There has been a fair bit of debate about the final box art design for Windows 7; you may have seen earlier that CentrumXP revealed versions of it, which some were doubtful of, but now (thanks to Long Zheng) we may finally have official confirmation... and it seems that CentrumXP was correct.The box art has shown up on the official Microsoft Store page for Windows 7, which means it's pretty safe to say that this will be the final box art used for the upcoming operating system. Of course, Microsoft haven't actually confirmed themselves that this is what we will be seeing on retail shelves, but we're pretty sure it's safe to say that this is what it will be. Long Zheng initially doubted the art (as did many others), but he stumbled upon some evidence that showed it could potentially be the real deal, but again, this seems to have all become clear now. For handy viewing (and in case you don't want to click on any of the aforementioned links), we've included the un-cropped image below, from the Microsoft website:
If this isn't good enough validation for you, then we don't know what is. So, now we have an official release date, and official box art... all we need to see now is some pricing. Everything is finally coming together for Microsoft's latest and greatest, and before you know it, we'll be out buying the software for ourselves. What do you reckon, Neowin? Is this a nice and attractive box art for Windows 7, or do you think it could be better in some way?
Now where's my price tags.
The black one looks like Vista case.
The blue one looks like XP-Pro case.
The green one looks like XP-Home case.
The black one looks like Vista case.
The blue one looks like XP-Pro case.
The green one looks like XP-Home case.
why bother comparing box colours to the other os's vista uses all those colours on packaging too, its not big deal
The black one looks like Vista case.
The blue one looks like XP-Pro case.
The green one looks like XP-Home case.
why bother comparing box colours to the other os's vista uses all those colours on packaging too, its not big deal
But you're making it one..
The black one looks like Vista case.
The blue one looks like XP-Pro case.
The green one looks like XP-Home case.
More like the black one looks like Vista Ultimate, the blue looks like Vista Business, and the green looks like Vista Home Premium.
The black one looks like Vista case.
The blue one looks like XP-Pro case.
The green one looks like XP-Home case.
why bother comparing box colours to the other os's vista uses all those colours on packaging too, its not big deal
But you're making it one..
This made my day.
cos the black one looks like the Vista Ultimate case, the blue one resembles the Vista business case, and the green one resembles the Vista home-premium case!!
damn them and their ruthlessly efficient colour recycling!! (despite the fact this has already been mentioned)
/jokes
it's also for the price... starter=cheaper ultimate=more expensive
Because Microsoft makes almost 100% of their profit from software.
On the other hand, Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales.
Apple can afford a one version, fixed price OS. Microsoft needs multiple price points (hoping that people buy the more expensive one, but also catering to the consumer on a budget) to make a profit.
It's to maintain a higher price tag on more feature rich products. And one edition for enterprise customers, using volume licensing.
Apple can afford a one version, fixed price OS. Microsoft needs multiple price points (hoping that people buy the more expensive one, but also catering to the consumer on a budget) to make a profit.
It's because every time Microsoft's multiple version strategy gets brought up, someone inevitably points out the Apple doesn't do it, and why isn't MS more like Apple, and Apple this, Apple that. I imagine waruikoohii made that post in the spirit of nipping things in the bud.
At any rate, people with no understanding of how marketing works will always complain about the multiple version strategy, while everyone who spends five minutes reading into it rather than complaining about it will understand exactly why they do it.
At any rate, people with no understanding of how marketing works will always complain about the multiple version strategy, while everyone who spends five minutes reading into it rather than complaining about it will understand exactly why they do it.
And seeing how the vast majority of their sales are via OEM and not off-the-shelf purchases, it seems like a rather pointless exercise. Most people who are actually going to buy the OS from a store shelf (i.e. tech savvy people) are probably not going to opt for stripped down versions.
Rubbish. The average person buying a copy of Windows from a shop isn't going to say "yuk, I'm not buying home premium because it hasn't got domain joining features, I must get Professional instead".
No. What they'll do is to buy the version that has the feature in they need and no more, unless of course they're rolling in money.
But back then they had different names so I guess people here with only short term memory won't remember.
Home =Win3.1 and later Win9x
Pro= WinNT
And server was also a special WinNT server version later.
People who keep brining up the multiple windows sku bit need to stop nitpicking and move along to something else already.
Thank you Microsoft, for saving me money! (no, I'm not being sarcastic, you mac fanboys)
You are confusing two completely different product lines (NT and Dos kernel Windows) with the artificial market segmentation MS has done in abundance with their single unified flagship OS since the XP days. There is no comparison here.
MS sub segments their user base because their MBAs still think like a company that sells to corporations rather than as the company that runs the world's computers, consumer AND business.
There has been no need to have more than one version of Windows since XP had the ridiculous Home/Pro split.
What's so hard to understand? They have Windows 7 Ultimate which costs 5 Cosmo Credits. But for some people that's too much. The max price they'd pay is 3 Cosmo Credits. But if MS would sell Windows for that price they'll lose money. So they have to remove some features from 5 CC version to account for price reduction.
There has been no need to have more than one version of Windows since XP had the ridiculous Home/Pro split.
Technically? No, but you're ignoring market realities. The fact is, Microsoft spends a significant time developing Windows features for the SMB and Enterprise markets. Why should home users have to pay for features developed for these markets when they don't need them?
Microsoft could certainly publish one version of Windows, Enterprise/Ulitimate. And they could price it cheaper than Ultimate, too, but it would have to be significantly more than Home Premium. Why make those users pay that much more for domain-join, BranchCache, and DirectAccess when 99% of them won't use these features?
Right, I suppose the software just builds itself... they don't actually need to pay people to write it.
You act as if those minor features...many of which have been complete in code for a DECADE cost a whole ton of money to add in and MS just has to charge separately for them.
Well, they don't.
And let's be clear. MS has already paid for all of the development of every feature of every OS they created. Remember, they have a huge cash surplus.
So, in point of fact, MS could release Windows 7 Ultimate to everyone for free, now couldn't they? I don't advise it from a business/stock market standpoint, hehe, but they could do this.
But seriously, they can easily amortize the handful of chump change differences between the business and consumer versions (oooh, domain joining...I'm sure that was COMPLETELY recoded from scratch, um, for umpteenth time...right) and release just ONE version at a fair price.
Apple can do it and they don't have a fraction of the resources that MS does.
It's just MBA 101 marketing segmentation. Trading customer confusion and a certain number of tech support issues in exchange for milking a few more dollars from one small segment of end users.
And it's just plain unnecessary in the modern age...and has been for a decade.
The fact is, software is so much more expensive than the hardware costs. Things are not created one-time 10 yrs ago and never touched again. All of the free updates cost them alot of money, and they have to price Windows to allow for them to do it.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but without being in the industry, you don't have a clue.
I totally thought you were referring to the Enterprise. Made me laugh.
I don't know if your comment is addressed to me, since you didn't take a moment to address it in any way. But just in case it is...
Actually, I have developed major software packages, hired teams to do just that, and have brought those packages to market, so again you are making as assumption that has no bearing on my point.
I know all about the costs of programmers, both up front and ongoing, and I'm NOT saying MS shouldn't charge for their services. Of course they should. My point has and always will be that they are letting MBAs use outdated business software industry thinking to trump a more modern (and MUCH easier on ALL customers) way of delivering one version of the OS to all users.
FFS, it's an OPERATING SYSTEM, not Microsoft Office...
I sort of agree but people don't want to be flooded with features and have a high price tag, the best thing about multiple versions is that people can buy the right version that suites their needs and at a lower price
It would be cool though to have a base version where there is no features what so ever except the GUI and the basic theme and the user can buy the features that they want and it will say if your hardware will be capable of running that feature
that was one of the things I hated about vista I bought home premium because the vista advisor said my hardware will work fine but never got aero or any of the features
Because Microsoft makes almost 100% of their profit from software.
On the other hand, Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales.
Apple can afford a one version, fixed price OS. Microsoft needs multiple price points (hoping that people buy the more expensive one, but also catering to the consumer on a budget) to make a profit.
As far as having one version saving MS money because it reduces the number of boxes...doubtful. The boxes are trivially cheap to manufacture.
It really pays to read everything that the advisor applications says.
I've had very good luck with them myself (although, granted, I was just playing around with them because I already know what the hardware is capable of).
That may be true, but not all of us are here for every Neowin discussion.
From one perspective, having a maxed out version of Windows with all the fixings and a high price point will actually INCREASE sales of the lesser versions because people will feel like (in Vista's case) Business et al are a bargain.
You keep posting this argument as if it is correct or intellectually based on fact. It isn't.
Microsoft under no circumstances whatsoever "needs" multiple prices points to "make a profit". It is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for this. They make tons of profit off of ANY software release at ANY price point due to volume and the fact that their distribution costs are nigh upon NIL.
The ONLY reason MS has multiple price points is because they CAN. This is how MS charges different income tiers of consumers for what the market will sustain. It is MBA 101 and anyone with the slightest amount of business sense/experience knows this.
Now, given that, just because MS can do this, doesn't mean they should. Different tiers confuse consumers from both a features and marketing standpoint. For example, the only real eye catching things about Vista were contained in the Ultimate version, so that is what many people THOUGHT they were buying when they got stuck with one of the cheaper, gimpware versions of Vista. This has led to class action lawsuits, along with the ridiculous "it runs a [crappy version of] Vista...honest" promotional scam during the run-up to Vista's release.
There is no NEED for MS to release more than one version, even from a Business or Consumer perspective. All the features have co-existed within one unified version (called "Ultimate") for two OS passes now and it works just fine, for everybody.
With the travesty that was the unsupported and no un-upgraded Vista Ultimate extras, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on that one...
Microsoft under no circumstances whatsoever "needs" multiple prices points to "make a profit". It is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for this. They make tons of profit off of ANY software release at ANY price point due to volume and the fact that their distribution costs are nigh upon NIL.
The ONLY reason MS has multiple price points is because they CAN. This is how MS charges different income tiers of consumers for what the market will sustain. It is MBA 101 and anyone with the slightest amount of business sense/experience knows this.
Now, given that, just because MS can do this, doesn't mean they should. Different tiers confuse consumers from both a features and marketing standpoint. For example, the only real eye catching things about Vista were contained in the Ultimate version, so that is what many people THOUGHT they were buying when they got stuck with one of the cheaper, gimpware versions of Vista. This has led to class action lawsuits, along with the ridiculous "it runs a [crappy version of] Vista...honest" promotional scam during the run-up to Vista's release.
There is no NEED for MS to release more than one version, even from a Business or Consumer perspective. All the features have co-existed within one unified version (called "Ultimate") for two OS passes now and it works just fine, for everybody.
With the travesty that was the unsupported and no un-upgraded Vista Ultimate extras, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on that one...
You typed that whole entire essay but didn't really say anything meaningful. The reason Windows is not sold as one edition is due to the fact that Microsoft wants to be able to hit as many homes as possible. If Microsoft were to release one sku only and price it at $250.00USD they would alienate everyone couldn't afford $250.00USD and they would lose money from everyone who could afford to pay more. So they release multiple editions so that everyone can purchase it despite their economic situation. If you only have $100.00USD you can buy Home Premium and if you can afford more you can max out with Ultimate. I don't know what is so hard to understand...Microsoft is just maximizing their profits.
Microsoft under no circumstances whatsoever "needs" multiple prices points to "make a profit". It is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for this. They make tons of profit off of ANY software release at ANY price point due to volume and the fact that their distribution costs are nigh upon NIL...
With the travesty that was the unsupported and no un-upgraded Vista Ultimate extras, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on that one...
Microsoft's distribution cost may be "nil" (not quite true, but close enough), but their development cost is far from.
Multiple platforms allows Microsoft to charge different classes of customers for the features that they want or need. Again, should home users be burdened with the development cost for features like BranchCache?
As for, say, Starter edition, Microsoft has evidently determined that they can't let OEMs have Home Premium for a cheap enough cost to be included in a $400 netbook. Rather than just give that market up to Linux (or pirated Windows), MS instead came up with a de-contented Win7. For many users it will be adequate, and for the rest, the upgrade should be relatively painless.
What is your problem with this?
MS can do whatever it wants price wise. It just doesn't want to do what you are suggesting.
And my problem is that it is just confusing to end users one way or another. MS has been keeping their OS prices artificially high (when compared to computer costs which keep dropping) until now a retail copy of Vista Ultimate costs MORE than the average computer that runs it.
The ratio used to be more like 10% of the hardware cost went to the OS.
Because WE gave them a monopoly, they have NO downward price pressure.
I love Windows 7 too, but I really wanted to see Windows 7 avoid the huge mistakes of the Vista release.
PS the amortized price increase for dinky minor additions like BranchCache would be about 1 cent across one SKU...and you know it.
It takes thousands of developers to work on the different features of Windows. Alot of developes work 10-20 hours a day with little sleep. Especially closer to deadlines.
Also, most developers are paid over $60,000 a year plus benefits. Most developers I know get paid much more than that.
Hardware costs are most incurred during R&D. Economies of scale and process refinements lower the costs over time. In software development, you actually increase costs over time because of what it takes to maintain software.
Again, you show a COMPLETE lack of reading comprehension, as you are off debating a point I NEVER MADE.
So repeating my note above...
Actually, I have developed major software packages, hired teams to do just that, and have brought those packages to market, so again you are making as assumption that has no bearing on my point.
I know all about the costs of programmers, both up front and ongoing, and I'm NOT saying MS shouldn't charge for their services. Of course they should. My point has and always will be that they are letting MBAs use outdated business software industry thinking to trump a more modern (and MUCH easier on ALL customers) way of delivering one version of the OS to all users.
FFS, it's an OPERATING SYSTEM, not Microsoft Office...
Oh and just how many multi-million software packages have YOU developed and brought to market? I, at least, have done so.
Why wouldn't you want the OPTION to do so? Why would ANYONE go through the trouble of GIMPING one version of the OS, when all anyone has to do is just NOT USE THE FEATURE.
Using your example, it's not like anyone is going to even TRY to join a domain if they A) don't know what it is, and B) don't have one at home.
But for the sake of market segmentation, MS cuts out a handful of code for no good reason whatsoever.
Just one version, one where people don't even click on the five feature shortcuts they don't need, is just fine for all.
With people working at home and having leisure time at work, in truth, except for Domain/Exchange/etc. there isn't a need anymore for separate versions of the OS.
In fact, most people I know have BETTER, faster computers at home that they do at work, haha.
I fail to see how the Vista box was difficult to open.
Yeah, these are called XP and 7 fanboys.
+1
Ow.
+1 same opinion here
These postings are like Apple users becoming over excited about those clean white boxes that iMacs come in.
I'm definitely curious as to what the box art looks like. It's just like somebody becoming excited over a new user interface or a new logo. If it wasn't for this article and the previous one, I wouldn't have known about that really nice white-ish effect on the Windows logo, on the boxart.
I think it's because he wants to voice an opinion. The opinion is that he doesn't care.
Well, he asked "who cares", although somewhat rhetorically.
As it is, this thread is people commenting on box art. Art. Something you can comment on.
This isn't like those slightly sad "unboxing" videos, it's just showing people what the product will look like on the shelf. The article itself pushes no opinion on the matter.
Still doesn't explain how Ann Coulter can sell a book after putting her manly mug on the front.
For the same reason that conservatives get turned on by girls who hold big guns. The closet homosexuals who are in denial become conservatives. Those that aren't become priests.
And Ann Coulter is a shemale, so she works for them on many levels.
One is the general Windows logo, one tells you it's Windows 7.
There is the official Windows logo and then the actual Windowsn7 'art' logo
The ONLY reason MS has multiple price points is because they CAN. This is how MS charges different income tiers of consumers for what the market will sustain. It is MBA 101 and anyone with the slightest amount of business sense/experience knows this.
Just so I know both x86 and x64 versions will be on the same DVD right?
Er, the retail Ultimate DVD came with both versions.
The point of Ultimate is to COMBINE all features of business and Home together in one version.
You do not get Media Center in Business, but in Home Premium yes.. You cant join a domain or run a ternimal service on a home premium box, but you can in business.. there are so many other examples..
Ultimate combines it all. Extrs were meant as.. well... extras...
Eye candy is the bomb
The point of Ultimate is to COMBINE all features of business and Home together in one version.
You do not get Media Center in Business, but in Home Premium yes.. You cant join a domain or run a ternimal service on a home premium box, but you can in business.. there are so many other examples..
Ultimate combines it all. Extrs were meant as.. well... extras...
Ultimate for Vista was a ripoff, frankly, but since it was the only one that DID allow Domain-join AND contain Media Center, it was the only game in town for some users.
Fortunately, Win7 Pro DOES come with Media Center this time. Considerably more affordable.
The point of Ultimate is to COMBINE all features of business and Home together in one version.
You do not get Media Center in Business, but in Home Premium yes.. You cant join a domain or run a ternimal service on a home premium box, but you can in business.. there are so many other examples..
Ultimate combines it all. Extrs were meant as.. well... extras...
Ultimate for Vista was a ripoff, frankly, but since it was the only one that DID allow Domain-join AND contain Media Center, it was the only game in town for some users.
Fortunately, Win7 Pro DOES come with Media Center this time. Considerably more affordable.
Yep, great move on MS's part. Especially if the Pro upgrade is really just $100.
I think Microsoft have had most of you fooled! These are not the real box shots and were just released to get the buzz going. I bet there is some marketing guy from MS sitting there looking at users on sites like NW and just laughing his butt off!
Can you say "Official Fakes"?
I think Microsoft have had most of you fooled! These are not the real box shots and were just released to get the buzz going. I bet there is some marketing guy from MS sitting there looking at users on sites like NW and just laughing his butt off!
Can you say "Official Fakes"?
ummm jokes on you my friend
100% not fake
I always associate the color blue with Business versions because going back to Windows 2000 Professional, that was the default desktop color. And most businesses I've worked for switch to the Windows Classic theme in XP when assigning computers to users, which again has the blue desktop.
This matters because people are shallow.
Home, Pro and Ultimate are much simpler
Business and Home have way to many diffrences in them IMO
Windows 7 Home Basic $15
Windows 7 Home Premium $25
Windows 7 Professional $35
Windows 7 Ultimate $50
Where, China?
lol
Windows 7 starter should not exist
Windows 7 home basic should be OEM only
Windows 7 Home Premium $79
Windows 7 Professional $89
Windows 7 Ultimate $99, or free as a Windows Vista Ultimate extra
Windows 7 Home Basic $15
Windows 7 Home Premium $25
Windows 7 Professional $35
Windows 7 Ultimate $50
Hell, 7 Starter should be $5 so that businesses or schools and easily upgrade
Microsoft just can't win with some people no matter what they do. You just can't defeat ignorance I guess.
How's a guy supposed to roll teh box down a hill with only 1 rounded corner?!!1
Think, Microsoft, THINK!!
Jeesh.....
I'm only interested in the contents
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.