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.
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.
As long as it's before the RC expires, I'm happy.
Then again, majority of revenue generated by Windows sales comes from the corporate sector?
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
That's where your wrong, You have a choice, there is more than one OS made for PC's out there, you do have a choice not use MS products.
Apple is the "console" (for lack of a better word) of the OS world. The much touted "stability" and "virus proof" features are a result of their closed ecosystem and relatively limited hardware support.
If Apple let OSX be installed on any Intel-based machine their reputation would be torn to shreds. They know this, and they are afraid of this.
That's why their Mac vs PC commercials p*** me off to no end. It seriously is comparing apples to oranges. (pardon the pun) It's extreme arrogance and utter B.S. that fuels their marketing hype when comparing Microsoft to Macs.
OSX is the operating system for followers. Not people who like choice.
Here is a comparison chart for you to view.
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
And if you say use the program that comes with the tv card , well i can tell you that WMC is much better ty
That's why you just ring up MS when it refused to activate online and they'll issue you an activation code, problem solved.
I doubt theres any issue calling up but.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which was expensive last time with Vista.
Meh... I don't need a bigger one of those... I'll be happy with just reliable software with lots of features.
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).
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and they really wonder why MS's OS's are the most pirated software in the world
thats a joke right do you realise they are nearly or more than a hundred bucks here for a new release game
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
It may work out to be $80, but they still sap us for a good $120 :p And that, my friends, is why I rent my games!
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.
How's that shiny over sized plastic box treating you? I bet it was worth the extra $75-$200!
Last edited by reLapse on 18 May 2009 - 10:55
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.
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...
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"!
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.
The honeymoon period. Just wait. It won't last.
I'm a newbie at Linux and I'm adapting well to it.
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.
eheh I see what you did there
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
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.
Last edited by Mrs_Angel_D on 18 May 2009 - 17:55
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.
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 18 May 2009 - 15:53
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...
However, it sounds like the OEM's are not getting as much of a discount as they use to.
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.
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
For the vast majority of home compute users, what are the benefits of buying Windows 7?
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...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.