Win 7 pricing


Recommended Posts

Has anyone heard or has Microsoft said if there will be any discount or such for users that bought Vista and now Windows 7 comes out. It cost a lot of money for some companies to switch to Vista, only to find out it was the Windows ME of the day?

Seems there should be something done for those who did take the plunge into Vista, dealt with all of the problems and issues until SP1, only to have what should have been what Windows 7 is now (even in beta, it's 100x's more stable and faster than Vista pre-SP1 ever was). I can't wait for the RTM to be out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but most of the forum is in a leaked-build-gone-sour tantrum and probably won't respond... ;) But no specifics have been announced beyond the different versions that will be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren' t gonna give any Vista customer any kind of deal and we'd get flamed for demanding one. I already have been, lol. I'm with ya though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but most of the forum is in a leaked-build-gone-sour tantrum and probably won't respond... ;) But no specifics have been announced beyond the different versions that will be available.

+1 ahahaa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't look for any "apology" pricing. The only time they've done anything remotely like it was when Windows ME came out it was very shortly after 98SE and for a short time there were 2 upgrade versions of ME. One version was for 98SE users and it was $50 and the one for everyone else was $79 if I remember correctly. I only remember the 98SE upgrade version being on the shelves for about 90 days or so after ME came out.

They'd probably increase the prices slightly if the economy was normal. In that light, I'd look for the pricing to be the same as Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

switch to Vista, only to find out it was the Windows ME of the day?

Windows ME - Did you ever use it?? Vista is by far the most stable and most secure OS Microsoft have ever released, Windows ME was an absolute pile of crap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pricing (for me) must be a lot lower than Vista's pricing. That OS didn't go well not to mention the "Ultimate" version that was the most promising, most of all because of the "EXTRAS" that where supposed to come later out and those users didn't get anything besides the Dreamscene, Bitlocker and one or two more apps for the 400$ pricing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on Neowin that there will be a free copy for those who purchase computers with Vista in a limited number of days before 7 ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows ME - Did you ever use it?? Vista is by far the most stable and most secure OS Microsoft have ever released, Windows ME was an absolute pile of crap!

ummm, yes I used it....and in no way, shape, or form was Vista (pre-SP1) more stable or secure....well secure maybe since no one was writing a virus for an operating system that less than 1% of computer users were using at the time. Vista (pre-SP1) sucked.....I would even say that out-of-the-box, ME is faster than Vista (pre-SP1). Remember all the networking and file transfer problems it had, plus the lack of drivers (not MS's fault)...when ME came out, all the drivers for Win95 and Win98se worked on ME.

Windows ME was launched in September of 2000, and then 13 months later (October 2001) XP was released.

Vista is today's ME, there is no denying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ummm, yes I used it....and in no way, shape, or form was Vista (pre-SP1) more stable or secure....well secure maybe since no one was writing a virus for an operating system that less than 1% of computer users were using at the time. Vista (pre-SP1) sucked.....I would even say that out-of-the-box, ME is faster than Vista (pre-SP1). Remember all the networking and file transfer problems it had, plus the lack of drivers (not MS's fault)...when ME came out, all the drivers for Win95 and Win98se worked on ME.

Windows ME was launched in September of 2000, and then 13 months later (October 2001) XP was released.

Vista is today's ME, there is no denying it.

Vista is not even close to being today's Me. many people have been using vista for 2.5 years without any issues or very minor ones if that. if anything, vista(NT6.0) is like 2000(NT5.0) - a relatively big upgrade from the previous version of windows

Me should not have even happened. at the point 2000 pro was out, and it seemed like they wanted to do a 2000 home edition, which instead they waited and released XP (NT5.1) in both pro and home. Me didnt last too long, and nothing was ever built on it again, whereas Vista(NT6.0) is the main reason win7(NT6.1) is as good as it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would 7 not be NT 7.0?

i guess thats what several of us were expecting before they announced all the details about 7. i guess it should really be called Vista R2, just like server 2008 R2 (which are both nt6.1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't put Vista in the name of this OS. I have Vista and its horribly slow compared to 7 on this old as dirt pc. END OF 7 vs VISTA, pls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me didnt last too long, and nothing was ever built on it again, whereas Vista(NT6.0) is the main reason win7(NT6.1) is as good as it is today.

That is my point.....Vista is not lasting that long either, with W_7 around the corner....and yes, some people have been using Vista for 2.5 years (from beta to now), as have I but what other operating system within the Windows family had that short of a life span? Win95 to Win98, Win98 to ME, ME to XP, XP to Vista? Vista to Win7....I think the answer is ME to XP, and second is Vista to Win7 (using end of 2009 as a launch date)?

Also, once Win_7 is launched, why would anything be built on Vista? Again, it's a crappy release, released too early in development, and not fully functional. XP was built from ME and really completed what ME should have been. Same with Vista...Win_7 will complete what Vista should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my point.....Vista is not lasting that long either, with W_7 around the corner....and yes, some people have been using Vista for 2.5 years (from beta to now), as have I but what other operating system within the Windows family had that short of a life span? Win95 to Win98, Win98 to ME, ME to XP, XP to Vista? Vista to Win7....I think the answer is ME to XP, and second is Vista to Win7 (using end of 2009 as a launch date)?

i understand what you are trying to say, but i really think you are incorrect. Your mentioning of XP being built from ME shows that you dont understand the details of the dos/win9x line from the NT line

we had 95,98,98SE,Me. during either 95 or 98's time, we had NT3.5 & NT4. NT4 had quite a long run before 2000(NT5) was released in early 2000. 2000 was released as 2000 pro, and they were working as well on windows neptune , which would have been a 2000 home edition. obviously this never went through, and in sept2000 they released winMe, an upgrade to 98. winXP(NT5.1, an upgrade built from win2000-NT5.0) went through betas, RCs, and finally rtm all during early to mid 2001. XP had nothing to do with Me. and it was a much faster upgrade to 2000 than 7 will be to vista. does that make 2000 a failure of any sort? i dont understand the whole details surrounding longhorn/vista/NT6.0, and why it hit RTM 5 years after XP was first launched. obviously they were trying to do more than was possible, and toward the end it was rushed. Vista definitely isnt perfect, but many of us have used it for 2.5 years since RTM, and it provided a great new look,feel compared to what seems a very outdated XP. Its quite obvious now as well, that W7(NT6.1) is taking the big changes that vista brought, and is simply improving, and adding to them. i think it'll RTM by the fall, which would make it nearly 3 years from Vista's RTM. I'd say to most of us it feels quite fast since vista came out, and thats probably because of how long XP lasted, which was definitely longer than they had planned.

Also, once Win_7 is launched, why would anything be built on Vista? Again, it's a crappy release, released too early in development, and not fully functional. XP was built from ME and really completed what ME should have been. Same with Vista...Win_7 will complete what Vista should have been.

sorry, but i cannot believe how inaccurate these few lines are.. do you think for each OS they completely start from scratch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are totally right, and I do remember it now (XP built from NT5 and ME was still on DOS NT4).

I think you are misunderstanding me though....I too have been using Vista for a long time, but it was not a good OS until the release of SP1 which was in Feb 2008. From that point, Vista has been what it was supposed to be. I compare the user experience between ME and Vista (pre-sp1) as the same...both had so many issues and were caught between OS releases. That is why there was never a ME SP1, cause they launched XP instead (thankfully). I am comparing that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cost a lot of money for some companies to switch to Vista, only to find out it was the Windows ME of the day?

I'm amazed by this line of thinking, I was on a netbook with XP the other day and after about 2 hours I just can't see what people are clinging too, Vista is better in so many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are totally right, and I do remember it now (XP built from NT5 and ME was still on DOS NT4).

I think you are misunderstanding me though....I too have been using Vista for a long time, but it was not a good OS until the release of SP1 which was in Feb 2008. From that point, Vista has been what it was supposed to be. I compare the user experience between ME and Vista (pre-sp1) as the same...both had so many issues and were caught between OS releases. That is why there was never a ME SP1, cause they launched XP instead (thankfully). I am comparing that...

i can respect that. you are feeling that during the first year of using vista it wasnt ready, and similar to how one would have experienced Me.

myself though, i thoroughly enjoyed vista from day 1. on many systems i never encountered issues of any kind. of course there are people who had issues, and those who didnt.

but even from a user experience, i really cannot compare the 2. Me was update to existing 95,98 line. Vista was a major upgrade of the NT line. whole new security model, completely new theme, effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....so no discount should be expected then I guess. Oh well, I use my technet keys anyway, so I guess I can consider that the discount I wanted to see.

That was a fun road trip through the past....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Profets,

Windows 7 RC is extremely stable and is as close to the "true" release as anyone is going to get right now. 7 offers advanced security, increased speed, enhanced performance, and so much more. To learn more and take 7 for a test drive today, head on over to Microsfot Springboard.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd361745.aspx

Jessica

Microsoft TechNet / Springboard

v-jedeen@microsoft.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.