Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cuts Vista Price In 70 Countries
dforristall alerts us to an odd move by Microsoft: cutting the price of retail boxes of Vista in many markets. Analysts didn't see this one coming, and they are scratching their heads a bit over it; one called it "very unheard of." The price cuts vary by country — they're largest in the developing world where piracy levels are high — and they don't apply to OEM copies of Vista, which account for 90% of sales. "Gartner analyst Michael Silver said the move... is puzzling... [He] noted that the market for such upgrades is fairly limited. Those who bought XP in the fourth quarter of 2006 got a coupon for a free Vista upgrade, while most of those who have bought systems since then have gotten Vista. Machines purchased prior to 2006 probably aren't all that attractive as candidates for a Vista upgrade... 'The whole notion of upgrading PCs has sort of fallen by the wayside.'"
vista sp1. that is the only reason retail prices would drop. on a side note, maybe now they will get some more sales
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
No the idea of upgrading to Vista has fallen by the wayside.
I think that Apple actually sells a lot of upgrades.
I have not upgraded to Vista because of the cost to benefit ratio. For me it would be a lot of cost and probably a negative benefit.
I did upgrade from 95 to 98. I upgraded from 98 to 2000. I then upgraded to XP after a while because of the lack of games that said they would run under 2000.
XP isn't bad. as far as windows goes.
Notice that I didn't get Me or Vista.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
My computer used to be considered near the top of the pile...2.2 GHz Athlon64 overclocked to 2.7, 2 gigs of Corsair XMS DDR-400, a bios-modded x800, Dell 2005FPW (1680X1050)...even though for games coming out now, it's largely unusable (mainly due to the video card), it runs things like Battlefield 2 and World of Warcraft flawlessly. Seeing as most of my gaming has been done on consoles the past few years, I haven't had a need to upgrade my computer. Spore is actually what is going to cause me to take the dive and do it...but prior to that, I have no reason to.
My system can still browse the net with tons of tabs open, winamp playing, word open, and a few of other things. It's definitely no slouch, and (once again) were it not for spore I still wouldn't plan on doing anything to it.
The advances in speed were much greater in the late '90s/early 00's than they are now...granted, a top notch computer equal in monetary value of my computer when it was new are much faster than what I am using, what I am using is still a fairly decent machine...excellent, if you consider I don't play games on it that are more than two years young.
It's true. It's getting harder and harder to keep folks on the constant upgrade path. I don't know if that's because of changes in the age demographic and levels of disposable income, or what it is...all I know is that I'm MUCH less inclined to drop money every year into my tower than I used to be, even though I can afford it just as easy (if not easier...I'm not living at home like I was 4 years ago, but I'm working full time which I wasn't 4 years ago either. I turn 24 in April, for reference)
Living With a Nerd
Linux has hit that point where, it may not be the best in terms of a consumer operating system, but its often good enough, and installing it just works.
That statement there might be the scariest thing for Microsoft. Microsoft pretty much based their entire business around "good enough." If Linux is "good enough" also and has the added benefit of being free, then that will take sales away from Microsoft. That combines with Microsoft's main competition (their own older versions which are "good enough" for most people) to make for a really bad situation for Microsoft to be in.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
When Vista Ultimate upgrade costs almost $200 and Kubuntu 7.10 full costs $12 (if you don't feel like just downloading it) - it seems reasonable that some prices are going to have to come down somehwere.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
And that's why it makes sense. Dropping the price will not affect Microsoft's revenue. Yet they'll sell a few extra copies. They're hoping to sell it to people who are otherwise upgrading with unlicensed copies. Plus they probably think it'll help their public image.
Of course they could have just made a better product in the first place and not dropped the price, but we'll leave that discussion to other threads.
Developers: We can use your help.
Did I mention I'm a hoarder?
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
But what percent of people EVER install an operating system? Microsoft has the advantage of being "good enough" to not have people reinstall another operating system over top of them. That's all they need. Linux, however, needs to be "better enough" to force people to reinstall, or have someone reinstall, their OS.
I think there is something else going on with that demographic you mentioned earlier that's also germane. If that power user demographic played games they're not gaming as often on a PC. Their kid is playing a DS (tons of those have been sold), they're playing a 360 or a Wii. That demographic (I say that because my friends and I are in it) are largely buying cheap computers and running Ubuntu and then using the money we might have spent on Vista and a new graphics card on a new video game system.
In fact, you could make a pretty solid argument that Microsoft's success with the XBox has severely undercut the PC market. Take out a large chunk of gamers who are no longer upgrading their PCs to play the latest game and you're left with a few enthusiasts and everyone else is running a computer that's "just good enough". Vista is completely unnecessary. Oh, and they did a good job with XP, honestly. Good enough that most people seemingly see no reason to switch. Even if it's given to them.
Not necessarily. Linux is supplied with things like EEE PCs and we'll be seeing it on more and more phones and portable devices. It isn't going to storm big desktop PCs and full size laptops anytime soon but nonetheless devices capable of running general Linux apps are falling into more and more consumer hands. Furthermore, so-called "Linux Desktop" apps are becoming ever more polished and finding their way onto Windows installs. A multitude commonly using such apps would be very frightening for Microsoft. It sets up a situation where the next new computer might not need to run MS. It's what MS did to the old-line IT vendors as a young feisty company and a situation is developing where it could be done to them.
They are surprised because, as a monopoly, they didn't think fair market economics would show up on their line graphs.
As a person who has been in the industry about as long as Microsoft, I can honestly confirm that their entire business model was originally based on "very cheap and good enough". Later on, they relied on the fact that "everybody uses it". This made sense, as the original PCs were nothing special from a performance point of view. In the beginning, the IBM name was enough to create a de-facto standard.
From the very beginning, there were better alternatives to MS-DOS. Problem was, they were expensive and not viable on low-end hardware. Microsoft's attempts to move upscale have been a mixed bag. Apple did a better job [eventually] on the desktop, and Linux took over the low end of the spectrum (along with a huge threat on the server side and the possibility to go upscale on the desktop as well).
This brings us to where we are today -- a scary time to be Microsoft. As far as pricing is concerned, how low do they need to go if Linux is free? Is low pricing of any use against OS X? I doubt it.
It may be impossible for MS to maintain compatibility with the installed base AND go upscale at the same time. Either way, they are vulnerable to attack from competitors on all sides. From the customer point of view: If you have money to spend, OS X is great. If not, Linux is cheaper. Who needs Vista at any price?
Linux, however, needs to be "better enough" to force people to reinstall
It already is "better enough"; at least, the distro I'm using is. Unlike MS It's secure. Unlike MS it's stable. Unlike MS I can have the thing boot in exactly the state I left it in, with all the programs I was running when I shut it off running when I start it back up. Those are just a few things and there are a whole lot more advantages to Linux over Windows.
What Linux needs is for non-Linux users to be shown the advantages.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What's stopping you from getting rid of the unwanted icons on your desktop? I'm not an MS fan but I dunno what you're complaining about here - no OS that I've ever seen (well, apart from cut down stuff like the EEE PC) just has application icons and nothing else - you generally would have either the drives or a 'my computer' equivalent showing.
Most people generally find the ability to browse the internet, see pictures, play music etc quite useful. How exactly do you propose getting new apps onto your computer if you don't have some basic form of web browser anyway? Are you going to order everything on CD? Way to be traveling in the wrong direction..!
Oh, and Mac OS actually includes very good built in software for almost everything you said up there, apart from the drawing pictures (AFAIK). Personally I don't like iTunes though, so as well as Firefox and the GIMP, I downloaded VLC. I see no problem with any OS distribution including applications that can make the thing more useful though. If you don't want all that stuff in Windows, remove it in the Windows configuration bit in add/remove programs.
which is totally what she said
Instead of axing all those other features that were supposedly going to be in the Vista, they SHOULD have axed Activation and Windows Genuine "Advantage." Then I might have considered upgrading.
Until that happens, I'll continue using software that doesn't require me to "prove my innocence," and no amount of pricing cutting will make me think differently.
The only downgrade available from Vista is to CP/M-80. Anything else - even XP Toy (aka "Home") would be a *significant* upgrade, with major performance and usability improvements. And, in many circumstances, CP/M-80 will also deliver these, compared with Vista. See Mike Cox's MS rep for details.