin' photoshop or something.
#3.2 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:28
They don't need to fix the graph at all. It is fairly easy to understand if you had any experience with graphs. The columns are cumulative. The top of each bar is the total cost for both the upgrade and the full version. The coloured split gives a graphical representation of the price difference between full and upgrade.
#3.3 Turge on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:38
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #3.2
They don't need to fix the graph at all. It is fairly easy to understand if you had any experience with graphs. The columns are cumulative. The top of each bar is the total cost for both the upgrade and the full version. The coloured split gives a graphical representation of the price difference between full and upgrade.


First of all, they should put "Full Edition" bar beside the "Upgrade" one so we can actually SEE the graphical representation and the price difference without having to measure the lines.

I don't think we need to know that the upgrade + the full version of Ultimate adds up to $650.

Then again, we don't all have your graph experience...
#3.4 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:43
Quote - Turge said @ #3.3
I don't think we need to know that the upgrade + the full version of Ultimate adds up to $650.

Then again, we don't all have your graph experience...

The graph is not there to show you how much the products are, thats what the figures are for. The graph is to give you a visual indication of the cost difference between upgrade and full.
#3.5 SwitchBlade on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:49
Quote - Sp3ctranova said @ #3.1

yes indeed. like buying freakin' photoshop or something.


Who actually pays for photoshop nowadays?
#3.6 freeeekyyy on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:03
Quote - SwitchBlade said @ #3.5
Quote - Sp3ctranova said @ #3.1

yes indeed. like buying freakin' photoshop or something.


Who actually pays for photoshop nowadays?


Non-thieves.
(4 replies) #4 jordanspringer on 05 Sep 2006 - 21:55
someone really needs to fix the graph, it is horribly wrong for all of the "full edition" pricing.
#4.1 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:29
See above. The graph is NOT wrong. You just don't know how to read it correctly.
#4.2 BBinder on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:35
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #4.1
See above. The graph is NOT wrong. You just don't know how to read it correctly.


the graph is wrong

it should be showing 3 divisions in each column if its including the price for both of them aswell, but it only shows 2 divisions which is why its wrong
#4.3 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:45
Quote - BBinder said @ #4.2
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #4.1
See above. The graph is NOT wrong. You just don't know how to read it correctly.


the graph is wrong

it should be showing 3 divisions in each column if its including the price for both of them aswell, but it only shows 2 divisions which is why its wrong

No. The graph is a cumulative graph to give you a visual indication of the price difference between full and upgrade. If you don't know how to read cumulative bar charts, thats what the figures below are for.
#4.4 Shadrack on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:58
The graph is done wrong. I understand what they are trying to show with the graph, but it would have 200% more effective if they would have put Full and Upgrade side by side for each set instead of stacking them on-top of each other. You can call it a cumulative chart, but that doesn't make it a good chart to draw a comparisons w/. Just because you can label something doesn't mean it is automatically easy for people to read and actually get something from.
#5 rev23dev on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:02
Also, you duplicate this paragraph...

Quote -

The software assurance logo program for Windows Vista has also been announced. Partners are encouraged to to enroll in the program to take advantage of Microsoft’s marketing opportunity for Vista-ready applications. This should greatly improve the quantity and quality of applications that will be optimized for Windows Vista when launched.
(1 reply) #6 AkFuttySeben on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:03
Upgrade version would be XP to Vista I assume?
#6.1 westonb_2005 on 06 Sep 2006 - 04:34
Quote - AkFuttySeben said @ #6
Upgrade version would be XP to Vista I assume?

XP or 2000
#7 ThePitt on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:05
give me a break...
#8 [bear] on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:06
259$ upgrade for vista ultimate is cheap, i'll be buying that version.
(4 replies) #9 trparky on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:11
Does anyone know if the Ultimate edition has activation?
#9.1 virtorio on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:12
It will have.
#9.2 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:23
Of course it will have. Why wouldn't it?

If Ultimate came without activation, that would like Microsoft saying "Hey guys, Ultimate is the best and we don't mind if you copy this version to give to your friends!".
#9.3 HoochieMamma on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:25
I thought it was not supposed to have it in there, same as the buisness/enterprise edition?
#9.4 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:32
Quote - HoochieMamma said @ #9.3
I thought it was not supposed to have it in there, same as the buisness/enterprise edition?

Ultimate is a consumer version, not a business version, therefore it will have activation. Besides, it is not the version that determines whether it has activation or not. It is the way the business obtains it. If you get the product through a volume license agreement, then you get a version without activation. Buy any version at retail and it will come with activation.

Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate = Activation
Business - Retail = Activation
Business - Volume License = No Activation
Enterprise (only available through volume license) = No Activation
(3 replies) #10 Popcorned on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:21
Am I the only person who doesn't understand the graph. The price estimate is on the left? So whats the numbers down under?
#10.1 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:26
The graph is fairly easy to understand if you had any experience with graphs. The columns are cumulative. The top of each bar is the total cost for both the upgrade and the full version. The coloured split gives a graphical reprensation of the price difference between full and upgrade.
#10.2 [bear] on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:26
the graph is to show comparison between the different versions. In case you can't estimate the price using the bar graph it gives you the actual values at the bottom in a table.
#10.3 Ideas Man on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:20
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #10.1
The graph is fairly easy to understand if you had any experience with graphs. The columns are cumulative. The top of each bar is the total cost for both the upgrade and the full version. The coloured split gives a graphical reprensation of the price difference between full and upgrade.


Why would you put them together? Most people are going to buy one or the other, not both, that's just stupid. (Or an example of someone trying to be smart).
(1 reply) #11 s-t-e on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:25
heres a ROUGH (it will be more than this, as us europeans get smegging TAX this and TAX that onto of it)



ste
#11.1 jmc777 on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:31
You're assuming they'll stick to the actual exchange rate. I wouldn't be surprised to see them simply changing the dollar sign to a pound sign and keeping the numbers as they are.
(4 replies) #12 King Mustard on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:28
£209 for Windows Vista Ultimate eh?

Can you make a clean install with an 'Upgrade Edition' ?
#12.1 aStRaLgOd on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:31
Quote - King Mustard said @ #12
£209 for Windows Vista Ultimate eh?

Can you make a clean install with an 'Upgrade Edition' ?


Yeah but you have to provide the CD of an earlier version of Winblowz
#12.2 King Mustard on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:32
Quote - aStRaLgOd said @ #12.1
Quote - King Mustard said @ #12
£209 for Windows Vista Ultimate eh?

Can you make a clean install with an 'Upgrade Edition' ?


Yeah but you have to provide the CD of an earlier version of Winblowz

So I have a Windows XP SP2 CD. If I buy a Windows Vista Ultimate 'Upgrade Edition', I make a clean install of Windows Vista, yes?
#12.3 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:35
Quote - aStRaLgOd said @ #12.1
Quote - King Mustard said @ #12
£209 for Windows Vista Ultimate eh?

Can you make a clean install with an 'Upgrade Edition' ?


Yeah but you have to provide the CD of an earlier version of Winblowz

Winblowz... WOW, you are sooooo cool.

King Mustard, yes.
#12.4 AdamLC on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:36
Quote - King Mustard said @ #12.2
Quote - aStRaLgOd said @ #12.1
Quote - King Mustard said @ #12
£209 for Windows Vista Ultimate eh?

Can you make a clean install with an 'Upgrade Edition' ?


Yeah but you have to provide the CD of an earlier version of Winblowz

So I have a Windows XP SP2 CD. If I buy a Windows Vista Ultimate 'Upgrade Edition', I make a clean install of Windows Vista, yes?


Pretty much yeh
(3 replies) #13 GEIST on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:29
That graph is very misleading...
#13.1 rIaHc3 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:45
No it isnt. It is accually very simple and easy to understand.
#13.2 virtorio on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:03
Quote - rIaHc3 said @ #13.1
No it isnt. It is accually very simple and easy to understand.

No it's not, if it was, the graph wouldn't state that Ultimate Editon costs $659.

edit: looks like they changed the graph. Much better.

Last edited by virtorio on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:33
#13.3 Shadrack on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:01
Quote - rIaHc3 said @ #13.1
No it isnt. It is accually very simple and easy to understand.


It is easy to understand. I get it, subtract the upgrade price from the full edition price on the graph and you get the full edition price. Thanks for the extra work, author. Next time put the graphs side by side so we can make a better visual comparison

Why are so many people defending such a craptastic graph? Is it just to be difficult to the sane people out there that actually see it as next to useless?
#14 Julius Caro on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:31
I don't think it will cost that much more here in europe... it's software after all. But who knows.

If those 160 for home premium were 140, it would be better, haha
#15 aStRaLgOd on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:32
I personnaly think it's expensive, considering that to run Vista right, everyone will have to buy a stick of ram (If they wanna stick with Aero, anyway...)
#16 XeonBuilder on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:33
It will be cheaper to buy a dell with Vista installed
(3 replies) #17 jordanspringer on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:35
the graph is horribly designed. to read this graph correctly while looking for the cost of WIndows Vista Ultimate Edition, you notice that it is blue color, so you read the blue graph, follow the line over to the left and it reads roughly $650. it IS incorrect. when making verticle bar graphs, you donot continue after the purple Upgrade Edition price bar, but add too it. (as well enterprise edition is free) lol
#17.1 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:40
It is not incorrect at all. The graph is merely a representation of the costs. It is called a cumulative bar chart and they are very easy to read if you spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it. These types of charts are not designed to give you exact values (thats what the figures below are for). It is designed to give you an "at a glance" indication of the difference in two values. In this case, the difference between the cost of upgrade vs the cost of full.

To get the price of full, you ONLY look at the blue section. You dont start from the bottom of the chart. The blue section of Ultimate for instance starts at $259 and ends at $658. $658 minus $259 is $399.... get it?
#17.2 Nexx295 on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:14
If I look ONLY at the blue section, I see 650 bucks. Maybe the bar is right and the price is wrong-- who knows?
#17.3 Shadrack on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:04
Quote - Ryster092 said @ #17.1
It is not incorrect at all. The graph is merely a representation of the costs. It is called a cumulative bar chart and they are very easy to read if you spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it. These types of charts are not designed to give you exact values (thats what the figures below are for). It is designed to give you an "at a glance" indication of the difference in two values. In this case, the difference between the cost of upgrade vs the cost of full.

To get the price of full, you ONLY look at the blue section. You dont start from the bottom of the chart. The blue section of Ultimate for instance starts at $259 and ends at $658. $658 minus $259 is $399.... get it?


No, the graph may make sense and may be a "cumulative" bar chart, but that doesn't mean it is in an easy to read or compare format. Yes we all get it..that math works out great (good work btw.). But I would see a much better comparison w/ the bars side by side rather then stacked on top of each other.
(1 reply) #18 :: Lyon :: on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:35
They should have made it cheaper to decrease the number of piracy
#18.1 Yuxi Jr on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:57
I agree. If just Windows and Office together didn't cost more than the actual hardware of a computer, more people may actually buy it rather than resort to downloading or copying it.
(1 reply) #19 nigel.pinder on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:37
graph is not the easiest to read. I UNDERSTAND how to read it, but it could be EASIER. at FIRST glance, it appears that Ultimate is $650.

Just have 2 columns per version and thats simpler..

still pricey though isnt it.

#19.1 Ryster092 on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:41
If you want "at a glance" accurate information, thats what the figures below are for. The graph is to give you a quick indication of the cost difference between the two versions.
(1 reply) #20 hotdog963al on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:41
The different versions are starting to confuse me already.... >.<
#20.1 King Mustard on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:58
Quote - hotdog963al said @ #20
The different versions are starting to confuse me already.... >.<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista...ons_and_pricing
#21 Croquant on 05 Sep 2006 - 22:58
The MS Vista Pubicity machine should be stringing it engines fairly soon, yes?
(1 reply) #22 zerolimit on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:18
Free upgrade for me with MCE XP
#22.1 Trong on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:29
? Free?
#23 mayamaniac on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:25
did that stupid graph came from Microsoft?

like Turge said above, there's no need for us to know the combine pricing of a full version and an upgrade version. Its a poorly made graph. It should have to separate bars for each Vista version, one for full, and the other for upgrades.
#24 Troll on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:32
Interesting...

To add to other comments:

It IS a poorly made graph. Yes we can all read it, as could most children at the age of ten. However, it the quality is that of a graph made by a ten year old.

The prices don't really bother me however.
#25 strekship on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:55
$159 for home premium upgrade seems resonalbe. I might actually be able to afford the Ultimate upgrade.
(1 reply) #26 Shadrack on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:09
Those prices seem fair and consistent w/ Windows XP and Windows 2000 when they came out.

I think the idea of an Ultimate edition is just plain stupid. They should just extract the features from Ultimate and resell a $150 package w/ the features. They could call it something like "Plus" but better. That way users always have the option for the upgrade to those features rather then having to buy another Windows Vista Edition to get the features that they didn't realize they even needed until further down the road.
#26.1 Ideas Man on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:25
That's called Windows Anytime Upgrade, you can buy Home Premium and upgrade to Ultimate at any time if you so wish, w/o buying a new box and disc, it's all done over the Internet.
#27 freeeekyyy on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:13

And people were saying ultimate would cost $600 for the full retail version. Do you people really think MS is that crazy?
(3 replies) #28 GAM on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:16
The future looks great ....for Linux....
#28.1 freeeekyyy on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:20
Quote - GAM said @ #28
The future looks great ....for Linux....



People have been saying that for years. And it's never come close to actually scratching MS market share.
#28.2 GAM on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:46
Quote - freeeekyyy said @ #28.1

People have been saying that for years. And it's never come close to actually scratching MS market share.


I don't agree on your market share statement, but I know what you mean. If people have been saying it for years, then someone somewhere will listen...

However, I think this may be the turning point. I think many businesses, organizations and individuals will look at alternatives considering the costs of a Vista transition. In most cases such a transition will require not only the Vista upgrade, but also hardware upgrade and upgrade of various applications. Haven't even mentioned the time this transition will take, and in many cases time is money. Considering existing alternatives, I think many will transition to another OS. Given the [relative] lack of viruses/threats on some of the alternative OSes I don't bet against many MS defectors. It remains to see how successful Vista will be, but to me it looks rather obvious that many will switch to another OS. That was my point, not how Microsoft have done in the past.
#28.3 CheeseCow on 06 Sep 2006 - 07:35
Quote - GAM said @ #28.2
However, I think this may be the turning point. I think many businesses, organizations and individuals will look at alternatives considering the costs of a Vista transition. In most cases such a transition will require not only the Vista upgrade, but also hardware upgrade and upgrade of various applications. Haven't even mentioned the time this transition will take, and in many cases time is money.

You know where the most money is spent? User training and support. And that is a cost which will always be there. By using Windows you are 99% sure you will place the user in an environment he/she knows.

Th