Weekend Poll: What is the right price for Windows 8?

It may still be a quite a while before we see Windows 8 hit the shelves, but that isn't stopping Microsoft from going all-out with preparations. This includes the impending Consumer Preview that is slated for a "late February" release, of which we have recently seen some screenshots including an interesting look at the Start Menu without the usual Windows orb.

Today we want to know what you think is a reasonable price point for Microsoft to sell Windows 8 at. Please vote for an appropriate price for the full-featured Ultimate retail (disc) equivalent as there is a chance that Windows 8 will come in multiple editions just as Windows Vista and 7 have.

Keep in mind that the pricing for Windows 7 Ultimate on disc was US$319.99 at the time of launch; for Vista, Ultimate was US$399.99 at launch. The upgrade-only editions are usually $100-80 cheaper and the Home Premium equivalent is usually $120-150 cheaper, but this structure and pricing may not carry over to Windows 8.

Place your anonymous votes below and let us know what you think in the comments section.

Poll

What is a resonable price for Windows 8's full-featured retail edition?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Chrome loses market share after Google penalizes itself

Next Story

iPhone 4S online sales start again in China

126 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If Microsoft wants there os to be more like the Apple os, which is really is getting there, they should treat is like it and GIVE it away as Apple does.

I think a professional version (which I installed as it had virtual machine capabilities) should be £35 upgrade £50 full.

Although as stated, everyone would normally vote for the lowest price, on something like this, I voted for the $100-$199 price range.

It can hardly be priced similarly to any version of Windows-7. Windows-8 is strictly for tablet users. Clearly, not for the mainstream PC user, so how can it even be compared to Windows-7, or even VISTA or XP?

TsarNikky said,
It can hardly be priced similarly to any version of Windows-7. Windows-8 is strictly for tablet users. Clearly, not for the mainstream PC user, so how can it even be compared to Windows-7, or even VISTA or XP?
Of course they cannot be compared. Windows 8 run all the apps that XP/Vista/7 can run and also Metro apps from the store.

I have to agree. So far I haven't seen anything in Windows 8 that would warrant an upgrade on a desktop or notebook without touch screen.

.Neo said,
I have to agree. So far I haven't seen anything in Windows 8 that would warrant an upgrade on a desktop or notebook without touch screen.

Thank you. Those of use using PCs with keyboards and mice will have to wait until Windows-9. The whole aspect of intensive keyboard data entry has been so conveniently sidestepped by Windows-8.

TsarNikky said,

Thank you. Those of use using PCs with keyboards and mice will have to wait until Windows-9. The whole aspect of intensive keyboard data entry has been so conveniently sidestepped by Windows-8.

Windows 9 ? It will be touch only with no option for classic GUI at all.

OS X was $129 when it first came out, all updates thereafter were $29,95

Windows 8 is a major version, so a price of around $129 isn't unreasonable.

Neobond said,
OS X was $129 when it first came out, all updates thereafter were $29,95

Wrong. All Mac OS X versions up until Leopard were $129. OS X Snow Leopard was the very first release priced at $29. You should keep in mind that every new OS X version to date has been a major version as well, just like XP/Vista/7 were.

Beyond slapping on the Metro UI which is convenient for tablets/slates I honestly don't see the appeal of Windows 8 for conventional desktop and notebook PC owners.

Edited by .Neo, Feb 5 2012, 3:29pm :

While I don't think they should make it free (or anywhere under 100$), I do think that Microsoft should/will make this version a LOT cheaper since they'll be collecting money from the app Marketplace.

Either something like $59.99 for the home edition and $119.99 for the business edition. or $99.99 for the home edition and $199.99 for business.

I liked it when I was going though college and I found out in one of my computer classes that you can get XP for only $20. And yes full version XP pro.

.. now if windows 8 was only $20-50, Id buy it in a heartbeat and install it on every computer I have.

I'm not paying for it if its over $50.... Win7 does me just fine and they will likely shuttle over some of the additions to win 8 to win7 in the next Service Pack.

I personally would think a good starting point would be something like the following.

Tablet
$49.99 First Edition (not actual name, obviously)

Home Premium
Upgrade: $79.99-$129.99
Full: $119.99-$169.99

Professional
Upgrade: $99.99-$149.99
Full: $139.99-$189.99

Ultimate
Upgrade: $129.99-$179.99
Full: $199.99-$249.99

I think those would be acceptable prices for me. Those prices are listen in Canadian. The higher prices being launch. Because the tablet edition will probably be similar to Home Premium and Windows 8 will probably be Microsoft's first official tablet OS (correct me if I'm wrong), it should come in one edition that allows for both clean installs and upgrades.

Considering most people will buy a new Windows 8 PC, the issue comes mainly down to upgrade pricing. I think $200 for upgrade is reasonable.

I always get genuine Windows free from somewhere (can't tell or you would grab it too) so it doesn't matter to me. But Microsoft is late to the "successful tablet" party so to keep the price of the tablet down, at least OEM Windows should be cheap. It may be a monopoly in the PC market, but there's competition from Android and iPad in the tablet segment. Still Windows 7 and Xbox 360 S 250 GB more or less priced the same? Then Windows definitely seems expensive to me; it should be somewhere around $150-$170. Windows is a system, an essential one for running your computer. Xbox 360 is a more exotic thing.

I don't think there should be one edition either. Two is perfect - Consumer/Home and Professional.

Wow, really?

So far Less than 100 is the top result?

Why? Are Neowin readers this daft?

Do you want Microsoft to cripple themselves and just give it away, and put out crap like Google does, or would your rather they do like Apple and tie it to hardware profits, and make ya buy Microsoft computers?

(Google also makes a lot of money from Android on the information they use from the users, as a gmail account is required, and they track all the crap you do and sell this information. And yet Android is still one of the all time worst OS models and implementations with commercial success in history. OSes in the 1980s were more advanced in memory management virtualization, process threading & scheduling.)

Seriously, OS technology is not easy, especially when you are considering the most complex OS or piece of software ever written. Windows 7 currently holds this honor.

Should Microsoft 'save' money to make it cheaper, by removing features, security, stability?

Windows isn't even the best 'profit' stream for Microsoft, as the net profits are less than Office because of the development complexity. When you are computing just the 'retail' version sales, Windows loses Microsoft money.

OEM Windows Ultimate prices are lower than the 'retail' price, and the Home version is already under 100 for OEMs. (The OEM prices are just under the 'upgrade' prices.) Heck OEMs can buy the crippled 'starter' version for around 15, and rumor has it, the ARM version will close to the 20 range for OEMs.

Besides, who buying a retail copy of Windows isn't doing an Upgrade anyway? Nobody but the hobbyist that builds their own PCs, and they can buy the OEM version, or the Upgrade version if they are retiring their old system and don't want to special order the OEM version cheaper.

The only argument people try to make that Windows should be cheaper are from 'idiots' that have talked about hardware costs going down and Windows always staying about the same, especially the idiots saying this stuff in the DOJ Anti-trust testimony.

Hardware has gotten cheaper, but it has also held about the same price for the mean level of performance at any given time.

Hardware production and development has also gotten less complex, and as new technologies came along.

Ask the Microsoft Hardware Engineers that designed the GPU in the XBox 360, and helped ARM, and helped AMD and Intel with APU an SoC technologies. They created the 'core' architecture model that all GPUs use today, and both Intel and AMD are using their ideas in the APU/SoC technologies.

They are a fairly small team especially compared to the mass amount of people need to design, build, and test just he core OS of Windows alone. Does this mean Windows is bloated, no the opposite, as optimization costs money.

Also the technologies are beyond what other OSes like Linux or OS X even attempt. One simple concept, the PAC technologies in Windows 7, that most people have never heard of, would make a rather large book just describing what it does and how it works technically.

We are finally at a place that 'crashes' on PCs are a thing of the past, and if you have 'crashes, even in applications, 99.99% of the time, you have bad/failing hardware. Why would we want Microsoft to spend less on developing Windows, especially when the PC Makers absorb the licensing costs and we never buy a copy of Windows ourselves.


I am truly shocked this is what the 'popular' opinion is.

simrat said,

I always enjoy reading your comments!

True, I always learn 10x more from his comments than from a news article. That's why he should become a news writer here too

thenetavenger said,
Wow, really?
Yes.

thenetavenger said,

So far Less than 100 is the top result?

Yes.

thenetavenger said,

Why? Are Neowin readers this daft?

Neowin readers are customers.

thenetavenger said,

Do you want Microsoft to cripple themselves and just give it away, and put out crap like Google does, or would your rather they do like Apple and tie it to hardware profits, and make ya buy Microsoft computers?

No, but customers don't like to pay too much. Free = best.

thenetavenger said,

(Google also makes a lot of money from Android on the information they use from the users, as a gmail account is required, and they track all the crap you do and sell this information. And yet Android is still one of the all time worst OS models and implementations with commercial success in history. OSes in the 1980s were more advanced in memory management virtualization, process threading & scheduling.)

Off topic, but 100% true. Google is scum, more than Microsoft even.

thenetavenger said,

Seriously, OS technology is not easy, especially when you are considering the most complex OS or piece of software ever written. Windows 7 currently holds this honor.

Customer doesn't give a **** about OS technology.

thenetavenger said,

Should Microsoft 'save' money to make it cheaper, by removing features, security, stability?

Should we stop using warm water, soap and shampoo while taking a bath?

thenetavenger said,

Windows isn't even the best 'profit' stream for Microsoft, as the net profits are less than Office because of the development complexity. When you are computing just the 'retail' version sales, Windows loses Microsoft money.

Again off-topic.

Windows isn't the *main* profit stream for Microsoft *anymore* because demand for Windows has been plummeting.

thenetavenger said,

OEM Windows Ultimate prices are lower than the 'retail' price, and the Home version is already under 100 for OEMs. (The OEM prices are just under the 'upgrade' prices.) Heck OEMs can buy the crippled 'starter' version for around 15, and rumor has it, the ARM version will close to the 20 range for OEMs.

Off-topic. The topic we're looking for is what customers want the price to be.

thenetavenger said,

Besides, who buying a retail copy of Windows isn't doing an Upgrade anyway? Nobody but the hobbyist that builds their own PCs, and they can buy the OEM version, or the Upgrade version if they are retiring their old system and don't want to special order the OEM version cheaper.

The only argument people try to make that Windows should be cheaper are from 'idiots' that have talked about hardware costs going down and Windows always staying about the same, especially the idiots saying this stuff in the DOJ Anti-trust testimony.

Hardware has gotten cheaper, but it has also held about the same price for the mean level of performance at any given time.

Hardware production and development has also gotten less complex, and as new technologies came along.

Ask the Microsoft Hardware Engineers that designed the GPU in the XBox 360, and helped ARM, and helped AMD and Intel with APU an SoC technologies. They created the 'core' architecture model that all GPUs use today, and both Intel and AMD are using their ideas in the APU/SoC technologies.

They are a fairly small team especially compared to the mass amount of people need to design, build, and test just he core OS of Windows alone. Does this mean Windows is bloated, no the opposite, as optimization costs money.

Also the technologies are beyond what other OSes like Linux or OS X even attempt. One simple concept, the PAC technologies in Windows 7, that most people have never heard of, would make a rather large book just describing what it does and how it works technically.

We are finally at a place that 'crashes' on PCs are a thing of the past, and if you have 'crashes, even in applications, 99.99% of the time, you have bad/failing hardware. Why would we want Microsoft to spend less on developing Windows, especially when the PC Makers absorb the licensing costs and we never buy a copy of Windows ourselves.


I am truly shocked this is what the 'popular' opinion is.

And a lot more of the off-topic nonsense.

What you miss is the part about how much longer will the OEMs will bear the burden of paying Microsoft when there are worthy options popping up everyday? Windows's days are numbered if they price stays as high as Windows 7. Microsoft needs a new pony.

Good day.

Edited by Jebadiah, Feb 5 2012, 2:28pm :

thenetavenger said,
Wow, really?

In none of that very long post did you actually analyze whether Microsoft could still make a healthy profit if Windows was priced cheaper. Or if adoption would be quicker if it was priced cheaper, leading to a greater short term profit --- The more products you sell, the cheaper you can price them, basic supply and demand.

You seem to be focused on how "fair" the price is, while this isn't about fair, this is about good business practices.

devxweb said,
They will definitely lower the prices so as to face the tough competition right now...

You're joking right? What exactly is the competition for Windows in OS? OSX? Give me break.

I'm not very excited for Win 8, so I wouldn't want to pay a huge amount for it. But in the end, I don't care since I'll get it on MSDN anyway.

Could care less how much retail versions will be, I buy/sell only OEM versions (from Newegg and such) so that's what matters to me. Those "in the know" likely also only care about the OEM pricing.

ir0nw0lf said,
Could care less how much retail versions will be, I buy/sell only OEM versions (from Newegg and such) so that's what matters to me. Those "in the know" likely also only care about the OEM pricing.

Couldn't care less*
If you could care less, you do care at least somewhat.

mrp04 said,

Couldn't care less*
If you could care less, you do care at least somewhat.


"Thank you," the coffee had not kicked in yet when I typed that. Always good to know the spelling/grammar police are on call 24/7 around here. *rolls eyes*

I could see the OS being very cheap... even free for consumers. The app store will make boat loads of money. Interesting to see how it unfolds.

I personally think Windows on average is FAIRLY priced if you look at cost/usage rations.

That doesn't mean that it is COMPETITIVELY priced. Consumers see the cost of an OS as an "extra" not "part of the computer". This is why it would be unfair of me to make the OSX/Windows cost comparisons, as OSX is marketed much more as "part of the product", for the obvious reason!

ill buy the Pro edition for 50 bucks.. But i hope there are no editions. Only one for consumers. And another for business.

First off I hope Microsoft can finally simplify the tiering system with Windows 8. No need for 4 different consumer versions.
Windows 8 Consumer upgrade and full, (home, small business , and business) businesses could have the option at intall to turn off the impressive desktop
Windows 8 Pro (enterprise) upgrade and full

If they could do under $100 for the Consumer upgrade I think that will win over a lot of people especially if its around $50 like Apple. Then again in the past pricing has been higher because a newer version of Windows has felt like a full overhaul, compared to something like OS X and Snow Leopard.

wv@gt said,
First off I hope Microsoft can finally simplify the tiering system with Windows 8. No need for 4 different consumer versions.
Windows 8 Consumer upgrade and full, (home, small business , and business) businesses could have the option at intall to turn off the impressive desktop
Windows 8 Pro (enterprise) upgrade and full

If they could do under $100 for the Consumer upgrade I think that will win over a lot of people especially if its around $50 like Apple. Then again in the past pricing has been higher because a newer version of Windows has felt like a full overhaul, compared to something like OS X and Snow Leopard.

There are 3 consumer versions, and really two considering that no one really needs ultimate.

$0 - Home Edition
$75 - Professional
$150 - Ultimate

Microsoft are going to have an app store for Windows and stand to make big money, the basic OS should be free, so that they get it out to as many places as possible.

If you need more advanced features then you could pay the associated licence fees for those technologies (RDP, BitLocker, etc). It stands to reason that if you want features like RDP or Active Directory then you could just purchase it in the Windows Market anyway.

Mark said,
Price it like Apple prices OSX and you'll get a lot more people obtaining it legitimately.

I think $100 for a home edition, 200 for a business, and 300+ for an enterprise. There are a LOT of complex features that warrant the extra cost, and which are nothing for businesses.

Mark said,
Price it like Apple prices OSX and you'll get a lot more people obtaining it legitimately.

BTW, how does Apple price OSX?
If I've got an old OS9 computer, how would I upgrade?

Matthew_Thepc said,

BTW, how does Apple price OSX?
If I've got an old OS9 computer, how would I upgrade?

You buy a second hand copy os OSX that still runs on PPC hardware. For a new copy on any mac past the 2006 intel switch, it's £20 so I don't imagine people would at any point complain about not having a unique upgrade only option...

Mark said,

You buy a second hand copy os OSX that still runs on PPC hardware. For a new copy on any mac past the 2006 intel switch, it's £20 so I don't imagine people would at any point complain about not having a unique upgrade only option...


thanks

UseLess said,

I think $100 for a home edition, 200 for a business, and 300+ for an enterprise. There are a LOT of complex features that warrant the extra cost, and which are nothing for businesses.

Like what? a bad screen capturing app, an awful cmd, an awful aero colour picker, an awful builtin text editor. You spend more on 3rd party apps for features, that should have been builtin. Until Microsoft offers better builtin applications, rather than relying on 3rd party. It doesn't deserve the insane prices, that it has always been priced at. That is why people pirate it, because companies charge you too much for something that offers to damn little. Then pay a ton more for 3rd party stuff.

Mark said,
Price it like Apple prices OSX and you'll get a lot more people obtaining it legitimately.

Unfortunately that's highly unlikely to happen. The development costs for Windows are much much higher than OSX. Don't forget that OSX has a single pre-defined hardware platform to work on (for the most part). Windows has literally MILLIONS of combinations of hardware items it has to work on.

TCLN Ryster said,

Unfortunately that's highly unlikely to happen. The development costs for Windows are much much higher than OSX. Don't forget that OSX has a single pre-defined hardware platform to work on (for the most part). Windows has literally MILLIONS of combinations of hardware items it has to work on.

I understand that and see that it is a problem. It's surprising how much a little 3rd party effort gets OSX working on standard hardware though.

Also, the extra cost could easily be recouped with app store sales.

Mark said,

I understand that and see that it is a problem. It's surprising how much a little 3rd party effort gets OSX working on standard hardware though.

Also, the extra cost could easily be recouped with app store sales.


agreed with the last part, IMO the app Marketplace is going to be the real determining factor in the final price of Windows 8.

asfaltas said,
if microsoft down prices to 100max or less will be no piracy at all I THINK

You think incorrectly.

asfaltas said,
if microsoft down prices to 100max or less will be no piracy at all I THINK

People pirate 99 cent apps.

For Upgrades from Vista/7:
Home Edition = £15
Professional = £50

Fresh install (not upgrade)
Home Edition = £30
Professional = £50

DJGM said,
For Upgrades from Vista/7:
Home Edition = £15
Professional = £50

Fresh install (not upgrade)
Home Edition = £30
Professional = £50


Your maths don't make sense. Why would Home be double the cost for the full version, yet full Professional be the same price as the upgrade?

David085 said,
upgrade $29.00 like Snow Leopard, and Lion, and full $59.99

With the purchase of a new PC, that's about what you pay for Windows... and you even get the service packs for free.

David085 said,
upgrade $29.00 like Snow Leopard, and Lion, and full $59.99

No. You already paid around 400 US for the OS, so it's normal they offer you "the magical price". Why do you think Macs are so expensive?

David085 said,
upgrade $29.00 like Snow Leopard, and Lion, and full $59.99

eh, but Snow Leopard and Lion aren't really new OSs...just service packs

Matthew_Thepc said,

eh, but Snow Leopard and Lion aren't really new OSs...just service packs

Yoo Daaawg! Pass me some of the troll sauce!!!

Glassed Silver:ios

Glassed Silver said,

Yoo Daaawg! Pass me some of the troll sauce!!!

Glassed Silver:ios


sry, I normally try to keep my self from trolling.....been pretty tired today, don't know what's come over me

Matthew_Thepc said,

sry, I normally try to keep my self from trolling.....been pretty tired today, don't know what's come over me

That's okay!
I'm used to better from you, I figured it would be one of those fail-5-minutes!

Your openness and seeing the misstep make it okay.
Better than that, it inspired me to create that wonderful one-line joke probably only found funny by myself!

GS:ios

coth said,
Ultimate was priced ~$970 ID in Russia comparing to $320 ID in US.
I wonder why there is so much piracy in Russia /s

Tesco priced Windows 7 Home Premium for £49 when it first came out - they quickly sold out as at that price it becomes an impulse purchase. With Windows 8 looking so different and having a design knock-on effect for the rest of the Microsoft range (WP8, Xbox etc) they'd do well to price it cheap and get as many out there as possible. If they do this people are more likely to buy the other MS products due to familiarity.

Voted less than 100... I really don't care about the Ultimate version price. I would buy the Home Premium for the right price. (or, if I think like a child, I won't settle for anything less than the Ultimate)

Who will pay 400€ or more for a graphic card? What is more important and need more development? Windows or a graphic card? I am not sure if I will buy it, after I test the puplic preview, but the retail price for Win 7 was okay.
Another point here is, in my opinion, how many would cost the full retail version, if there would be no student, system builder, upgrade, ... (all other cheapened) versions?

Lastwebpage said,
I am not sure if I will buy it, after I test the puplic preview, but the retail price for Win 7 was okay.

What public preview? There hasn't been a public preview. It was a developer preview to demonstrate the underlying technologies to developers so they could start developing apps. It was not intended to demonstrate the product to consumers. The "Consumer Preview" is due out later this month.

TCLN Ryster said,

The "Consumer Preview" is due out later this month.

Yeap, that's what I mean, I will decide after this preview if I will buy it or not.

I would say $100 for Ultimate. I think charging more than that is bloody ludacrious. Just because they can charge $400 for Ultimate and get away with it from suckers. It doesn't mean they should milk the economy dry.

KomaWeiss said,
I would say $100 for Ultimate. I think charging more than that is bloody ludacrious. Just because they can charge $400 for Ultimate and get away with it from suckers. It doesn't mean they should milk the economy dry.

Who really needs ultimate? Barely anyone. Most user are fine with home premium and power users can get pro. You only need to consider the upgrade prices at the store, too. No should be buying the full version at the store. If you built a computer and want to install the full version, just get the OEM copy when buying your parts, it's far cheaper.

The only people who would be buying the full version at retail would be mac users, so whatever.

mrp04 said,

Who really needs ultimate? Barely anyone. Most user are fine with home premium and power users can get pro. You only need to consider the upgrade prices at the store, too. No should be buying the full version at the store. If you built a computer and want to install the full version, just get the OEM copy when buying your parts, it's far cheaper.

The only people who would be buying the full version at retail would be mac users, so whatever.

Agreed, since I have multiple backups and don't care about encryption, I hardly find a use for Bitlocker, which is Win7 Ultimate main power-horse.

$200/250, even $300 could be right if...... It is the Best Edition, MS will still offer a discounted price ($149/199) per upgrade.

Frankenchrist said,
They should pay us for forcing Metro on us.
Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, let alone forcing you to even use Windows at all.

Frankenchrist said,
They should pay us for forcing Metro on us.

Nor forcing you to even stay in Metro for that matter.

Frankenchrist said,
They should pay us for forcing Metro on us.

Overpriced Mac Pro over there ->
<- The year of Linux over here

No one is forcing you. Give it a try you just might be shocked to realize how painless it is.

Frankenchrist said,
They should pay us for forcing Metro on us.

Hah! .

Nobody is forcing you. At any time you could kill 80% of it's new features and bring back the old taskbar with a regsvr command.

Frankenchrist said,
They should pay us for forcing Metro on us.

Don't worry, if sales don't meet expectations, that is exactly what MS will do. Even if they don't pay the customers directly (which they actually might by offering a WP7 free, etc), they will pay someone to push it into the customer's hands, like they are doing now with WP7.

recursive said,

Don't worry, if sales don't meet expectations, that is exactly what MS will do. Even if they don't pay the customers directly (which they actually might by offering a WP7 free, etc), they will pay someone to push it into the customer's hands, like they are doing now with WP7.


Yeah because all those Windows Phone 7 devices were forced into their owner's hands against their will.

Between $100 and $199 is a good price for the Ultimate version. Then, the home edition will be less than $100.

But I won't get Windows 8. I'll skip this one, I don't like it.

Adrian0E said,
Between $100 and $199 is a good price for the Ultimate version. Then, the home edition will be less than $100.

But I won't get Windows 8. I'll skip this one, I don't like it.

That's like saying you don't like tomato ketchup, when you've not actually tried it.

You have NOT tried Windows 8 yet, nobody outside of MS has. What we've had is a cut down, feature limited, shell of a product that was never intended to be tried by you or I.

But don't let common sense get in the way of a good bashing.

WinA said,
Whet ever price will be im not buying Win8.

I will skip Win8 like Vista.

That's ok, we all felt sorry for XP users when we were running Vista and mutli-tasking games, and hitting one key to search 1 million documents on our computer instantly, etc...

I'm glad you finally got to Windows 7 though, but having not 'used' Vista, there are probably a lot of things you could be doing on Windows 7 you missed out on, because they were old news since they already existed in Vista.

I'm being serious, I find that users that jump XP to Windows7 use Windows 7 more like XP rather than take advantage of the cool things Vista first offered that made things so much faster and easier in just daily use.

One example is hitting the Windows Key and just typing cal and hitting enter to open the calculator, using the search technologies, or hitting the Windows key and typing things like:
email joe smoo
music lady gaga
*Which when you hit enter, selects 'show everything' and you get a dynamic search folder of just Music by Lada Gaga, which is essentially a playlist. You can then hit the Save Search button to put this on your desktop.

The next thing if you are a power user, there is a full SQL-Like syntax to the search technologies, that can do amazing things to easily find pictures, people, even recorded voice notes, or text in TIFF images that Windows OCRs.

Vista's only fault was shipping before NVidia and ATI their drivers together, and demanding a bit more Memory and CPU than people expected. Vista was far more advanced than XP, stable, secure, and if you had 1GB of RAM, faster.
(Ironicaly Android on a freaking phone, has the same memory requirements as Vista, and yet this is overlook by the same press that was so critical of Vista. )

PS Don't rule out Windows 8 yet, so many people know so little about it, and the idiots are the ones that are the most vocal, having little to know understanding of the actual facts they do have.

Take Care...

Any feature Win7 has now, came out for XP as another program.

Launchy, for instance.

As for Android requirements, don't be absurd. Vista is a DOG with only 1GB or RAM. Win7 is better, but still requires 2GB at least to be fairly speedy.

Please Microsoft, simplify the Windows product range, don't have a gazillion versions of Windows. Just have 3 at the most (for the desktop version). You could have it like this:

1. Consumer
2. Small Business/Professional
3. Enterprise

.. and none of this upgrade bs as well.

sam232 said,
Please Microsoft, simplify the Windows product range, don't have a gazillion versions of Windows. Just have 3 at the most (for the desktop version). You could have it like this:

1. Consumer
2. Small Business/Professional
3. Enterprise

.. and none of this upgrade bs as well.


No upgrade? You aren't the center of the world.

Same goes for the multiple version of Windows, especially for Windows Server. Do you really want company to pay the same price for the core edition and datacenter edition? Don't be ridiculous.

Anthonyd said,

No upgrade? You aren't the center of the world.

Same goes for the multiple version of Windows, especially for Windows Server. Do you really want company to pay the same price for the core edition and datacenter edition? Don't be ridiculous.

Did you read my post in its entirety? or did you just deliberately ignore the "(for the DESKTOP version)" part so you could twist it around so you could unleash your pathetic little suppressed anger on some random person on the internet?

..and what the hell is being the centre of the world go to do with not wanting an upgrade edition. Again read above. Boy do you fail hard.

Don't be delusional.

sam232 said,
Please Microsoft, simplify the Windows product range, don't have a gazillion versions of Windows. Just have 3 at the most (for the desktop version). You could have it like this:

1. Consumer
2. Small Business/Professional
3. Enterprise

.. and none of this upgrade bs as well.


Didn't they already do this, 3 years ago when Windows 7 was released?

As I recall, Windows 7 has just 3 editions available to buy at retail. Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate (known as Enterprise for the corporate sector, with different licensing terms, etc).

Also, no upgrade "bs"? So you'd much rather pay full price for your copy of Windows each time? Or would like to have your cake and eat it too and have them set the price of the full copy at the upgrade price level?

TCLN Ryster said,

Didn't they already do this, 3 years ago when Windows 7 was released?

As I recall, Windows 7 has just 3 editions available to buy at retail. Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate (known as Enterprise for the corporate sector, with different licensing terms, etc).

Firstly Thank you for your rational response unlike this Anthonyd fellow.

Windows 7 had a total of 6 editions. If Enterprise was different in any way to Ultimate then that still counts as another version. Your average non tech consumer should only be exposed to one version max.


TCLN Ryster said,

Also, no upgrade "bs"? So you'd much rather pay full price for your copy of Windows each time? Or would like to have your cake and eat it too and have them set the price of the full copy at the upgrade price level?

They would have to adjust the price, again with my point about the non tech user, now I'm no Apple fanboy (I hate Apple with a passion) but it should work like buying a new copy of Snow Leopard or something, go out and buy ONE version and have the option of installing in clean or upgrade.

sam232 said,

Firstly Thank you for your rational response unlike this Anthonyd fellow.

Windows 7 had a total of 6 editions. If Enterprise was different in any way to Ultimate then that still counts as another version. Your average non tech consumer should only be exposed to one version max.


They would have to adjust the price, again with my point about the non tech user, now I'm no Apple fanboy (I hate Apple with a passion) but it should work like buying a new copy of Snow Leopard or something, go out and buy ONE version and have the option of installing in clean or upgrade.

The average person at the store is only exposed to home premium, pro, and ultimate. You can't buy the other versions at the store and the consumer doesn't really need to worry about them. It's pretty simple, too. The version comparison on the back tells you everything you need to know. Do you need remote desktop and domain joining? Don't even know what they are? Then go home premium.

sam232 said,

Windows 7 had a total of 6 editions. If Enterprise was different in any way to Ultimate then that still counts as another version. Your average non tech consumer should only be exposed to one version max.

Although I agree it is good to have minimal versions; I think the average consumer should be exposed to two versions. We have two editions directed toward the regular home user, Home Premium and Ultimate. Because we have the home based business/small business customers coming from the same place the home users are, you have to have a editions for them. So as it stands, I think it's correct the way they're doing it. The average person walking into a Best Buy or other store won't see the other editions so it doesn't really count in the context people are speaking about here.

sam232 said,
Please Microsoft, simplify the Windows product range, don't have a gazillion versions of Windows. Just have 3 at the most (for the desktop version). You could have it like this:

1. Consumer
2. Small Business/Professional
3. Enterprise

.. and none of this upgrade bs as well.


woooh...."upgrade bs"?
so you wanna buy a full version just to upgrade from 7 to 8 when you could pay like half price for an upgrade version?? i don't think so...

sam232 said,

Firstly Thank you for your rational response unlike this Anthonyd fellow.

Windows 7 had a total of 6 editions. If Enterprise was different in any way to Ultimate then that still counts as another version. Your average non tech consumer should only be exposed to one version max.


They would have to adjust the price, again with my point about the non tech user, now I'm no Apple fanboy (I hate Apple with a passion) but it should work like buying a new copy of Snow Leopard or something, go out and buy ONE version and have the option of installing in clean or upgrade.


I've never met an 'average user' who's been exposed to more than one version of Windows 7 (Home Premium)

Anthonyd said,

No upgrade? You aren't the center of the world.

Same goes for the multiple version of Windows, especially for Windows Server. Do you really want company to pay the same price for the core edition and datacenter edition? Don't be ridiculous.

I'd *somewhat* agree, but strip it down to three SKUs:

1. Premium (replaces both Home Premium and Business) and would be the *floor* upgrade version. (Yes - it would replace Home Basic. Starter would become emerging-markets exclusive, entirely due to price and hardware- capabilities in those markets.)
2. Enterprise (replaces today's 7 Enterprise) and would be SA/AA-exclusive. It would not be available via System Builder.
2. Ultimate would remain the flagship of Windows, be available in upgrade, full-version retail, OEM/System Builder and DVD/CAL license packs [SMBs], and via SA/AA. Pricing for all except full-version retail would remain as is - however, full-version retail would be sold at fifteen percent below the current price for 7 Ultimate (a concession to the poor economy).

Okay - why no more Home Basic? Simple, really; that whole hardware category has gone away - worse, most hardware in the category today is perfectly capable of running (Home) Premium.

Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?

Precisely.

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?


^ This. Such a nonsense question IMHO.

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

Alternatively, people could actually think about it and not vote like children

Scorpus said,

Alternatively, people could actually think about it and not vote like children


this is the internet, most people act like children here

Scorpus said,
Alternatively, people could actually think about it and not vote like children

Unreasonable expectation. Sadly.

Scorpus said,

Alternatively, people could actually think about it and not vote like children

Have you been to Neowin before?

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?

Id actually want the Veyron to be worth millions or else every Tom, Dick and Harry would own one. That car is an ultra luxury item not an OS that Microsoft wants the masses to adopt.

Why not make Windows 8 very affordable so people will take to it ?

seanseany said,

Id actually want the Veyron to be worth millions or else every Tom, Dick and Harry would own one. That car is an ultra luxury item not an OS that Microsoft wants the masses to adopt.

Why not make Windows 8 very affordable so people will take to it ?

You do know that at those high prices, Microsoft/Windows has been doing just fine. I think they can make it a bit more affordable but not like what everyone's voting. We have to be realistic.

seanseany said,

Id actually want the Veyron to be worth millions or else every Tom, Dick and Harry would own one. That car is an ultra luxury item not an OS that Microsoft wants the masses to adopt.

Why not make Windows 8 very affordable so people will take to it ?

They could make it cheap. But there are various reasons for people not to upgrade it.
From my point of view:

- First of all, people (except Mac Users) tend to upgrade their OS with a new PC.

- Second, Windows 8 will be touch-based, so unless you don't have a touch input, you won't be taking advantage of it. (This reason can be debated a lot; we are yet to see what MS has stored for us in the Consumer Preview).

- Third, Windows 7 is a very solid OS combining the beautiful Aero + a very responsive and fast UI.
People, did pay for Windows 7 without making a full PC upgrade, because they fell Vista was awful: very slow times, crashes, and unresponsiveness (We all know that it was fixed after the first SP, and after PC debuted powerful enough to support it). With Win7 you could experience Aero with much more smoothness and the new superbar.

- Fourth, people won't find the need to upgrade their old machine (4+ years), even though Win 8 runs lightning fast on old hardware and we take into consideration they make it cheap, say 100 US$. Why? Well, it is very probable, that you can get an ARM tablet, with more or less the same power than your 4 year old or older machine at a slightly higher price. Even todays netbooks can defy a computer from 2008 (considering it was not a beast at that time).

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?


I'd like it free, please!

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?


Agreed. Silly.

Jose_49 said,

They could make it cheap. But there are various reasons for people not to upgrade it.
From my point of view:

- First of all, people (except Mac Users) tend to upgrade their OS with a new PC.

- Second, Windows 8 will be touch-based, so unless you don't have a touch input, you won't be taking advantage of it. (This reason can be debated a lot; we are yet to see what MS has stored for us in the Consumer Preview).

- Third, Windows 7 is a very solid OS combining the beautiful Aero + a very responsive and fast UI.
People, did pay for Windows 7 without making a full PC upgrade, because they fell Vista was awful: very slow times, crashes, and unresponsiveness (We all know that it was fixed after the first SP, and after PC debuted powerful enough to support it). With Win7 you could experience Aero with much more smoothness and the new superbar.

- Fourth, people won't find the need to upgrade their old machine (4+ years), even though Win 8 runs lightning fast on old hardware and we take into consideration they make it cheap, say 100 US$. Why? Well, it is very probable, that you can get an ARM tablet, with more or less the same power than your 4 year old or older machine at a slightly higher price. Even todays netbooks can defy a computer from 2008 (considering it was not a beast at that time).

Upgrade pricing could be a little lower after all, (despite you repeating the nonsense comment about it being touch-screen-only) to get those running 7 or earlier off the fence. If not, consider *better* advertising of the System Builder program (despite appearances at BYOPC-focussed events; hats off to Microsoft Mid Atlantic for their appearances at most MarketPro computer shows in their marketing region) - even in the majority of the BYO space, ignorance of the benefits of System Builder, especially on the software side, is woefully *high*.

Scorpus said,

Alternatively, people could actually think about it and not vote like children

How are customers "children" for asking for something to be free or cheap? What else did you expect?

Seems like you're the one acting like a child for posting a survey to the wrong crowd. You should really be asking the seller - Microsoft.

FoxieFoxie said,
Of course everyone will vote for the lowest amount possible.

It's like asking: would you like to buy Bugatti Veyron for 2.4 million or 10 USD?

They can still make a good profit with it at a lower amount, and it would encourage adoption -- which by the way would also bring up profit margins in the mean time, since greater adoption = more sales. Short term anyway, since I'm sure they know they'll make money in the long term no matter what.

Personally, I think a lot of people are stuck on the idea that Windows is "worth" a certain amount, and so its "fair" for it to cost more than $100. Personally, I don't think it makes sense. Apple of course gets away with charging a lot for minor upgrades, because Apple products are marketed as "premium" products. But Microsoft doesn't need to play that game.

mdtaUK said,
£50 for the average version, and £120 for the business/enterprise edition.

It's possible if they make you buy hardware from them like Apple.

tuneslover said,

It's possible if they make you buy hardware from them like Apple.

That's probably about what it costs if you buy it with a new PC anyway.

tuneslover said,

It's possible if they make you buy hardware from them like Apple.


In this case they do have the Store and Microsoft services that they want to get people into for more profits though.

BoyBoppins said,

In this case they do have the Store and Microsoft services that they want to get people into for more profits though.

Yes but they don't make PC/Laptop like apple. They sells other's hardware in their store.