Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Discloses Windows 7 Pricing

It's the tripnaut! writes "Information Week has posted prices for Windows 7. From the article: 'The full version of Windows 7 Home Premium is priced at $199, with an upgrade from Vista or XP costing $119. The full version of Windows 7 Professional is $299, with upgrades going for $199. Windows 7 Ultimate is priced at $319, with the upgrade version at $219.' In a nod to the global economic downturn, it is interesting to note that prices are 10% lower than Vista."

821 comments

  1. The answer is... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's too much!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:The answer is... by Xiph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, it's just a minor upgrade to windows vista, so...?
      It's a good upgrade to vista, they've taken care of many of the big grievances.

      Windows 7 is not that big a change, so it hasn't cost that much to develop, so it's cheaper.

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    2. Re:The answer is... by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Should be a free update to Vista. Given the problems of Vista and the high amount of customer dissatisfaction with the product.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:The answer is... by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      well, it's just a minor upgrade to windows vista, so...?
      It's a good upgrade to vista, they've taken care of many of the big grievances.

      Windows 7 is not that big a change, so it hasn't cost that much to develop, so it's cheaper.

      Or more likely, they want it to be a little bit easier for people to get 7. The beating they took with Vista means they have to be a little nicer for this one to avoid losing people.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    4. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the very least it should be a $39 upgrade to Vista. If there's more in Windows 7 compared to Vista than there is in Snow Leopard compared to Leopard, I'll eat my shorts.

    5. Re:The answer is... by PishiGorbeh · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought Windows was freeware... None of the torrent sites ever asked for payment.

    6. Re:The answer is... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought Windows was freeware...

      Well, I guess there are always those who will bitch and moan about the price, but who cares? There are free alternatives. And in the non-free world, the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X.

      Ultimately it all comes down to choice. If you really want/have to use Windows, then pay for it and shut up.

    7. Re:The answer is... by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 1

      I agree. They are asking far too much money for an only slightly better version of Vista. This pricing was all I was waiting for to make the switch to Linux full-time.

    8. Re:The answer is... by Ascagnel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't trust an OS from a torrent aggregator unless I have some way to check its veracity (i.e.: Ubuntu posts md5's of its ISOs, but you won't find one for an iffy torrent.

      This doesn't matter much anyways, since most corporate environments are on a volume license, and most home users will get Win7 preinstalled. It really only matters to geeks like us.

      --
      "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."
    9. Re:The answer is... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...but who cares? There are free alternatives.

      Unfortunately, there are hardware vendors who don't bother supporting anything but windows, and if you use your computer to talk to the real world sometimes you are stuck with windows if you want to get the work done. Wine is nice, but adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty, too, along with the question of "will it work, I don't know, let's spend a week testing it ...", which has costs of its own.

      If you really want/have to use Windows, then pay for it and shut up.

      Please send me your email address so I can subscribe to your "I have money coming out my wazoo and can waste it on overpriced operating systems" newsletter.

    10. Re:The answer is... by redJag · · Score: 3, Informative

      If 50% more is comparable.. :) and for that price tag of $199 you can get the 5 User pack for OS X.

    11. Re:The answer is... by AmIAnAi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because they haven't recovered the development costs for Vista, so you also have to pay for that if you purchase of Windows 7.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    12. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My objective is not really the price.
      It's the lack of source code (even under a no-share, restrictive license).

      Paying several hundred dollars and receiving no source is quite odd to me, as the free alternatives come with source.

      There was a time, before Microsoft and before Open Source, where a purchase of software meant that you were buying a copy of the source code.

    13. Re:The answer is... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Pre-orders on the upgrade from Best Buy and others will be $49 for home premium, and $99 for Professional (Business). According to a similar article.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    14. Re:The answer is... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Lot of hardware retailers sell OEM versions at a discount. I got a version of Vista business for about 80 bucks less than retail from Newegg.

      //Vista hates my soundcard with a burning passion, and gives me a nice bluescreen every day or so to show me how much it cares...Never under load though. I have no explanation for why it only fails when it's idle...Some system process writing to protected memory or something.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    15. Re:The answer is... by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think Snow Leopard really has all that much over Leopard either. I think 2009 will be the year of almost meaningless OS updates.

      (I boggle why I was marked as troll. I'm serious, people were pretty dissatisfied with Vista)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    16. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run an OS from a torrent without an MD5... specifically, I run Windows XP but I do it in a VirtualBox virtual machine and I only do it to stream netflix. I would never check my bank account or do anything else in there. If the OS that I have is full of trojans / backdoors / spyware they can have at my NetFlix account.

    17. Re:The answer is... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      If 50% more is comparable.. :)

      I was referring to market prices here in Australia, which tend to be artificially inflated. :-( IIRC I think I paid >AU$180 for Leopard not long after it came out.

      Not that this really affects me; I have no intention of upgrading my Mac laptop to $TOMORROW's_BIG_CAT, and my Linux boxes take care of themselves without any $$ input.

    18. Re:The answer is... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Just virtualize the Windows XP license already tied to your machine. VirtualBox works great for this.

      Games though... that's another matter. I doubt that's what you are referring to.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    19. Re:The answer is... by bcmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're installing a closed-source OS anyway. What makes you think that Microsoft and the OEM that customises the disks are more trustworthy than a torrent site?

      Or did you want the MD5 for checking that the torrent downloaded properly? Bittorrent does that itself.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    20. Re:The answer is... by Xarin · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought Windows was freeware... None of the torrent sites ever asked for payment.

      Freeware or malware?

    21. Re:The answer is... by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If there's more in Windows 7 compared to Vista than there is in Snow Leopard compared to Leopard, I'll eat my shorts.

      So, you want salt and pepper with those?

      Ignoring the obvious formatting differences, compare Windows 7 changes with OSX 10.6 changes. Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7. Whether it's worth a $100 - $200 price tag is an individual choice but regardless of the popular belief around here (the same incorrect belief that nobody uses Vista), Win7 is much more than a service pack.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    22. Re:The answer is... by PishiGorbeh · · Score: 0

      Hahaha. You'll be sure to land up with both anyway! LOL

    23. Re:The answer is... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      There was a time, before Microsoft and before Open Source, where a purchase of software meant that you were buying a copy of the source code.

      I am curious as to what OS you have in mind. I have worked with computers since the '70s, and although it was customary for an assembler to be provided, I don't recall a single vendor that released the OS source code.

    24. Re:The answer is... by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are hardware vendors who don't bother supporting anything but windows

      But the big advantage of the Linux is the support community, right? The one that produces open and Free(tm) drivers for hardware?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    25. Re:The answer is... by Ultronator · · Score: 1

      Well, this is slashdot, so I imagine that any price higher than free is gonna be too much for all the linux fanboys. I would think about it this way...When's the last time you had to plunk down money for a windows os? (and no, I don't count vista, as I do not believe that any sane slashdot reader would've actually purchased that) Once or twice in the last, what is it, 8 years now? (depending on how many computers you have). And how often does apple ask for money so you can get the newest upgrade to their os?

    26. Re:The answer is... by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      But the big advantage of the Linux is the support community, right? The one that produces open and Free(tm) drivers for hardware?

      Without detailed information about the hardware, it is very difficult to write drivers for it. Support means more than just code.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    27. Re:The answer is... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      Windows 7's updated features vs Snow Leopard's.

      Snow Leopard includes some refinements to the UI, support for Exchange, support for 64bit memory addressing, multi-core optimizations ("Grand Central Dispatch"), support for GPGPU, a new version of QuickTime, and an updated printing system. Not a whole hell of a lot; sounds like Service Pack material, to me. Might compare more favorably to WinXP SP2.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    28. Re:The answer is... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Microcenter also carries OEM copies in-store if one lives close to them.

    29. Re:The answer is... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7.

      I think most of the griping revolves around the opinion that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. IMHO Vista was a stop gap to an already tardy release. Windows 7 should have been Vista SP3. If you look at XP SP2, there were great strides made when you compare it to its gold edition.

      For $29 bucks I would heartily upgrade to Windows 7. Now, I'm not so sure. I am, however, ready to line up for my Snow Leopard upgrade.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    30. Re:The answer is... by log0n · · Score: 1

      An updated UI, full 64bit operation, multi-core acceleration (makes computer faster), GPGPU (also makes computer faster), a new version of QT and a new and improved printing system

      Not as much as 10.4 to 10.5, and very little of it can be made into flashy 10' posters akin to Apple's traditional chic marketing, but still sounds like a hell of a lot.

      *shrug* Service Packs will always be about bug fixes.

    31. Re:The answer is... by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard's upgrade price is very small. So I don't see Windows being comparable. $29 is a lot less than Microsoft is charging and both Snow Leopard and Windows 7 seem to be tweaked versions of the last version.

    32. Re:The answer is... by ozbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because they haven't recovered the development costs for Vista, so you also have to pay for that if you purchase of Windows 7.

      Not my problem. Make the upgrade cost competitive, or I'll install Linux. (Oh, wait...)

    33. Re:The answer is... by jeff419 · · Score: 1

      Who is actually going to pay for this?

    34. Re:The answer is... by rwalker429 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree with the argument that Win 7 is "just a slightly better version of Vista". The implementation of PowerShell V2 and it's ease of use over WinRM are in and of themselves worthy of consideration from an administrative standpoint. Hell, Win 7 would be rather worthwhile to deploy just as a vessel for putting PowerShell on every machine and making my life as an admin a hell of a lot easier. The significantly reduced hardware footprint is pretty nice from a business perspective and some of the downplayed features like the Problem Steps Recorder could prove to be really useful. It's cheaper than Vista and, based on what I've gotten to play with in the Beta and RC 1, I don't think the price point is entirely unreasonable. We can joke about how they should be practically begging us to pick it up after Vista, etc etc. and anything more than "free as in beer" would have incurred some complaining but let's be realistic here. That being said, I'll still be using OS X at home. ;)

    35. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      MS TechNet provides SHA-1 for all of their isos. Individual files in the distribution can be checked for digital signature of Windows Publisher.

    36. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wine is not an additional layer of abstraction nor is it an emulator. It is an implementation of the win32 api.

    37. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you know what exactly wine is.

    38. Re:The answer is... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      Only a "hell of a lot" if you aren't used to much. And Microsoft's Service Packs always include new features; if it's nothing but bug fixes, they call it an "Update Rollup". Hell, the list of features XP got from FREE Service Packs dwarfs the list of new features in the $30 Snow Leopard.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    39. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snow Leopard vs. 7, as an upgrade path, is not an equal comparison, since Apple recuperates what they'd lose on the Leopard to Snow Leopard upgrade path through hardware sales.
      Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.

    40. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bittorrent uses SHA1 not MD5, sorry, not trying to be a dick.

    41. Re:The answer is... by MrCrassic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the prices are cheaper, people will complain that it's not cheap enough.

      When the product is gratis, people will complain that it's not quality enough.

      You can't please everyone, I suppose. I think this is quite a good price cut. (Because $400+ for Vista Ultimate was always ridiculous to begin with.)

    42. Re:The answer is... by bcmm · · Score: 1

      I meant it verifies the downloaded data for you, not it MD5s for you, but thanks for the clarification.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    43. Re:The answer is... by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? I trust the people pirating the software for me more than the people that made the software. The pirates don't let people down nearly as much. Their hacks allow people to use the software easier than the people who bought it. Especially with Microsoft software. You'd have to be pretty bad at it to actually get a copy of something with a virus in it or something. Seriously.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    44. Re:The answer is... by Shirakawasuna · · Score: 0, Troll

      So let's see... Windows 7 has:


      1. Performance enhancements of various kinds.

      2. XP mode

      3. A new, fancy taskbar

      4. A more powerful calculator and similarly tiny changes to apps.


      10.6 has:


      1. Performance enhancements of various kinds, including a massive reduction in size.

      2. A new avenue of development with OpenCL.

      3. Changes comparable to a more powerful calculator.


      So it looks like Windows 7 has... a new, fancy taskbar and a compatibility layer compared to 10.6. WOW, that sure justifies a $200 price difference. The grandparent will be eating his shorts, but at least he'll be able to buy about 15 more pairs.

    45. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! Well if *you* say there's a LOT, well... pass the salt & pepper please!

      Win7 isn't a service pack - it's an apology for the crap they tried to pull with Vista. Of course, only Microsoft would make you pay $119 for an apology.

    46. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The risk/benefit for MS doing shady stuff with their OS is quite different from some random hacker dude online.
       

    47. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't Microsoft just post the md5 so we can download a verified copy?

    48. Re:The answer is... by tomthegeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's true you can't please everyone, but $300 for the full featured OS is just ridiculous. $300 will buy me a CPU, Motherboard and a couple gigs of RAM. Add in a case and drives (which I have laying around but the average person can just re-use what's in their current computer) and you have a whole new computer. Let's see, what do I want more? A new computer or a basically meaningless OS upgrade?

      The only reason MS can price things this way is because they have a monopoly on the OEM desktop market.

    49. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      (I boggle why I was marked as troll. I'm serious, people were pretty dissatisfied with Vista)

      It's because you've got Rush in your sig. Boggle no more.

    50. Re:The answer is... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The GGP did say:

      adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty...

      Some of us still have 512 MB machines at work.

    51. Re:The answer is... by Phantasmagoria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. I've always said that Vista was the Windows ME of XP. In other words Vista is to XP that Me was to 98: a poor stop-gap solution until the actual successor came out (XP for 98, and 7 for XP).

      --
      Loban Amaan Rahman ==> Anagram of ==> Aha! An Abnormal Man!
    52. Re:The answer is... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Random Hacker Dude might scam your Visa number. Microsoft will make billions.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    53. Re:The answer is... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Also for $199 or $299 for that matter, its much cheaper just to buy a new computer which will come with a copy of Windows 7. Upgrading is really only cost efficient if you have a new high end $1000 machine.

    54. Re:The answer is... by Cross-Threaded · · Score: 1

      I am not a Linux fanboy. However, I currently have 6 computer systems.

      All of them run some form of Debian, or Mythbuntu. I have to say, the improvements over the years have been pretty good on Linux systems.

      Windows has always been too expensive for my personal tastes. The last time I spent any money on a Microsoft Operating System/Application was when Windows 95 came out, and I upgraded the used computer I bought (came with Win 3.1) to Win 95a. (What a nightmare that was...) I felt like the $50 bucks (or what ever the upgrade was) was too much money, too.

      This is not to say that I haven't been running Windows NT, 2000, or XP. After all, supporting those operating systems is what I've done for a living the last decade. It's just that I don't run those on my personal systems, and I let the company I work for choose what operating system they want on their computer.

      I don't do Windows, and I don't like Apples.

      --
      They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
    55. Re:The answer is... by causality · · Score: 1

      There was a time, before Microsoft and before Open Source, where a purchase of software meant that you were buying a copy of the source code. I am curious as to what OS you have in mind. I have worked with computers since the '70s, and although it was customary for an assembler to be provided, I don't recall a single vendor that released the OS source code.

      The big-iron Unix vendors really did not provide any source code, not even for the kernel and not even under some sort of NDA?

      Really asking; I had the impression that they did but I honestly don't know.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    56. Re:The answer is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I bought an AMD 7550 barebone with everything but the DVD burner for $281 with shipping at Newegg, so at that price it would cost me more than the actual box to run it on. No thanks, I'll stick to my XP X64 that I picked up for $100 when some places were dumping it for the "New and great Vista" (BWA HA HA HA!) and it works really nice. Supports more than the 32Gb max memory this box will hold, runs all my old software and new, and only uses 433Mb of RAM leaving the rest of the 4Gb for MY stuff, which I care more about than flippin 3d windows.

      If they would have had the prices that IIRC Best Buy was talking about, with $49 for Permium and $99 for Pro then I would have bought it. But $300? No thanks. And working on PCs for a living you couldn't pay me to run an OEM like a Dell or Compaq. They are just crap compared to what I build myself.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    57. Re:The answer is... by aaalcdz · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that Linux does not also discount their prices by 10% to support the sagging economy. Well, maybe they do. Let's see 10% of $0 is still $0. So I guess they just don't brag too much about the discount.

    58. Re:The answer is... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a lot more of Vista that needed fixing... :-)

      But under the sheets, Win7 is pretty much the same as vista sp2, compared with the differences between XP and Vista, and between XP and Win95/98/ME.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    59. Re:The answer is... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 0

      A powerful processor alone can cost well over $500 so why can't the OS cost $300?

    60. Re:The answer is... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I've seen Windows 7 RC1. It's a big, important upgrade that you won't want to be without, along the lines of XP SP2.

      As for the "it should be a free upgrade to Vista" folks, meh. If you're operating on a budget, try reading some product reviews before you spend the bucks. You'll note that the 7 upgrade costs the same whether you're upgrading from Vista or from XP. XP is still under extended support for several more years, so there's no reason you can't wait and go straight from XP SP3 to 7 SP2 if you want. If you couldn't wait and just had to have Vista ad interim, that's your decision.

      As for me, I still have several etch systems at work that I need to upgrade to lenny one of these months...

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    61. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The price will continue to be so high until they'll get windows 7 stable!

    62. Re:The answer is... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > > I thought Windows was freeware... None of the torrent sites ever asked for payment.
      > Freeware or malware?

      Outlook and Windows Media Player are Microsoft's main malware products.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    63. Re:The answer is... by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well at least the OS X 'service packs' always seem to add stuff that makes using your hardware faster and easier, as in: desirable upgrades to the system. Windows service packs (even SP2) normally only plug holes, add all kinds of new security layers to plug other holes and basic updates to the driver database and library API's. I really appreciated XP SP2 for example, but you can hardly say it added anything to actually improve my experience working with it. Vista actually degraded it in many ways, and 7 doesn't appear to be particularly impressive in terms of advancing the platform.

    64. Re:The answer is... by numbski · · Score: 1

      Free, because just like Vista, we won't be running it at the office, and I'm not running it at home. I hope they like selling downgrade licenses for XP and lying about their deployment base, because they're going to be doing it for some time to come. :P

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    65. Re:The answer is... by Clairvoyant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because:
      1) That OS is built once, then the cost of "producing" it, is nill.
      2) There IS a competitor (which gives you the exact same crap); free download.
      3) Because your CPU does not FAIL as much as your OS will
      4) Because your CPU will still work in 5 years. Will the OS?
      Anyone who can add anything to this list? :)

    66. Re:The answer is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But is that the full price or the down payment? Not trying to be snarky, its just that it wouldn't be the first time I have seen the preorder be a down payment on the full price, and considering we are talked about leaked info anything is possible.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    67. Re:The answer is... by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

      A Core 2 Duo that can handle even Crysis costs well below $300. If you need more power than that chances are you aren't going to throw a desktop OS on that machine anyways.

      It's their OS and they can price it however they want but it's clear from the pricing that OEM partners are the only channels that really bring in money for their OS.

      Open source software and plummeting hardware costs have upset the business model MS has enjoyed for so long. MS needs to make a radical shift in how they do business or face liquidation. Ballmer needs to go.

    68. Re:The answer is... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      People have always been able to get a copy of Windows for about $1.00USD in the markets down the street.

      And all the small computer shops will include you free copies of MS Office, Nero, PowerDVD, Photoshop, Autocad, etc. plus anything else you wish to ask for, when you buy a new computer off them.

      This is the main reason people see no need to switch to Linux in the developing world

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    69. Re:The answer is... by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      Yes! Lets compare the software company's OS pricing to the hardware company's OS pricing. It's not as though Apple makes a huge margin marking up hardware and uses that to subsidize its OS development. Oh wait...

    70. Re:The answer is... by EmperorKagato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I read your post as:

      Windows 7:

      I know nothing about the upgrades that benefit the developer and I barely understand the long list of updates.

      10.6 has:

      I know more about the updates

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    71. Re:The answer is... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      What sound card do you have? I was bitten by the Audigy scandal myself.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    72. Re:The answer is... by dswskinner · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC Snow Leopard is $29 for Leopard users, which is everyone who has bought a mac since October 2007.

    73. Re:The answer is... by AdamBv1 · · Score: 1

      I'll stick to my XP X6

      you have my sympathies.

    74. Re:The answer is... by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Wine is nice, but adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty, too, along with the question of "will it work, I don't know, let's spend a week testing it ...", which has costs of its own.

      I'm not so sure I agree with this. Wine has made some pretty significant improvements, but I suppose it does depend on what you're using it for. Office apps--don't even think about it.

      However, some years back, I did play World of Warcraft under Wine for over a year (well before the 1.0 release) and my frame rates were roughly on par with Windows. The difference could be explained by Blizzard's OpenGL support which is slightly slower than D3D even under Windows (which makes no sense, though I attribute it to something Blizzard has done). Also, load times were significantly reduced under Wine. Perhaps that was due to the file system.

      Oh, and for compatibility... I can dig up old games of mine (even some old generic apps), install them under Wine, and they play or run great. Can't do the same in Windows--even XP--for that matter.

      So no, Wine isn't just "layers of abstraction" that make a slow work-alike. For some things, it's actually quite impressive. For most very recent software, I wouldn't bother trying it, and that's where the Windows lock-in occurs. Maybe there'd be a secondary market for running old Windows apps that no longer run under new versions of Windows under Wine? Doubtful--but you never know!

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    75. Re:The answer is... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      At the very least it should be a $39 upgrade to Vista.

      If $39 is the least it should be, you'll be happy to hear it's much more than that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    76. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And in the non-free world, the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X.

      Really?
      OS X 10.5 - $129
      OS X 10.6 (coming Sept 09) - $29 upgrade from 10.5

      Not my definition of comparable.

    77. Re:The answer is... by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard is $10-$30, depending on when you got your current Mac. Vista 2 is a bit more for upgrade versions. Not quite the same magnitude of fleecing from Apple :)

    78. Re:The answer is... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      You've all overbid. Erase the bids please. Go lower than...

    79. Re:The answer is... by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2, Informative

      "And in the non-free world, the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X."

      Get outside much?
      (Hint: Look to the bottom right of the large grapic)

      It's backward compatible with at least as much hardware as W7 will be...at a tenth of the price.

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
    80. Re:The answer is... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I always try and get away from Creative, so I bought an HT-Omega. I've got no complaints, other than the obvious.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    81. Re:The answer is... by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yea. Microsoft doesn't sell pricey computers, so they have to find other ways to gouge us.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    82. Re:The answer is... by maaleron · · Score: 1

      Did you miss this? I'll say $29 for proper Exchange connectivity out of the box is more than a worthwhile investment.

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/exchange.html

    83. Re:The answer is... by phillips321 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that when you subscribe you have to send me YOUR email address...

      More to the point, i use ubuntu everyday at home and BT4 everyday at work. For windows all i do boot in a VM incase i need a few tools)

    84. Re:The answer is... by cinderblock · · Score: 1

      Ultimately it all comes down to choice. If you really want/have to use Windows, then pay for it and shut up.

      Yeah, if I wanted it I'd pay for it but since I only need it, I'll steal it.

    85. Re:The answer is... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with XP x64? It is built on server 2K3 and solid as a rock, even my ten year old disc cataloging software works thanks to WoW, and according to process Explorere i'm only running 602Mb of RAM with 9 Windows on Firefox X64 with Comodo Internet Security Suite replacing that awful Windows Firewall. Oh, and as a side note XP32 viruses don't work in X64 from what I've been told. Not that I have actually seen a virus on my own computers in a decade, but it is still nice to know.

      And if it is some kind of lame joke I just checked my post and I didn't actually put "XP X6" but "XP X64" which is the common name for the OS. But after trying Vista32 and 64 XP X64 just blows them away. At $49 I would have picked up a copy of Win7 Home Premium to play with, but $199? Not a chance in hell.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    86. Re:The answer is... by NervousNerd · · Score: 1
      To quote the grandparent post:

      A powerful processor alone can cost well over $500 so why can't the OS cost $300?

      And to quote the parent post:

      A Core 2 Duo that can handle even Crysis costs well below $300.

      An i7 920 costs $279.99 on Newegg. That i7'll wipe the floor with that Core 2 Duo, and I belive that the i7 is a "powerful processor" that costs well under $500.

    87. Re:The answer is... by adona1 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't previous versions - 10.2 - 10.5 cost roughly $130 each? I've never needed to buy them so don't know if it was less if you were upgrading from .2 to .3 etc...

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    88. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there is only one "ultimate" Mac OS X at $129 with the Snow Leopard upgrade at $29.

      "Windows 7 Ultimate is priced at $319, with the upgrade version at $219."

      Um... not comparably priced.

    89. Re:The answer is... by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      Well, that's certainly better than Linux at $699 a pop. You did pay your licensing fees, right?

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    90. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People pay $60 for a game that they play for a few weeksometimes. How is $200 too much for something you use everyday of the year. It's cheaper than the high priced Photoshop and Dreamweaver for crying out loud, and you can do more with it.

    91. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know, flaimbait, but....

      Microsoft is trampling my civil liberties!!!!

    92. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sort of "In the real world" propaganda is complete bollocks
      If you like Windows just come out and say so, but "In the real world" is utter rubbish. My company has been running Linux for 10 years. IN THE REAL WORLD

    93. Re:The answer is... by Shirakawasuna · · Score: 1

      Funny, as 10.6 is almost entirely about developer/system efficiency updates. The Win7 dev updates are frankly pitiful when compared to the full repertoire available in OS X, but you go right ahead and miss the point :).

    94. Re:The answer is... by Shirakawasuna · · Score: 1

      It is worth the money, yes, but it's about as big as a number of Windows 7 improvements which I put under a similar header.

    95. Re:The answer is... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't think Snow Leopard really has all that much over Leopard either. I think 2009 will be the year of almost meaningless OS updates.

      But you're forgeting that 2009 is the year of Linux on the desktop!

    96. Re:The answer is... by simplexion · · Score: 1

      Problem is that most people have OEM licenses and will have all sorts of problems if they run XP in VirtualBox. No activation for you!

    97. Re:The answer is... by Mozk · · Score: 1

      433 MB used to run XP? Mine's at less than 200 MB. Use nLite.

      --
      No existe.
    98. Re:The answer is... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. the last time a real upgrade version was offered was for 10.0 to 10.1. Which I believe was free, and the update had the full version of the OS, so you could just patch the ISO and install without ever having had 10.0. I think there was an upgrade reduced cost between some other version, probably Public Beta to 10.0.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    99. Re:The answer is... by orangenerd · · Score: 1

      ...the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X.

      ...keeping in mind that the *new* OS X Snow Leopard release will cost $29 bucks, I do not see where is comparable.

    100. Re:The answer is... by TheGeneration · · Score: 2

      I've used dos/windows my entire life (with the exception of a few years of Apple ][c in early grade school.) Sadly I don't want Vista so bad that I'm actually considering buying a Mac.

      The thing is I know that if I buy a Mac I'll probably never return to the Windows universe once I start buying software for the Mac that can't be used on a future version of Windows.

      I imagine the entire computer hardware industry is suffering because they are locked into exclusive agreements with Microsoft. I know many, many, people who won't buy a computer until Vista is not their only option. These same people also advise friends and families members to either buy a mac, or hold out. (No point in advising less knowledgeable family members to buy Linux unless you want to play tech support for mommy for the next 4 years.)

      Now that I'm looking at the price tag on Windows 7... I have to wonder if it is in fact time to just switch to an Apple notebook. I really like my iPod after all... they probably design their OS with the same level of ease of use....

      --


      The Generation
      I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    101. Re:The answer is... by helios17 · · Score: 1

      and if you use your computer to talk to the real world sometimes you are stuck with windows if you want to get the work done.

      That is so much crap that I gotta get up from here because of the stink. We've migrated Dr's offices, real estate brokers, entire trucking firms and are currently working with two banks. These are not partial migrations but full fledged "get Windows the fsck off my computer" migrations. These companies don't do "real work"? They do real work and they do it much cheaper and effectively than they do in Windows. Might I recommend to you a 2007 or later version of Linux to try...

      --
      Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
    102. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Windows 7 was open source.... None of the torrent sites suggested otherwise...

    103. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that Microsoft and the OEM that customises the disks are more trustworthy than a torrent site?

      They probably try to avoid including malware on purpose.

      Or did you want the MD5 for checking that the torrent downloaded properly? Bittorrent does that itself.

      No, he wanted it to check that the copy off the torrent is the same as would have come from Microsoft in a retail box.

      Anyway, such a checksum is probably impossible to get, since every retail copy differs at least by the serial number.

    104. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that it does not emulate Microsoft's implementation of Microsoft's API, trying hard to avoid replicating bugs and undocumented interfaces, and that it certainly does not emulate the Microsoft ABI required to interpret Microsoft EXEs and DLLs?

      For something trying so hard to just implement an API which isn't fully published anyway, it sure does seem good at emulating Windows.

      (Of course, as a viable alternative to Windows outside geek-land, forget it. I'm not sure whether MS Office 2008 or Crossover Mac is more painful, but I'm sure glad I spend most of my document-writing life with emacs and latex. The only consolation is that I will never have to go near OpenOffice ever again.)

    105. Re:The answer is... by rant64 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the corporate/mobile network-aware managed firewall, support for DNSSEC, hugely improved deployment/imaging maintainance tools, a usefully revamped taskbar with application-sensitive context menus/history, new remote desktop protocol that supports media streaming and 3D applications. And the whole UAC thing is a lot less intrusive than its predecessor's.

      I like 7. I don't like IE8, but that's another matter.

    106. Re:The answer is... by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      XP SP2 was an exception for service packs in how much it changed and updated. XP SP3 was like a normal service pack again.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    107. Re:The answer is... by rant64 · · Score: 1

      The Win7 dev updates are frankly pitiful when compared to the full repertoire available in OS X

      Because those 'dev updates' are also available on XP SP3 and Vista and as such are not mentioned as new features in Win7? Components/Interfaces are useless in a single version of an OS without support for the others.

    108. Re:The answer is... by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      You do realize that due to XP not reserving RAM and releasing it to programs that need it, it has to page to and from disk a lot more and therefore your HDD bottlenecks the system? WinVista and 7 due reserve more RAM but they give it up when programs need it, unlike XP which pages the programs to disk as soon as they've been minimized for more than 3 seconds :/

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    109. Re:The answer is... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...but I honestly don't know

      Nor do I, not even about Unix. I worked on Burroughs, Honeywell, Sperry/Univac, Prime, ICL and Data General machines (and probably a few more I've forgotten), and they all had closed OSs.

    110. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like it's the same malware, except now it's free malware!

    111. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abandonware - no one has been maintaining it properly for years.

    112. Re:The answer is... by cepayne · · Score: 1

      For the good of the computer industry, I hope that more people think in the same
      manner that you do. Then this will show that the $10 jump in MS Stock price
      was due to investors talking up Windows7's actual value. Time will tell all.

      The $29 Snow-Leopard upgrade is more appealing, and reputable.

      MS's day in the sun is waning. MS should step aside and let someone else
      have the opportunity to take the people's money for the next decade or more.

    113. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slackware.

    114. Re:The answer is... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      These companies don't do "real work"?

      I didn't say "do real work", I said "talk to the real world."

      You and this 'internet is the world' guy have such a severe case of myopia when it comes to computers that it's ridiculous.

      Yeah, if your use of computers is limited to running software that moves data around on the computer, you're fine. Keyboard and disk and display drivers are stock items on all OSs. If all you do is have a low-paid lackey sitting at a keyboard entering numbers and making spreadsheet printouts, you can use any OS.

      Start trying to deal with devices that talk to the real world that don't have linux drivers and you'll find out that sometimes windows is a requirement.

      I've got an eeprom burner that doesn't have linux drivers. It has microsoft drivers, though. I can spend a bundle and get a new burner and migrate all the data to linux, yes, but that's not 'free' in any sense of the word. I could waste a lot of my time (my bosses time) writing a driver, after reverse engineering the hardware to know what bits of what register do what, but that's not "free", and would cost more than simply buying Windows. I have an IDE for TI micros that runs on Windows. It has to talk to the hardware, which linux won't let it do virtualized, and even so, a virtualized Microsoft OS requires a license just like any other MSOS.

      Might I recommend to you a 2007 or later version of Linux to try...

      Might I recommend you pull your head out of your ass and look around at all the things the computers are used for these days and figure out that bookkeeping and accounting and keeping Doctor's records aren't the only things being done anymore.

      But, on the flip side, there are devices I have that talk to the real world where the Windows drivers are crap and the only good drivers are on Linux. The bug in the ointment is that the company that makes the devices only supports Windows when it comes to downloading firmware updates or answering support questions, so I am still stuck needing a Windows system.

    115. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what problems are you talking about everyone bitches about how vista is bad are you just one of the people who talk shit out their ass when they dont know anything even with a couple minor problems left after the service packs were released for it its still way better than xp

  2. XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by phayes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seems like MS has realized that upgrading to Vista was useless as otherwise the upgrade from Vista should have been cheaper...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while vista is not all bad, I do wish I had stayed with XP and saved the money. I know its not realistic but I would chose Vista to 7 to be cheaper then XP to 7.

    2. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it won't clog your toilet.

      Because it plugs up your bowels first?

    3. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      honestly, I haven't seen any features yet that I really consider an upgrade over XP, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about why I would even consider buying an upgrade?

    4. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Informative

      honestly, I haven't seen any features yet that I really consider an upgrade over XP, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about why I would even consider buying an upgrade?

      Windows are stored as vector graphics in video memory under Vista and 7. Previously, they were stored as bitmaps that needed to be redrawn every frame. This enables things like viewing a thumbnail of a window from the taskbar (including video) and windows still drawing their last good state when the process locks (unlike XP and before, where the window will be plain white). It's similar to the OS X system.

      There are security upgrades as well, but this reason is good enough for me.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    5. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Chabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      64-bit execution that works. XP-x64 has poor application compatibility compared with Vista-x64 and Win7-x64.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    6. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by TheLink · · Score: 0

      In theory you can control the sound of individual apps.

      So you don't have to go deaf when you're listening to the quiet portion of high dynamic range music and someone messages you on your IM (and you forgot to set your status to "Busy" or the equivalent).

      But I'm not going to downgrade from XP yet - I've seen my friend's vista box and MS seems to have added extra useless steps for all sorts of things - just like checking/changing network settings etc - it's not just different, it's worse in many cases.

      --
    7. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by bonch · · Score: 1, Informative

      Windows are stored as 3D textures on the video card and composited using hardware acceleration. "Vector graphics" denotes a specific kind of drawing that is not being used for the effects you describe.

    8. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It just shows me that Microsoft has been overcharging for Vista... (aka, price gouging) If they can produce an operating system for $50, why haven't all the OSes been $50?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      honestly, I haven't seen any features yet that I really consider an upgrade over XP, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about why I would even consider buying an upgrade?

      Windows are stored as vector graphics in video memory under Vista and 7. Previously, they were stored as bitmaps that needed to be redrawn every frame. This enables things like viewing a thumbnail of a window from the taskbar (including video) and windows still drawing their last good state when the process locks (unlike XP and before, where the window will be plain white). It's similar to the OS X system.

      There are security upgrades as well, but this reason is good enough for me.

      How is explaining my favorite feature of a new operating system to someone who asked about the features a troll? In fact, how can pointing out good qualities be a troll at all?

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    10. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by jjrockman · · Score: 1

      Troll, really? If I had mod points I'd give you +1 Informative. Thanks for the info.

      --
      Quit jabbering on the phone while driving. You are not that important.
    11. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prices are set to maximise profit, not to reflect production costs. Your question makes no sense unless you think Microsoft is a charity, not a business.

    12. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by agressiv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      64-bit execution that works. XP-x64 has poor application compatibility compared with Vista-x64 and Win7-x64.

      I call FUD. XP x64 is just 2003 x64, its the same kernel. 2003 x64 is rock solid, and so is XP x64.

      Maybe you had a few things that didn't work, but it doesn't mean everyone did. It simply went by the wayside right away because Vista came out shortly after.

      But in terms of speed and stability, nothing beats XP x64, in my opinion. I'd really challenge anyone to come up with a significant list of applications that work on Vista x64 that don't work on XP x64.

    13. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Being a convicted Monopolist though... maximizing profit is not on that list of things to be careful of. I'm not talking about selling it at break-even cost to develop. I'm including markup. Why did it cost them more to make Vista than it did to make Windows 7? IF they are pulling numbers out their rear for this, I'd also question the ethical standing on that as well.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still stored as bitmaps, it's just that they're on the video memory.

    15. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact, how can pointing out good qualities [of Windows] be a troll at all?

      You must be new here.

    16. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by shaze · · Score: 0

      Really? Cause I've been running XP64 for about 4 years now and I haven't come across one thing that I can't run. In fact, I have found it's completely the opposite to your statement. In that there are lots of old drivers/games that Vista/7 has problems with, that I can run without problem.

    17. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say application compatibility is a problem with XP x64 -- at least not in my experience. Drivers, on the other hand, are a fairly big problem. My sound card and wireless card both have working Vista x64 drivers, but no XP x64 drivers. And this is despite the fact that both cards were released before Vista was even out!

      XP x64 is a bit like linux in that respect - if you deliberately build a system to support XP x64 / linux, it works quite nicely. If you don't, be prepared for hardware support headaches.

    18. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista is not using vector graphics. It's using hardware compositing, which means each window is a texture. The thumbnails are just resized textures.

    19. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Being a business means that they do have to care about maximising profit. Being a convicted monopolist simply means that they have to be careful about the practices they can engage in. The issue in question is not a anti-trust matter.

      As for 'pulling numbers out their rear', this is one of the two big products for Microsoft (the other of course being Office) - do you really think they just pull numbers out of their rear for it, or do you think that maybe they sit down with some financial guys and work out what price will theoretically make them a lot of money? Why are you so concerned with margin being proportional to production costs? It's all about what the market will bear. And costs of making an OS is going to be a complex issue.

    20. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you update your xp-x64 box to sp1+ you get the x64 2003 server kernel... and what application compatibility problems? everything includeing games that are 32bit work just fine...

    21. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      ...it's not just different, it's worse in many cases.

      Indeed, although as a whole I quite like Win7, I really wish they would split the UI into a "Normal User", and then a "Power User", leave the extra dialogs and mouse clicks for people who aren't familiar with it, but remove them for people who are familiar.

      Either that, or go all out in ToolTips, keep the interface to as few dialogs/clicks and as exact named/linked (no more: Everything -> Sub-Group -> Sub-Group -> What You Actually Want) as possible, but then have descriptions/directions for n00bs in ToolTips, or perhaps integrate Help into the Search, "Network Settings", or "Change Gateway" etc, will tell you "A, B, C then D" or just give you the link to it directly, have the OS capable of teaching people how to use it, but not forcing you to take an exam in hardware and software layers every time you want to do something.

      Same with "Common Tasks", should be editable, or a Tree view, expand it to show text-based sub-categories, or just click on it to show them visually in a window (as per normal)

      Microsoft Bob, or Paperclip, Search Dog, were good ideas just poorly implemented, people generally don't want their PC to make them feel like a 5 year old.

    22. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop bashing Microsoft please. If you are going to make jokes about the improved look of locked programs, at least add a smiley.

    23. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows are stored as vector graphics in video memory under Vista and 7. Previously, they were stored as bitmaps that needed to be redrawn every frame.

      That's totally wrong.

      Window visuals in XP and before (and, in fact, in Vista and 7 if you disable DWM) were not stored at all. Whenever part of the window got erased, the application received a WM_PAINT message, and had to handle that and redraw that part. This is why, when a Windows application hangs, you could mess up its window by e.g. dragging other windows on top of it.

      In Vista & 7, windows are handled by a composition engine. That thing can deal with vector graphics (if you use WPF, it hooks up with DWM to provide that), but for normal GDI windows applications, they just render the window to a bitmap, and then that bitmap is stored.

      his enables things like viewing a thumbnail of a window from the taskbar (including video) and windows still drawing their last good state when the process locks (unlike XP and before, where the window will be plain white).

      It's fairly obvious that neither of these are any better or worse whether window contents are stored in bitmap or vector format. The real question is whether they are stored at all.

    24. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. It' not that cut and dry. Since the majority of copies sold are to computer manufactures, THAT price is the real value price.
      Clearly they are raising the price to in store buyers above market. I don't know why, but I suspect some collusion with PC makers might be going on,
      Why spend 125 bucks on an OS when I can buy a computer for 250?

      Add to that, they don't really have any competition to measure the 'fair market' against.

      I know they think about it, I would really love to know the variables. Especially the variables and logic for selling, supports, and marketing different version all from the same code base.

      The over all cost isn't really that complex, it's the minutia that kills you.

    25. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, surprised nobody has called this wrong post out yet...

    26. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      The OS costs more for an individual end user who is buying one copy than it is or a manufacturer who is buying hundreds of thousands - why would that be at all surprising?

    27. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by hazydave · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but given all the baggage in Vista, XP on my [slower] desktop is still quite a bit snappier than Vista 64 Ultimate on my laptop. Also, this whole idea of "Extras" under Ultimate was abandoned pretty early.. they did nothing to support you there.

      So I had many of the same questions... the laptop was involuntary (get Vista, or buy a different laptop).. but what would get me to actually pay to upgrade? Well, the positive features I can name include:

      * Actual support... well, it's not Ubuntu, but it's way better than XP... for a 64-bit OS. If you want to use your whole 4GB, or go beyond, you want Vista or W7 in some 64-bit form.

      * Vista and beyond claim to support disc partitions beyond 2TB. That would let me see my whole 5TB Drobo as a single drive... assuming I could find a place to store the contents while I reformat.

      * W7 claims to support 30-bit and 48-bit color... maybe 36-bit too. That would take advantage of the latest deep color displays, at least via HDMI or DisplayPort. The latest camcorders offer xvYCC colorspace... photo editing has long supported 16-bits per pixel, pretty much every good DSLR works in 12-bit or 14-bit RAW color, etc. Whether I can or can't actually see it, it sure sounds cool. Then again, "Laser TV" sounds so much better than "DLP", but I doubt I'll be upgrading until more of this high color stuff catches on.

      * UDF for Blu-Ray drives is built-in, on Vista SP2 or W7... I have a driver in place for that anyway, but it wouldn't suck to have BD support full in the OS.

      * I'd love for them to fix their Firewire 800 drivers, which seem to do nothing but BSOD (I'm using 3rd party drivers, which work, so it's not the hardware). That would be a check-mark in the "yes" column.

      I guess that's about it... I'm sure others have other things. Microsoft has many problems in this... I'm not usually overwhelmed by bright, shiny objects, yet that's kind of how they sold Vista... wow, you can have a transparent titlebar. Not worth an upgrade. While we all know that MS and the hardware companies want to sell a new Windows every three years or so, I think they'd go much farther if they simply gave most of us a good reason to upgrade. Trying to fool Joe Sixpack seems to be evidence they really can't offer this.

      The other thing is price: the upgrades are too expensive. And when MS tries to heavy-hand your upgrade, they're worse still.. you get resentful. Back in the 80s, I was on the Amiga and pretty successfully ignoring the silliness that was Windows 3.1. In years to follow, they pretty much forced Win98SE and then Win2K on me just to get functional Firewire support... that's the point at which I thought, "oh yeah, evil empire"... I mean, should I really have to spend about $200 for a device driver that works?

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    28. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, I can name one:
      iTunes for Vista 64

      it will NOT install on 64 bit xp

    29. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Ironically you just made an argument for why M$ does not deserve their monopoly.

      Maybe, just this once, the VCR's of the world will not crush the Beta-max of the world....

      Ah time for an extinction event!

    30. Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You made a pro-MS comment.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Ultimate Rip-Off by Chaoscrypt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I ended up getting Vista Ultimate.

    Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.

    The upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate should be free.

    That will teach me for buying a boxed, non-OEM version of Windows I guess.

    1. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bought MS-DOS 6.0. It wiped out my hard drive. Then MS charged an extra $20 for the "upgrade" to 6.2 which doesn't wipe out hard drives (as often). Compared to that, Vista Ultimate was a bargain.

    2. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Resisted upgrading from XP to Vista for a long time, finally gave up a year ago after somebody I trusted insisted it was stable and better than XP. I've regretted my decision ever since.

      Given that Win 7 is essentially just a Vista service pack by another name, I will not be paying several hundred bucks to upgrade. I'll stick with XP until it is unsupported, and then I'll switch away from Microsoft altogether.

      $30-40 I might just have considered paying, after trying Win7 myself to confirm that the problems were solved. What *should* have happened, though, was a free upgrade to the equivalent version for anybody who returned a retail copy of Vista, and a $30-40 paid upgrade to Win7 or a free downgrade to WinXP for anybody who bought a PC with Vista included.

    3. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I ended up getting Vista Ultimate.

      Me too.

      Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.

      I however knew what I was getting:

      1) Disk encryption -- in ultimate only (and enterprise which is only by VLA)
      2) licensed dvd codecs -- in home prem and ultimate but not in business
      3) ability to connect to a domain, IIS, etc -- business and ultimate but not home
      etc

      But if you only bought Vista ultimate based on the handful of exclusive ultimate freebies that came at launch, and the half hearted promise that theird be some more cool stuff... that was idiotic. You should have just bought home premium or business as applicable, and then done an in place key upgrade if / when they ever released a bonus feature that made the ultimate upgrade price worth it to you.

      For me, ultimate was the right choice right out of the gate. The features I wanted to play with were in the box, and I could only get everything i wanted in ultimate.

      That will teach me for buying a boxed, non-OEM version of Windows I guess.

      Meh, I did that so I'd have I'd have a legit key, 32 and 64 bit disks, and no grey area about whether I could move it from machine to machine, run it in a VM, etc, etc. Of course I bought the 'upgrade' so it cost the same as the oem version, and I knew about the double install trick for doing clean installs. (And I have multiple licenses for XP to legitimize the Vista upgrade.)

      But the lesson that you should be learning is to buy products for what they have today, not to buy them on some vague promise of what they might one day have. That lesson will serve you will in general. For example, if you buy a game console when there are enough games for it out already that you can justify the cost even if no other game ever comes out, then you'll never be disappointed with it.

    4. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.

      The "Ultimate" content is available, you have to download it through Windows Update. But I really don't feel it is worth price difference. All you get are a few animated wallpapers and some half-assed security/encryption/backup features.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Chaoscrypt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats the exact point I was making - I knew about the Encryption, the DVD Codecs and the Domain features, it was the Extras that were promised and never delivered - and I knew where to get them.

      The final Ultimate Extra should be an upgrade to Win7

    6. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.

      The upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate should be free.

      That will teach me for buying a boxed, non-OEM version of Windows I guess.

      Personally, when I receive a promise from a company and feel that they didn't deliver, I show my dissatisfaction with that company by no longer buying their products. That is, I try not to support business practices that are abusive or unfavorable or fail to deliver. That works because in most markets there are other companies to choose from.

      If there were any real competition in this market, you'd probably be saying "that will teach me for buying Microsoft". Just think about that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by camperdave · · Score: 1

      But the lesson that you should be learning is to buy products for what they have today, not to buy them on some vague promise of what they might one day have. That lesson will serve you will in general.

      Too true. I bought a motherboard because it had the ability to upgrade the processor. Now, seven or eight years later, not only can I not find a processor to fit into it, I can't use my current memory or power supply on a new motherboard either. I basically have to get a whole new machine.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a link to check for free windows 7 upgrade if you purchased a pre-installed or packaged version of vista. I'm not sure what makes you eligible for the free upgrade since the site isn't available until June 26th, but I wrote a mean letter to microsoft complaining since I dished out $399 for Vista Ultimate and never got any of the extra's I was promiced and they totally just gave up on Vista. If I am not eligible for the free upgrade I'm going to be extremely pissed and write an even meaner letter. I love how the treated me as an interested person on information for Windows 7 and not an upset consumer, the link and response from microsoft is here:

      I understand that you would like to obtain information about Windows 7 Upgrade Options program.

      I would like you to know that specifically designated PCs that are pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, or Windows Vista Ultimate may qualify for an upgrade to the equivalent Windows 7 product. Similarly, retail packaged Windows Vista software products (sold separately from PCs) may also qualify for an upgrade to the equivalent Windows 7 product. The upgrades will be provided to qualifying customers when the Windows 7 product becomes available in the market (also known as âoeWindows 7 General Availabilityâ).

      Please note that Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program will begin June 26, 2009.
      For more information regarding this, I recommend you to please visit the web link provided below for update regarding this concern:

      https://windows7upgradeoption.com/Landing.aspx

      I hope the above information is helpful.

      Thank you,

      Rachit

      Microsoft Customer Service Representative

    9. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      But I really don't feel it is worth price difference.

      Well I dont feel any version of Windows is worth the price period. THe last OS I bought was OS/2 because it worked. I've never paid a cent for any version of Windows and will not until they make a quality product that stops crashing.

      Currently running XP Professional SP3.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      If you pre-order, you can upgrade from Vista for half of these prices. Limited time, don't wait!!

    11. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that Win 7 is essentially just a Vista service pack by another name, I will not be paying several hundred bucks to upgrade. I'll stick with XP until it is unsupported, and then I'll switch away from Microsoft altogether.

      Thank you. I was starting to wonder if Windows users had infinite patience for Microsoft or if eventually a point can be reached where they get fed up enough to go elsewhere. People who have enough reason will display a "suck it up" attitude towards the difficulties of moving to another platform, which I won't downplay. You really will have to learn a whole new system and all the complications that entails. It will be well worth your time, however. Especially if you go with a Unix-like system, you will develop a skillset that will transfer to many other environments.

      $30-40 I might just have considered paying, after trying Win7 myself to confirm that the problems were solved. What *should* have happened, though, was a free upgrade to the equivalent version for anybody who returned a retail copy of Vista, and a $30-40 paid upgrade to Win7 or a free downgrade to WinXP for anybody who bought a PC with Vista included.

      That would be the customer-friendly option, particularly for a company which is certainly not hurting for cash and is well able to afford to do that. Really that just reinforces what sort of company you're dealing with. Now, I don't like Microsoft and I make no secret of that, but this isn't meant to be gratuitous bashing. I think your grievance against them is quite legitimate and that there's nothing wrong with saying so.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never paid a cent for any version of Windows and will not until they make a quality product that stops crashing.

      Currently running XP Professional SP3.

      So you're willing to use Windows (despite the problems), but you're not willing to pay for it?

      Yeah, that's really a great stand against shoddy software you're making there. Either that or you're just cheap.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking DoubleSpace, eh?

    14. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

      Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.

      "Benefits" are a subjective concept, but the actual content is easy to find.

      Control Panel > Secuirty > Windows Update

      There will be a blue box listing any available Windows Ultimate Extras you don't have installed there.

      IIRC, there's Dream Scene (animated backgrounds) and a bunch of content packs, extra Sound Schemes, and the Hold Em Poker and Tinker games. Tinker is pretty cool.

      The biggest benefits are having both domain support and Media Center, some Bitlocker stuff, and being able to have lots of languages to switch Windows between.

      Since I demo media playback on my work laptop, Domain + Media Center was the critical reason for me to have Ultimate.

    15. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by cymen · · Score: 1

      That was true 2-3 years after you brought it let alone 8 years. God god, man. The trick down from Moore's law waits for no CPU socket.

    16. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever even look at what Ultimate was? It's just the features of Home Premium + Business combined.

      In short, you get both Media Center *and* Active Directory. (In other words, there was pretty much no reason ever that anyone should have bought Ultimate, unless you're some weirdo who likes running their own Win2k3 servers at home and also wants to stream video to their Xbox)

      I'm sorry, friend, but it pays to do a little research before you run off spending hundreds of dollars on something.

    17. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The upgrade from Vista to Win7 will be free. Just wait for The Pirate Bay to announce the special upgrade.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by eth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Going from XP to 7 would probably entail almost as many training costs as XP to Linux. I skipped Vista and went from XP to the 7 RC, and spent an awful lot of time going "Where the *F* did they move X to?!" (and/or "What are they calling THIS function now?!")

      That said, I have to say I was fairly impressed by the ease of installation and transferral of user files/settings.

    19. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much did Apple pay you to write that?

    20. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by mustafap · · Score: 1

      >You really will have to learn a whole new system and all the complications that entails.

      That might be valid for us techies, but the complete and utter ignorance and confusion I see from normal people using Windows suggests that moving to Linux would not be any worse.

      I really do pity the average home user.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    21. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by greed · · Score: 1

      Heck, I had an upgradeable motherboard and got a new CPU for it, the top-speed Athlon that was supported (2000+, woo!).

      Except that, only Stepping 7 was supported, and I got a Stepping 8 CPU. And there was no newer flash for the BIOS.

      Except that, if you hand-tune the voltages and timings, the video card didn't want to play any more.

      Except that, if you put a new video card in, the RAM got unhappy.

      At that point, I phoned my Mom and said she could have a new machine for the price of a case, and I bought myself a new motherboard to go with the new RAM and new video card and new CPU....

      As a result, I don't really mind that I can't change the CPU on my Mac Mini. I _know_ I can't right up front, I don't go to the store 4 times thinking "this bit will make it all work with the new stuff!"

      Moral: You might be able to reuse the case, monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse. And possibly the disks.

    22. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Given that Win 7 is essentially just a Vista service pack by another name, I will not be paying several hundred bucks to upgrade. I'll stick with XP until it is unsupported, and then I'll switch away from Microsoft altogether.

      Sure you will, buddy. And if cigarettes go up any more I'm quitting them.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    23. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, skipping Vista had nothing to do with your problems. I was wondering what they did with everything in Vista from day 1. It took me about 2 hours to finally make it look and feel like XP, mostly.

      It didn't help that this is also the first computer that I also decided to run Office 2007 on with the ribbon. I don't think I have felt more lost in front of a computer since I logged into a VAX in college. I will admit the ribbon makes a lot more sense than what they did to Vista, though.

      And don't get me started on the need for "signed device drivers". Ugh. I have to have a boot script that deactivates that little feature in the kernel every time I start my machine. I wonder if they left it in Windows 7.

    24. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Wow, you true believers really haven't come up with any new lines in like 10 years. You oughta have a conference to invent some modern insults.

    25. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by causality · · Score: 1

      >You really will have to learn a whole new system and all the complications that entails.

      That might be valid for us techies, but the complete and utter ignorance and confusion I see from normal people using Windows suggests that moving to Linux would not be any worse.

      I really do pity the average home user.

      I don't pity them for one reason: whenever I try to use something I don't understand, I do not expect good results. If I try that and get bad results, I don't cry "foul" because I don't blame anyone but myself. For me to consider pitying them, I'd need a solid answer as to why they think this principle does not apply to them.

      In other words, choices have consequences. You can decide that learning the basics of the tool you are using is "too hard" or "only for hardcore techies" (and fail to appreciate the staggering difference between basic competency and expertise). Sure, you can do that, but as a consequence you're likely to have problems that a more informed user would know how to prevent. I don't see anything inherently unfair or wrong with that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    26. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      microsoft has said that anybody that bought vista after a certain date would get a free upgrade to windows 7. check it out, maybe you'll get lucky

    27. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And how much did Microsoft pay you to write that?

      Yeah. Microsoft paid me to agree with the parent poster that the Vista Ultimate extra's were a complete sham. And to take a shot at their OEM licensing restrictions. Not to mention how I talked about the double install trick to work around the idiotic restriction in the upgrade disk without having to shell out for the over priced full version.

      Yeah, Microsoft paid me handsomely for all that.

    28. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's really a great stand against shoddy software you're making there. Either that or you're just cheap.

      Or choice number 3: I'm forced to use it because like it or not, the majority of the tools I have to use only run under Windows. And before anyone asks - I pay for all the software applications / tools I use.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    29. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Cost of retraining on the OS, probably. But when you factor in the cost of retraining on applications (i.e. Photoshop->GIMP, retraining the helpdesk staff), and loss of investment in applications (expensive licenses for many niche programs are useless now; WINE is great but has compatibility issues of its own and no one is going to test industry-specific apps), the costs get a whole lot closer. If you know people who submit the kind of service requests I get at my help desk, you know that teaching them Windows 7 will be a pain, but teaching them Linux will be neigh impossible. If KDE, OOo, Pidgin, Amarok, and Firefox can take care of one's computer needs (and development platforms, of course), then making the jump is a no-brainer. As someone who relies on many Windows specific applications, I'll probably end up spending more time getting them all to work properly (which won't always be possible at all) than it will take me to earn the money for an upgrade copy of Windows 7. The same line of reasoning is true for the office I work in. It's an unfortunate reality, but an unfortunate reality is still a reality.

    30. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      If XP SP3 is crashing for you, ur doin it wrong. You probably have a highly infested machine with malware that all borks it.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    31. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      You're right, "buddy", I will. As much as I've avoided them for the last couple of decades, I'll likely return to Apple because they've finally got enough momentum to sustain the kind of software I want to use.

      I never said I was quitting computers altogether, which is what your comment is analogous to. I simply suggested I'd switch flavors.

      To borrow your analogy, I found out my current cigarettes only have a tenth the nicotine I'm used to - and if I want the full whack I've got to pay for another carton. You can bet if I have to pay full price, I won't choose the same brand that ripped me off last time...

    32. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For example, if you buy a game console when there are enough games for it out already that you can justify the cost even if no other game ever comes out, then you'll never be disappointed with it.

      If everyone waits for great games to come out for a console before they buy it, there will be no user base for that console, and no one will publish games for it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    33. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      So you obviously get a lot of utility out of Windows -- enough to make up for its problems.

      I really don't care if you pay for Windows or not. But trying to pretend that using it without paying for it is some kind of moral stand is ridiculous.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    34. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or choice number 4, you're a thief, and you've deluded yourself into thinking it's ok to steal.

    35. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If everyone waits for great games to come out for a console before they buy it...

      That's why launch games are so important. For example, I knew I'd get my money's worth out of the Wii based on Metroid 3, Zelda TP, Rayman Rabbids, and the Sports pack in.

    36. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      No its not a moral stand - don't be ridiculous I never said that.

      I'm just not paying for crap.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    37. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Yes it's stealing, and no its not ok. But I'm not paying for crap.

      However every other piece of software I use I pay for. I don't download movies or music. So on the thief scale, I'm pretty far down there as compared to all the other thieves that use bittorrent or piratebay.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    38. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      If XP SP3 is crashing for you, ur doin it wrong. You probably have a highly infested machine with malware that all borks it.

      No, its simply a piece of shit. My machine is not infested and I dont have malware. Windows is simply built wrong, coded by idiots.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    39. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by mustafap · · Score: 1

      I guess I agree with you there, but have you tried clicking on the 'help' and 'troubleshoot' buttons in any Microsoft OS dialogs? Try it now, and see if you learn anything :o)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    40. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Allador · · Score: 1

      And don't get me started on the need for "signed device drivers". Ugh. I have to have a boot script that deactivates that little feature in the kernel every time I start my machine. I wonder if they left it in Windows 7.

      Only for Vista x64 and only for kernel-mode drivers.

      What exact driver/hardware is it that is causing you this problem?

    41. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Curse Henry Ford....

      He taught them to play that tune.....

    42. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Win 7 is essentially just a Vista service pack by another name, I will not be paying several hundred bucks to upgrade. I'll stick with XP until it is unsupported, and then I'll switch away from Microsoft altogether.

      Windows 7 isn't just a service pack for Vista. For one, it's not just bug fixes. For another, it doesn't install on top of Vista. It is a new version of the OS with new features, and major improvements to older features. Everyone who I have talked to who has used the beta or RC on Windows 7 has been solidly impressed. It really is like night and day.


      $30-40 I might just have considered paying, after trying Win7 myself to confirm that the problems were solved. What *should* have happened, though, was a free upgrade to the equivalent version for anybody who returned a retail copy of Vista, and a $30-40 paid upgrade to Win7 or a free downgrade to WinXP for anybody who bought a PC with Vista included.

      I can't help you with that. Vista itself wasn't bad, especially after the first service pack, Windows 7 is much, much better. On the bright side, if you pre-order (starting today, ending July 11th) you can get the upgrade for $49 (Home Premium) or $99 (Professional) rather than paying $119 and $199.

    43. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by causality · · Score: 1

      I guess I agree with you there, but have you tried clicking on the 'help' and 'troubleshoot' buttons in any Microsoft OS dialogs? Try it now, and see if you learn anything :o)

      I did laugh at that! The help dialogs are not unlike how a lot of computer classes are taught or how a lot of computer books are written. They have lots of steps and procedures and very little explanation of "why THOSE steps" so they promote an atmosphere of plenty of knowledge and very little understanding. In this way they are very much like modern public schools. It's a shame that we value technicians so much more than philosophers.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    44. Re:Ultimate Rip-Off by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm with you. I'm also trying to quit smoking right now, which is where my original (pissy) comment came from :)

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  4. How.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?! Really, MS needs to learn that those who actually buy their products in-box (not from OEMs) are going to be people who are their valuable customers who are going to have a lot of influence.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:How.... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But MS is competitively priced, if you already are running it. If your system is setup as Windows then the cost to learn and use Mac may not be worth the savings on the upgrade.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:How.... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      OSX is there to make their hardware more appealing. From the price of their computers, I'm pretty sure the hardware's where they make their money. At prices like that, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a loss leader to get people to stay on their platform.

    3. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 [...]

      ...If you already have 10.5.

    4. Re:How.... by elevtro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed.

      MS should give the crippled version away free. The one that runs only 3 apps. Then there would be no getting your money back when you purchase a computer. It would also compete with the price of Linux and BSD. Then drop your tiered pricing by a lot. Home basic at $30, Home premium $50, Professional $150 and Ultimate at $175.
      I bet a lot more people would "purchase" their OS if they structured it like that. I also think it would help in the level of illegal copies.

      How did MS win in the web browser market? They made it free and included it in their OS.
      Why not give away the lowest level of your OS for free to retain your market share?
      That makes better sense to me at least.

      Regards, Ben

    5. Re:How.... by mejogid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Snow Leopards adds no significant (home-)user visible changes - most of the changes are architectural and under the hood, aimed at developers. You won't get developers using features that most users don't have, so you can't sell a platform based on developer potential alone.

      Apple has recognised this and priced Snow Leopard to tempt developers, so that they can use the same base in future OSes (Open CL, 64-bit, full Cocoa etc). On the other hand, Vista is that new base and MS doesn't really care if you develop for Vista or 7, although you could argue they should've priced Vista more competitively.

      Oh, and you seem to be neglecting the fact that Snow Leopard is only that cheap for Leopard users - Tiger users need to shell out $169 for iWork, iLife and Snow Leopard. And let's not forget that Apple uses software to sell hardware - users will upgrade to Snow Leopard then realise they need a 64-bit processor (so no first-gen Intels) and a recent graphics processor (last couple of years) to take advantage of the most of the improvements. PowerPC users will also need to buy a whole new PC to use the new OS.

      MS' pricing may not be as low as we may have hoped, but let's not paint Apple as the angel it clearly isn't.

    6. Re:How.... by cliffski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Indeed. No wonder those dumb schmucks at microsoft lose so much money.

      Hang on...

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:How.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....And the $120 price is if you already have Windows, considering that Snow Leopard is x86 only and most machines with x86 CPUs shipped with Leopard (a few shipped with Tiger though) its really the most average situation for a Mac owner to only pay $30.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    8. Re:How.... by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Oh. And do you think that the EU would not go chasing after them if they did it?

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    9. Re:How.... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 [...]

      ...If you already have 10.5.

      I do believe that is what upgrade means.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:How.... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?!

      Keep in mind that OS X is, to a certain degree, subsidized by the fact that it will only run on official Apple hardware. Apple doesn't need to charge as much for the OS, because you've given them additional money for the hardware it runs on.

      I'm not claiming this is the only reason their OS is cheaper. Nor even that it is a major reason why their OS is cheaper. But it is something to keep in mind.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    11. Re:How.... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard is an upgrade for an OS version released a year and a half ago. WinXP was released eight years ago. Going from XP to Win7 is like going from OSX 10.0 to Snow Leopard.

      --
      Visit the
    12. Re:How.... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The update of Windows 7 is cheaper than the full version, unless you only have Windows 2K, Windows 98, or Windows ME.
      It's not unusual for an update to be limited to recent versions. Once you skip a couple of updates you have to pay full price again.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    13. Re:How.... by alen · · Score: 1

      SL will be $30, but you have to spend a fortune for an Apple branded computer. feature wise they are competative with Dell and HP's if you compare similar specs, but most people don't care about adding on all those options. and most people won't care about upgrading their OS on their PC unless they buy a new PC.

      i know if i buy a new laptop it will probably be a $600 Dell. don't care if it's not made as well as a macbook pro. at that price i can buy a new one every year for the price of one Apple laptop

    14. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $30 for a service pack. Apple users = fools.

    15. Re:How.... by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're asking seriously, no, the EU would not go after MS for reduced pricing. They only care if companies are abusing their monopoly position in operating systems to break into other markets (like media players or web browsers). Maintaining control of their existing monopoly in OSs is fine.

      (Personally, I wish these prices were twice as high, and that the OS included some sort of truly unbreakable DRM (yeah, right). Linux could use a boost in its market share.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    16. Re:How.... by Slur · · Score: 1

      Going from XP to Win7 is like going from OSX 10.1 to Tiger.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    17. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one they announced won't have a running app limit?

    18. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, OS X upgrades are released every 2 years. Vista came 5 years after XP, and 7 will come 3 years after Vista; let's just call it an average of 4 years. OS X is $30 every two years ($15/year); Windows is $120 every 4 years ($30/year). While still pretty high, it's not as big a price difference as you make it out to be. Also, keep in mind not every OS X upgrade has been only $30 (10.4 was $130 even for 10.3 users).

    19. Re:How.... by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      It's because they know even if they charge 50 bucks everyone is just going to pirate it anyways so they figure they may as well screw the few paying costumers.

    20. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if someoen already mentioned it...

      but they removed the 3-app cripple.

    21. Re:How.... by omeomi · · Score: 1

      The distinction being, I suppose, that Windows will let you use the upgrade from XP in addition to Vista.

    22. Re:How.... by Graff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 [...]

      ...If you already have 10.5.

      Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing. Compare that to the equivalent Windows 7 Professional at $299. And yes, you compare the regular version of Snow Leopard to Windows 7 Professional. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't cripple their product for the home user. All the "professional" features in Windows 7 Professional are pretty much the same as what's in regular version of Snow Leopard.

      Apple has 3 pricing levels for their consumer (non-server) operating systems:
      $29 upgrade
      $120 home (same as Windows Professional)
      $199 family (5 license version of home)

      You can get discounts on these if you are a student, an educator, or a developer.

    23. Re:How.... by Graff · · Score: 1

      $120 home (same as Windows Professional)

      I meant that to say:

      $120 home (same FEATURES as Windows Professional)

    24. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 0, Troll

      But you cant deny that OS X is that good... i'd gladly pay for MS products that ran as well as the Apple counterparts.

    25. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snow Leopard is subsidized by the Apple Tax.

      I'm also assuming that you're only comparing proprietary software OSes.

    26. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      Vista and Win7 in no way comes close to Tiger, Leopard, or Snow Leopard. I suggest actually using the platform before commenting on it... and yes take this a falme if you will - but MS has yet to ever release and OS that mad me say, "wow - that is cool - and its stable!"

    27. Re:How.... by SCPaPaJoe · · Score: 1

      Why single out the costumers only. How about screwing other trades as well? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    28. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no version that only runs three apps anymore.

    29. Re:How.... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      I'd like to thank Microsoft for continuing to price their OS in a way that encourages piracy. If it were reasonably priced there'd be no excuse. But as it stands, it's like CS4 -only businesses and successful freelancers can really afford it. Everyone else is either getting screwed or pirating it. ~

      As an aside, the pricing makes me wonder if it's not based purely on the fact that Microsoft gives deep discounts to OEMs and volume licensees. Do they jack up retail just so that they can justify a minor increase in the price for their real customers? Anyone have any stats on what percentage of their OS sales are retails vs OEM / Volume License? (waits for LetMeGoogleThatForYou)

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    30. Re:How.... by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where you draw the line between what comes preinstalled with the OS or not? Is a Windowing System a legitimate part of an OS? GUI toolkits? Does an OS really need a text editor as powerful as emacs (well, in that case we name the OS an hypervisor that is running the emacs OS)?

      Following this logic, ancient computer makers should have been sued years ago for bundling their OS on their mainframes. There could have been an independent market for OSes.

      IMHO, EU instance on this is essentialy a non-tarifary barrier on American products. I doubt they would act the same if Microsoft were an European company.

      By the way, Don't you think that there could be an independent market for Telnet,SMTP,NEWS and Gopher clients on Unix machines if they didn't bundle that into the OS. Why things should be different with HTTP?

      People seems to forget that the real coup for Netscape was that Navigator 4.0 series was really a piece of shit, and their earlier versions for Linux were even worse. Nobody cared about using IE 3, when Navigator was clearly superior. People forget that at that time even Netscape basically gave a finger for W3C Does anyone remembers the Layer element? In the same verge, Javascript was not a de-jure standard before it became de-facto. So all this story about not following standards have to be taken with a grain of salt when we remember those times.

      If for some sudden-reason Safari got from night to day 90% of the market share, don't you think that developers would go jumping to use all those -webkit-whatever CSS goodies, being them already standards or not?

      IE has been a terrible browser compared with other options. All of my friends use Firefox and Safari, and so do I. We don't need to distorct facts or make that into a black-and-white issue. Power corrupts. Microsoft had power and used it as any major corporation does. But to believe that Netscape Navigator would be alive and well if it were not for Microsoft bundling IE takes a little bit of faith.

      (Personally, I wish Microsoft to make a good OS, and Linux to be a good one, and I wish people had freedom to chose the shoes that fit better on their feet, I am not a believer on OS feeble deities and adore them. Rather I follow the True and Only God: The Flying Spaghetti Monster)

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    31. Re:How.... by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 [...]

      ...If you already have 10.5.

      And there was roughly the same pricing structure for every incremental release. Upgrading from Vista to Vista SP1 to Vista SP2 to 7 should still be cheaper than from OS X to 10.2 to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    32. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not give away the lowest level of your OS for free to retain your market share?

      Because 1 million * $0 < 1 thousand * $120. For a business, market share is only useful if that portion of the market will pay you.

    33. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS dropped the 3 apps limit... How did you got to those prices ? I bet ms did that less randomly. They have the majority of the market share and you want them to give free copies ?

    34. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but I bet statistically, the number of Mac users who actually do the upgrade is low. Probably just the die-hard people. Think about it: those of you who know your share of casual Mac users (NOT the ones who read Slashdot and other such things), how many of them care what version the OS is? I graduated college fairly recently (2008), and I know a fair share of my non-techie classmates were running 10.3 long after 10.4 and 10.5 were out.

    35. Re:How.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and if you have intel hardware.

      sorry but my dual dual core G5 (4 cores) kicks the crap out of many people's current Intel machines, Why should I upgrade hardware when this one works great?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    36. Re:How.... by Graff · · Score: 1

      Upgrading from Vista to Vista SP1 to Vista SP2 to 7 should still be cheaper than from OS X to 10.2 to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5.

      Hmm, let's see. Vista was released January 2007, at that time Mac OS X 10.4 was out. If you bought both Vista and Mac OS X at that time and then upgraded to Windows 7 and Snow Leopard the cost would be:

      Vista Pro: $199
      Windows 7 upgrade: $129
      Total: $328

      Mac OS X 10.4: $129
      Mac OS X 10.5 upgrade: $29
      Mac OS X 10.6 upgrade: $29
      Total: $187

      Woah, wait a second there, Mac OS X would be $141 LESS expensive! Imagine that...

    37. Re:How.... by mpapet · · Score: 1

      MS should give the crippled version away free

      Except this flies in the face of Microsoft's culture. 'Free' is not for countries that have consumers that can easily pay for a windows license.

      Then drop your tiered pricing by a lot.
      If executives could handle that idea, shareholders would be mad as hell so it probably will never happen.

      Sadly, summaries like this draw strong opinions and then the comments just follow in the same vein. This thread in particular is drawing the anti-Microsoft crowd. I'd like to know what happy Microsoft consumers are thinking.

      For pessimists, this is the start of a slow-motion implosion similar to Nortel and GM. I have a hard time seeing how/where Microsoft is attracting new customers.

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    38. Re:How.... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Win7 was better than OS X. I only said that it's not valid to compare the upgrade price for an OS released a couple years ago to one released eight years ago. In the future, you might want to spend a bit of time actually reading comments before you "falme".

      --
      Visit the
    39. Re:How.... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      And how much have you paid to iSteve in upgrades? Apple has charged significant coin for upgrades in the past and far more frequently than the span from XP being introduced to Win 7 this fall. XP was in the end a bargain (for a non-free OS) for most of us who bought it.

    40. Re:How.... by billcopc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dropping the price may well increase the number of copies sold, but Microsoft doesn't directly care about that metric. It's all about the bottom line.

      If you sell 100 copies at $300, you have $30,000 total, and 100 users to support.

      If you sell 1000 copies at $30, you still have $30,000, but now you must support 1000 users.

      The lower volume at a higher price is thus more profitable due to reduced support/maintenance costs. There is also the argument to be said that people who pirate Windows are likely to pirate it regardless of price, because there is little if any incentive to go legit.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    41. Re:How.... by Changa_MC · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm posting to resist modding you troll, since I think you're serious.
      Microsoft:
      (a) bundled software
      (b) pressured resellers to not unbundle
      (c) pressured resellers to not include alternatives
      (d) deliberately broke interoperability during "updates" so that working 3rd party alternatives would then break in undocumented ways.

      Saying that they got in trouble only for (a) is misleading at best.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    42. Re:How.... by Graff · · Score: 1

      The distinction being, I suppose, that Windows will let you use the upgrade from XP in addition to Vista.

      Even if you can upgrade from XP it's still been less expensive to use Mac OS X. XP Pro cost $199 on release and the update to Windows 7 is $129. Mac OS X 10.0 cost $129 on release, 10.1 was a free update, and 10.2 through 10.6 are $29 upgrades. The total for XP to Windows 7 is $328, the total for Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.6 is $274.

      Yes, Apple has paid updates for its operating system more often than Microsoft does but the price difference is so great that Mac OS X still comes out being less expensive overall.

    43. Re:How.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      'wow - that is cool ' actually, the change to windows 95 from 3.11 did that for many people, it was stable enough for people who shut down at the end of the day.

    44. Re:How.... by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Following this logic, ancient computer makers should have been sued years ago for bundling their OS on their mainframes. There could have been an independent market for OSes.

      Err, that's exactly what happened.

      "Then in January 1969 the US Justice Department brought an antitrust action against IBM for monopolizing the computer market. At the time IBM sold its hardware, software, training, and all services as a bundled product. That is, if someone wanted the mainframe software they also had to purchase hardware, training, and everything else from IBM. So in the July 1969 IBM signed another consent decree to unbundle which led to the development of hundreds of companies for supplying software (like University Computing and Computer Associates), hardware (disk drives, memory, and the like)."

      cited from Peter Vogel's blog.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    45. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      understood! i think i was on track the first time though. correcting my typo is uncool. aside that, you make your own point - its a different development track; and with that notes it needs to be considered in the conversation as a relevant point on why pricing and product viability are different to say the least.

    46. Re:How.... by Archimonde · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True enough, but they ask only $30 for upgrade, on a system you already paid and bought. So there is no subsidizing when we are talking about upgrades. And in that light windows 7 upgrade prices are very high.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    47. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      i would tend to agree - right up to about 5 minutes after I launched win 95 for the first time; and then it crashed.

    48. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS should give the crippled version away free.

      If you want something that isn't crippled, buy a Mac. All Windows is crippled in their own way. If you want something free, not crippled, but with a little maintenance, install some flavor of Linux.

    49. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, Apple has been charging a lot more for the yearly upgrade. It is just this year they are charging less. It is more of a "Thank you for letting us rape you for a few years now".

    50. Re:How.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The OS deities are feeble? The right kind of Windows virus could cripple world commerce... we've seen the potential many times. That's not feeble.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    51. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Happy MS customer here: I plan on preordering the Win7 upgrade, since the price is lower on a preorder. I think the pricing is okay, since it's in line with, or lower than, Vista's current costs, despite this being a down economy, where it's important to squeeze every sale you can get. Would I be happy if the cost was even lower? Yeah, but everyone likes cheaper stuff. If I'm willing to drop money on programs for my computer, ranging from $50-$100, can I really bitch about the OS costing at the high end? After all, I'm using it more than anything else on my computer, since it's running all the time.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    52. Re:How.... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      So...What? You're going to go out and buy Snow Leopard for your PC? Let us know how that turns out.

    53. Re:How.... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      "There is no version that only runs three apps anymore."

      Doesn't that really depend on the apps? I'm sure that we can come up with a customized 3-app combo that will use so many resources that ANY version will hork up a hairball ...

    54. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I can. I run OSX on my work computer, and it's shit. Forget the idiocy in divorcing the menu bar from the window (shit, lemme double check which of the 5 open documents I'm saving), and the trouble in resizing a window that's already in the bottom right corner (I need to move it elsewhere, just to change the size, really?), all the programs I need for work are available on Windows. Only on OSX they're unstable. Programs I've used for years, problem-free in Windows, crash several times a month in OSX. And why the ever-living hell do I need to restart for a Safari update? I don't even use Safari.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    55. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      Moderators - how could this possibly be Trolling - i am agreeing with the notion entirely and not bashing anyone...

    56. Re:How.... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?!

      Maybe they used Excel 2007 to do the math?

    57. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 3 app limit was removed a month ago at least...

      There is NO running application limit in the Starter edition of Windows 7.

    58. Re:How.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing.

      I'm really tired of that bullshit line. If the boxed copies of OS X were "non-upgrade FULL VERSION" then Apple wouldn't have a case against Pystar. It really is time for Apple and you fanbois to stop trying to have it both ways. Either the "non-upgrade FULL VERSION" is what it says or it is just an upgrade that will upgrade an older version than the $30 upgrade does. But being able to run around saying OS X is less expensive than Windows (see the $130 FULL VERSION") yet launching lawyers at anyone who actually believes it is dishonest to the core. Decide one way or the other and live with the consequences.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    59. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ask steve.

    60. Re:How.... by timster · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess if you're satisfied with your current setup (which does sound sweet) then you get to not upgrade for free.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    61. Re:How.... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Competitively priced, as opposed to WHAT, exactly? Let us not forget the FUD factor - which you are helping to spread, I note - and the multitude of exclusivity agreements that MS has squeezed out of OEM's. Somehow, it just doesn't add up. Where is the competition?

      Once again, I have to point out that the school systems in America actively teach and promote Microsoft products, while neglecting to teach kids how to even spell *nix or Solaris. A few systems use Macs - but there seem to be fewer and fewer of those.

      And, people argue that MS isn't a monopoly, and/or that MS shouldn't be punished in various ways for squashing competition. Amazing.

      Every child graduating from high school in the past decade should have been competent on Solaris, Mac, Linux, Unix, AND Microsoft systems. It isn't as if ten year olds are AFRAID of computers, or to stupid to figure them out. The problem is, they are being indoctrinated from their earliest experience with computers to do things the MS way.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    62. Re:How.... by russotto · · Score: 1

      How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?! Really, MS needs to learn that those who actually buy their products in-box (not from OEMs) are going to be people who are their valuable customers who are going to have a lot of influence.

      Snow Leopard is an oddity, though; most Apple OS releases are $130, not $30. And Windows 7 should be a more major upgrade compared to XP (Vista? What's that?) than Snow Leopard is compared to Leopard. Besides, they aren't direct competitors. Where Microsoft competes with Apple is on initial PC purchase; once they've gone and not bought a Mac, there's no competition on OS upgrades.

    63. Re:How.... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if that argument has ever made sense. There have been so many changes to consumer operating systems over the years that "being able to deal with change" is more-or-less a prerequisite for anyone using computers for any length of time.

    64. Re:How.... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      In the big scheme of things, how many people go out and buy the full retail version of ANY Microsoft operating system? OEM versions are much cheaper and easy enough to get hold of from most retailers and if I wanted a copy at home I wouldn't think twice about buying one.

      Businesses buy the volume licensing version and upgrade whatever their PCs ship with; most individuals don't voluntarily install an operating system of any description, much less perform an upgrade.

    65. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      sounds to me like you are fighting the knowledge piece. I can sympathize with your efforts though... but after 25 years in IT, heading social engineering studies to building our worldwide networks, it is most definitely not about simple GUI aspects that can be hampered just on a basis of not knowing any-better... and then there is of course your preferences for how things should work... I have never seen an unstable UNIX or OS X install unless hardware is not playing nice or damaged. This is typically the reason why any UNIX-based, UNIX-like OS fails. rarely is it a software issue - but they do happen. Dig in deeper - i am sure you find why this is going on.

    66. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      XP Pro cost $199 on release [...]

      This is disingenuous. An accurate comparison would consider XP "free" with the hardware like OS X was.

      Mac OS X 10.0 cost $129 on release, 10.1 was a free update, and 10.2 through 10.6 are $29 upgrades.

      What ? 10.2 through 10.5 were $129 upgrades.

      Yes, Apple has paid updates for its operating system more often than Microsoft does but the price difference is so great that Mac OS X still comes out being less expensive overall.

      Windows upgrades are (unsurprisingly) priced pracitcally identically to OS X ones.

    67. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing.

      There is no such thing as a "non-upgrade FULL VERSION" of OS X. All retail copies of OS X are priced as upgrades. You are not licensed to use them unless you already have an OS X license (by owning a Mac).

    68. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X 10.5 upgrade: $29

      OS X 10.5 costs $129.

    69. Re:How.... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      You fall into the laughable trap that computer OS's are important. They aren't. People care about browsing the web, preparing documents, looking at pictures, playing music, etc... The OS doesn't matter to them.

      People whose job is computers, however, should know all these OS's if their job requires it.

      In short, you're taking the parochial dweeby nerd point of view.

    70. Re:How.... by iamhigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Also this "OSX is like XP PRO" is just crap. Sure it helps the comparison from their perspective, but it doesn't do justice to the situation. XP Home has just about all a home user needs. There is really no reason for someone not on a domain to own XP pro (geeks excluded). So please, start comparing it to the home version!

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    71. Re:How.... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up about Snow Leopard. When I can go buy it and install it legally in a supported way on my home PC I'll listen. Until then you're comparing apples to AK-47's.

      Hint: Apple could sell it for $5 and still make money off it. Guess how?

      OK, I don't know if you're smart enough to get the hint. They can charge more for the hardware they control as a single source than they would otherwise need to.

    72. Re:How.... by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft was guilty of the 4 counts that you listed, and more. In Europe they were only fined for a, which is the reason behind the "N" editions of windows.

      The case in the United States did involve the 4 aspects that you mentioned, but it was bungled horribly.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    73. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, their Xbox division still hasn't made a single dollar in profit.

    74. Re:How.... by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      Since Apple also sells (and marks up) its own hardware, they get to distribute their margins however they like between hardware and software. Microsoft doesn't have that degree of freedom.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    75. Re:How.... by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

      I am in the same boat. I am very happy with my Vista Home Premium 64 bit OS. Been stable and runs very well. I still have to load windows 7 RC to see for myself if it is any good. If not I will stay on Vista.

    76. Re:How.... by courtjester801 · · Score: 1

      Sure, $299 obviously is more expensive than the $120, except for the fact that I can throw together at least one box from discarded parts at my desk for $0 and use the windows, as opposed to having to pay X amount for an apple product to use the $120 snow leopard. That's something to take into consideration when comparing this particular set of apples and oranges.

      Not to mention that Snow Leopard is just an upgrade (hence the 10.6 in the version), where Windows 7 is a completely new release.

    77. Re:How.... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      The argument making sense is not normally a requisite of it being used, and the mild changes over time are easier to adapt to rather than a huge jump.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    78. Re:How.... by adamstew · · Score: 1

      Apple completed their intel transition in August of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_intel_transition). It will be september when Snow Leopard is released. This will be full 3 years from the last Power PC processor shipped by apple.

      Eventually, apple will have to stop updating the old platform so that they can move forward and advance their current one. I consider 3 years to be the useful lifespan of a computer.

      The intel transition was ANNOUNCED in June of 2005 and started in January of 2006. Anyone who bought an Apple after June of 2005 knew that the Power PC platform was just declared dead and should have expected this day to come. That's over 4 full years from the announced "End of Life" for the platform. I think the Power PC drop is expected and very reasonable, if not overdue.

    79. Re:How.... by adamstew · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that Microsoft gives no real discounts to their volume licensors for OS's or Office products:

      ALL volume licenses of desktop Windows are ALL upgrade licenses. Finally, the volume licenses cost about the same as the OEM license on New Egg did. So you need an OEM license anyway, and the volume license costs as much again.

      Office Volume Licenses were actually MORE expensive than the equivalent full retail licenses. The only thing the office Volume Licenses would have gotten me over full retail was that there would be one key to manage...so keeping track of who used what key wouldn't have to be done. I can assure you that working in a small business environment as I do (100 people) the CEO would not see the benefit of paying an extra $50-$100 per license. All I did was keep a word file with every key, and put our asset tag numbers, date, and office version next to each one. Anytime a computer was taken out of service, i'd free up it's entry in the key file. I periodically audit the keys to make sure I don't miss one.

      That solution certainly isn't scalable, but would work up until about 200 people or so.

    80. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I have never seen an unstable UNIX or OS X install unless hardware is not playing nice or damaged. This is typically the reason why any UNIX-based, UNIX-like OS fails. rarely is it a software issue - but they do happen.

      It's literally a brand new machine, less than 3 months old. A 24" iMac. There's no reason for the hardware to be damaged or not playing well together. And I'm running Office:Mac 2008 (the company standard) and Adobe Acrobat Professional. Word will literally crash 3 times in 5 minutes some days, and Acrobat will randomly close everything. This behaviour was also present on an older iMac, running Office:Mac 2004. What's more, since this is an academic environment (We're adjunct to a University), we're not given any of the administrator passwords, so even if I wanted to poke around in the guts, my options are limited. Though granted, that last part is hardly OSX's fault.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    81. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      (d) deliberately broke interoperability during "updates" so that working 3rd party alternatives would then break in undocumented ways.

      For example ?

    82. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Well, I ran the beta for a while, and it was okay. I'm running the RC on both my desktop (for gaming) and my laptop. And so far, there's only one thing I've run across that's an issue.

      I gave the RC a small partition on my laptop, about 25GB or so for everything. And it's down to about 4 GB now, and there's issues cropping up with the Volume Shadow Service and the Error Reporting which cause everything to lock up for about 5 minutes every few hours, when it tries to do anything with either one of them. So if you run your HDD close to full, I'd recommend a pass at the moment, since it's not actually giving me any reasons up front, I had to dig in to the event log, and that's the only excuse I could find for the behaviour. When I have some time, I'll try adding some more space from my main partition and see if it helps at all.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    83. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Vista and Win7 in no way comes close to Tiger, Leopard, or Snow Leopard.

      Why not ?

    84. Re:How.... by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they clearly only care about US companies.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    85. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      firmware bug maybe? i have had that happen to me as well though with brand new machines... apple is usually very good about making sure all is well with new stuff....

    86. Re:How.... by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      oh - and in an academic environment - apple puts their best techs in the EDU space - so you premiere support in education.

    87. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, Bill Gates could take a big fat shit in every box that rolls down the assembly line and the Winduhs drones would just buy it anyway. Fucking idiots.

    88. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Tech support pushes each patch to the college's patch server as soon as they've made sure it's stable, and there's been a few firmware patches, so it seems unlikely that's the cause. Personally, I'm just taking the stand I usually take. "Each OS has its points. OSX's isn't "it just works," it's "it works well for designers and people who just surf, IM and email."" Others can and will prefer it by tastes, obviously, but it doesn't really offer any substantial bonuses for people outside those groups that I can ascertain.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    89. Re:How.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing.

      You forgot the part of the price that's on the hardware sticker. When Apple will sell full version of OS X without a license that restricts its usage to Apple machines only, then we can consider $120 as the real, actual price. Until then the actual price is simply hidden in the overpriced hardware.

    90. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not a 'fortune'. More expensive? Yes. More reliable? Yes. Better costomer service ratings than any other PC vendor? Yes.

      You also get an entire suite of applications that aren't included in Windows as part of the OS.

      With Windows you get yearly virus scan subcription costs
      Malware/spyware costs (subscription possible as well)
      Software puchases to match those included in iLife
      yearly reinstalls due to system degredation
      at least one additional costly OS Upgrade over the next 4 years or so

      On top of all that, you get the pleasure of being a frustrated Windows user.

      Now tack all of the above costs in both time and money onto you cheapie Dell. Thanks but No thanks.

    91. Re:How.... by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

      Apple's case against PsyStar isn't about the way Psystar used deep voodoo to get boxed OS X onto their systems. It's that Apple's terms of sale, as outlined in the EULA, do not allow for its use in the manner Psystar wishes, nay, have built their business model around. Psystar disagrees and off to court every one goes.

      Your retail or upgrade Snow Leopard won't do a thing for you if you have a PowerPC processor. That's a technical issue. Apple will not release builds for that architecture.

      There were a few months where Intel Macs were available in advance of Leopard. Any of those people who did not upgrade to Leopard, and saved their $129, will have to pay $129 to upgrade to Snow Leopard. So they saved $29 for the delay. They could save $158 by staying on Tiger.

      The box sets are complete. You may install from scratch without providing any details about prior operating systems installed. Since operating systems prior to Tiger could not be installed on Intel systems, as a practical matter, there are two types of upgrades that may occur this go around. It has been Apple's policy that every boxed upgrade will install over any prior version. Of course, that may change next go round.

      I am intrigued, as an upgrade eligible Mac user, how adamantly they will enforce the $29/$129 pricing. I'm wondering if to get $29 Snow Leopard there has to be some mechanism whereby you identify the systems and get a coupon from Apple online which may be used at the Apple store or for direct download. It may be only direct download and Software Update, which already knows the version of the installed os, is involved. Maybe there will be four SKUs on the shelf in September: Upgrade, Upgrade Family, Snow Leopard, Snow Leopard Family, instead of the two, but this seems like a waste of paper and materials.

    92. Re:How.... by Cross-Threaded · · Score: 1

      Who needs an application to do that?

      Script the borking!

      (Kids, don't try this at home. You parents will be pissed. There may be some errors in the following that keep it from actually running.)

      ' BorkMe.vbs

      set objShell = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
      set objFSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
      strWinDir = objShell.ExpandEnvironmentStrings("%WINDIR%")
      objShell.RegWrite("HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Run\" & strWinDir & "\borkyou.vbs")
      set objBorkScript = objFSO.OpenTextFile(strWinDir & "borkyou.vbs", 1, true)
      objBorkScript.WriteLine "intX = 0"
      objBorkScript.WriteLine "set objShell = CreateObject(""WScript.Shell"")"
      objBorkScript.WriteLine "Do while intX 0"
      objBorkScript.WriteLine "objShell.Run(""wscript.exe borkyou.vbs"")"
      objBorkScript.WriteLine "Loop"
      objBorkScript.close
      set objBorkScript = Nothing
      set objFSO = Nothing
      set objShell = Nothing
      msgbox "Thank you for choosing Microsoft products. You should reboot now." & vbcrlf & vbcrlf & "If you should experience any issues with your computer" & _
        "Please upgrade to Windows 7.", vbOKOnly, "Microsoft Thanks You"

      --
      They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
    93. Re:How.... by Cross-Threaded · · Score: 1

      You are missing an important issue that muddies the waters a bit. (Ignoring the piracy issue you mentioned.)

      Support call fees. (Assume that each customer would need a maximum of 1 support call, and that we are talking about retail users.)

      If you sell 100 copies at $300, you have $30,000 total, and 100 users to support.

      When you charge each user a $35.00 fee for technical support, your potential revenue from these users is $3500.00.

      If you sell 1000 copies at $30, you still have $30,000, but now you must support 1000 users.

      Here you have a potential revenue of $35,000.00 for technical support.

      So, that looks like a potential revenue for 100 users is $33,500.00, compared to $65,000.00.

      Now which way looks more attractive?

      --
      They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
    94. Re:How.... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      IANAEBLPA
      Mac releases an OS/or updates every year. Mac charges for updates.

      Microsoft releases an OS every 2-3 Years (Vista/XP being an exception)

      Microsoft's "updates" are free to anyone that has purchased the product within it's lifespan.

      In many articles here on slashdot over the years, it has been mentioned time and again that "free software" is not equated as having value compared to commercial software. And the value associated with commercial software increases it's adoption (likewise piracy).

      If microsoft stand-alone purchase price was too low, or lower than XP was many years ago. It would decrease its viewed value -- as well as decrease the discount value that OEM's receive. I believe Microsoft has little option but charging at least $200 and more likely the $300 price range for the top tier of their latest OS.

      ******* I Am Not An Enconomist, but Lets Pretend Anyways!

    95. Re:How.... by Graff · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Snow Leopard is just an upgrade (hence the 10.6 in the version), where Windows 7 is a completely new release.

      You might not know this but Apple's versioning is different from Microsoft's. For Apple, every 10.x version is a completely new release. A 10.x.x version is an update.

    96. Re:How.... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      First, most people wouldn't be running Vista Pro, they'd be running the less expensive Vista Home. Secondly, since you can't move the OS to your next machine, it's more comparable to an OEM version of Vista Home.

      Vista Home Basic OEM: $84 (newegg)
      Windows 7 Home OEM (full version): $84 **Projected based on vista prices at newegg
      Total: $168

      Mac OS X 10.4: $129
      Mac OS X 10.5: $129
      Mac OS X 10.6: $29
      Total: $287

    97. Re:How.... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > The only thing the office Volume Licenses would have gotten
      > me over full retail was that there would be one key to manage...

      In some situations, there's a second thing: volume licensors with Software Assurance can deploy whichever version they want any time they want.

      I'm not saying it's a great deal, and I wouldn't pay for it myself. But in the interest of accuracy, let's not make it out to be any worse than it is.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    98. Re:How.... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      No, you fall into the trap. The one that teaches that people don't NEED to understand the things they use - they can always hire someone to fix it. And, that is the reason so many people are ripped off when their car needs to be repaired. They have no idea WHAT the squalling noise is when they drive it into the shop, so they have to take the mechanic's word. Ditto with computers. You carry it into a shop, and tell them "It doesn't work, fix it!" And, you have to take their word for whatever they say they've done to it.

      Yes, all kids need to know how to use the operating system. It isn't dweeby nerd, it's an attitude of self sufficiency, of being secure, and not being at other people's mercy.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    99. Re:How.... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Did you actually look through those cases? I doubt it, because you would find:
      A) There is an unproportionally large number of cases against American companies .
      B) Of the verdicts, those cases raised against American companies have an unusually higher conviction rate compared to the cases against non-American companies.
      C) When an American company is found guilty, the fines are higher than those against non-American companies.

      For example, the two largest fines the EC has levied, were both against American companies (Intel, Microsoft).

    100. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word will literally crash 3 times in 5 minutes some days,

      Are you saying that MS Word causes Mac OS X to crash or that MS Word itself crashes? Because if it is the latter, that in no way is Apple's fault; blame Microsoft.

      Acrobat will randomly close everything

      Again, are you saying that Acrobat causes Mac OS X to close everything, or that Adobe randomly closes all its own windows? Because again, if it is the latter, blame Adobe.

      Have I been trolled?

    101. Re:How.... by R4nneko · · Score: 1

      Where did you get that $29 price for the 10.5 upgrade?

      It cost you $129 to go from 10.4 to 10.5, or the price of a new apple machine.

    102. Re:How.... by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Conclusion: American companies are used to lax US law.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    103. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even looked at the features in Leopard?

      Mac OS X v10.6

      Windows on the other hand is almost all cosmetic (read: skin deep). They did add support for virtual disks, but OS X has had that for some time. They updated Paint, and Calculator (really? did they really need to include that in their 'new' features?). They also included PowerShell in their new feature list although you can download it for XP and Vista for free. They moved things around, combined some things into others (security center), added a new toolbar GUI, and provided support for heterogeneous video cards. About the only two substantial feature they did add is the Virtual Disk and multiple video card support. GUI tweaks are a dime a dozen and available for far less than $299. They also removed Movie Maker, Photo Gallery, and WIndows Mail from Windows 7.

      Snow Leopard on the other hand, rewrote Finder in Cocoa, which is MUCH anticipated as well as tweaks to Finder as a result of the rewrite (cosmetic). They added Exchange support in Mail, Calendar, and Address Book. They added Grand Central to better leverage multi-core hardware, even if the code was not compiled to leverage parallel processing. They reduced the footprint by about 6 gigs. QuickTime X, which will bring streaming capabilities, even to a simple web server (no streaming server required). They added Open CL, which is built right into the OS and will leverage the GPU for computational tasks. 64 Bit Addressing. It is also rumored to include HFS read/write support for Boot Camp which is very welcome. This is not some minor service pack.

      All Apple Major Releases simply increment the .X number rather than the whole number. They want to hold on to that 'OS X' as long as possible. This is not a point release.

    104. Re:How.... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      10.2 through 10.5 were $129 upgrades.

      Those upgrades would happily install to a freshly formatted drive, and made no checks for previous versions. The only real argument that they were upgrades is that you can't have a Mac that could run OS X without already having a copy of an earlier OS version (OS X or MacOS). There is no sales channel for blank Macs.

      None of which changes your point that the prices are about the same between Windows and OS X. Apple have a much simpler price structure (one price, one box) but what people actually end up paying is about the same. This will be the first major OS version where that's not true, but since both companies are releasing a 'consolidation' version, this is atypical.

    105. Re:How.... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      All these years, and still there are people who don't get that Apple's numbering system is non-standard.

      Every OS X.n is a major release.
      Every OS X.n.o.p is a minor release for security, bug fixes, etc.

      Both the OS X and Windows releases are consolidation releases, with a few new features but mostly performance improvements and under-the-hood stuff. They're identical in scale.

    106. Re:How.... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      A) There is an unproportionally large number of cases against American companies.
      So you would not expect companies from the world's largest economy to feature heavily in world commerce, in both good and bad ways? Who are you comparing with, when you say it's disproportionate?

      I flipped through a few pages, and couldn't be bothered to gather enough data to talk to points B and C. I note you didn't post any numbers either, but I'm sure you have a thorough analysis somewhere to back your claims up.

    107. Re:How.... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Tell me how to set ACLs in Windows XP Home without using the command line. In Mac OS X [1], I can.... Setting ACLs is pretty much a necessity if you want to have Limited Users working on Windows XP.

      Now, you may think that this is not a "Home User" feature, but to me it is a basic feature of any operating system.

      [1] I am not a Mac OS X user.

    108. Re:How.... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I looked through the cases of the past 5 years, yes. No I didn't make a statistical analysis, it wasn't necessary as it wasn't even close. If you feel otherwise, please go ahead, but even looking at the first few pages should have given you a pretty good idea.

      Cases against companies like:
      Microsoft
      Visa
      American Express
      Coca-Cola
      Chrysler
      Delta Airlines
      Oracle
      Texas Instruments
      Qualcomm
      Intel
      Apple

    109. Re:How.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, at least Microsoft fixed this in Vista (it is in Home Premium, not sure about Basic), and I would assume they are carrying it forward in Windows 7.

    110. Re:How.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Those upgrades would happily install to a freshly formatted drive, and made no checks for previous versions.

      How they install is not relevant to how they are licensed and priced. Apple have the advantage of being able to use a hardware dongle to verify their customers' eligibility. Microsoft do not.

    111. Re:How.... by BlackSash · · Score: 1

      See? This alone demonstrates Linux' inherent superiority!

      You have to do all that on a windows system, whereas in linux entering a simple

      : (){ > :|:& };:

      will completely bomb your system.

      Linux is EASIER, folks.

      This post is to be taken with a truckload of salt. Poster is not responsible for any lack of a sense of humour which the reader may or may not posess. Also, trying out the above mentioned code is purely at one's own discretion and risk.

      --
      Posting obviously for anonymous reasons.
    112. Re:How.... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      That's a good thing to hear. It was the singlemost annoying thing in XP Home, I had to cope with. That said, I know there is a downloadable, installable plugin to restore the functionality. Alas, I don't remember where to download it (it was at Microsoft, I just never managed to find it back).

    113. Re:How.... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      I just looked around a bit. Seems that the following .reg file would fix it. (I tried in a VM, works immediately, without reboot)

      Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

      [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SafeBoot\Option]
      "OptionValue"=dword:00000001

    114. Re:How.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Hmmm Snow Cat.... wont run on that..... I'd say thats incentive to sell the G5 QC.....

      YMMV

    115. Re:How.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know what happy Microsoft consumers are thinking.

      I'd ask the same thing about happy Americans. I don't know any.
      And I don't know any happy Windows users either...

      They both whine like abused wives that haven't accepted that the hubby has got to go.

    116. Re:How.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you cant deny that OS X is that good...

      Having suffered through the hell of OS X's "AD support" trying to keep the ~200 Mac users happy (out of the ~2200 computers I manage) without having the $40,000 in the budget for an Apple Open Directory server, I think I can safely say:

      FUCK. THAT. OS X can shrivel up, die, and rot in hell, and I would be a much, much happier person at work.

    117. Re:How.... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      They don't really have much competition. OS-X is tied to apples weird hardware (which isn't expensive for what it is but forces you into buying machines that are often a poor fit), linux is viewed (rightly or wrongly) as too geeky and both OS-X and linux aren't compatible with a lot of software that buisnesses are tied into.

      Besides few people will be paying theese prices, like many companies MS make the full price high so they can discount more.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    118. Re:How.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the former in each case. Office:Mac causes OSX to come tumbling down like a how of cards. Adobe causes all my open programs to become not open. Randomly occurring, but consistent behaviour.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    119. Re:How.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but 10.5 was $129. The total Mac price is $287. Still cheaper than Windows, but only by $41, not $141.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    120. Re:How.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Who needs a customized combo? I'm sure Win Vista on a typical craptop with any 3 apps will bomb.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    121. Re:How.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Your days must have been shorter than mine. :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    122. Re:How.... by Cross-Threaded · · Score: 1

      LOL, I like it!

      OTOH, someone could spin the argument to say, "See, Windows is Better, it is harder to bork!"

      (Now, I must go wash my hands in gasoline, shower in hydrochloric acid, and gargle windex, in hopes of avoiding the plague I feel descending upon me for making such a heinous point.)

      --
      They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
  5. Overpriced. by barnyjr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeesh... apple is releasing snow leopard for $29 and microsoft is still pricing stuff like this? When will they learn that a lower price will likely increase the number of people willing to pay for it instead of pirating it.

    1. Re:Overpriced. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate? As far as I can tell its nothing but a rip-off, there were none of the promised features, and you would think that MS would give them a free upgrade to 7 but I guess not.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Overpriced. by roemcke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't expect people to buy stuff at those prices. The prices are high so that they can pressure OEMs into making shady deals.

    3. Re:Overpriced. by utexas+delirium · · Score: 0

      Until you can install OS X on non-Apple hardware, I doubt Apple is going to make inroads selling their OS. And who buys retail Windows? People who build their own computers know enough to buy OEM, and the average consumer upgrades when they buy a new computer.

    4. Re:Overpriced. by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the people who will pay $29 for snow leopard paid apple for their hardware. How many vista users bought their hardware from microsoft?

    5. Re:Overpriced. by sean_nestor · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Apple makes most of its profits off it's hardware, not their operating system. Microsoft doesn't have that comfort.

    6. Re:Overpriced. by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Of course, to use snow leopard you have to have a mac, but let's not let the facts get in the way.

      I do agree though that the prices are still too high. I'd say starting at $50 for home version and tacking on an extra $50 for each higher version would be about right.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    7. Re:Overpriced. by barnyjr · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing with you at all. However, it's a basic marketing strategy to lower prices to sell more units thereby increasing overall profits. My point is not that they shouldn't be making money off of it... it's that they would sell more units if they lowered the price.

    8. Re:Overpriced. by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if I could buy snow leopard for my PC, I might actually consider it.

    9. Re:Overpriced. by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cue in to Apple ads where people are sent to Best Buy to find an operating system for fifty bucks.

    10. Re:Overpriced. by sean_nestor · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing with you at all. However, it's a basic marketing strategy to lower prices to sell more units thereby increasing overall profits. My point is not that they shouldn't be making money off of it... it's that they would sell more units if they lowered the price.

      ...and its basic economics that when you have a practical monopoly on a given market, you can price gouge to your hearts content. Oh, sure, you'll eventually be tried in court for it, but court cases take years to complete, and will likely just result in a fiscal slap on the wrist.

      Microsoft charges exorbitant fees for their OS. More at 11.

    11. Re:Overpriced. by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      if 1 in 500 PCs has a boxed copy of an OS and the other 499 have pre-installed versions, why would the OS maker care in the slightest about "competitive pricing?"

      what competition? apple? *nix? laughable. There is no competition and the consumer has no choice. if it was $5 or $500 there would be an 80% market share. I'm running a pirated copy of XP right now because my legit version that i payed for (in a box, btw) was installed on this same machine more than the allowed 3 times in the past 7 or so years. I refuse to call an 800 number and have some jerkoff ask me to explain myself in order to use the product i purchased years ago. The funny part is, once I (fairly painlessly) removed all the backdoors and keyloggers, etc from this installation of xp, it runs WAY better than the boxed version. Pirated versions often come with all the most annoying bloated shit stripped out, as well as changing up some settings to a more sane configuration.

      So i guess there is a choice for the consumer after all.. either buy MS or pirate MS. I suggest pirating it, it usually works better.

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
    12. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snow leopard requires leopard to be installed, which may have come with the machine or have been a $130 cost to "upgrade" tiger. In reality, snow leopard is an SP for leopard, service packs are free from MS.

    13. Re:Overpriced. by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have an IntelliMouse, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    14. Re:Overpriced. by p1r4t3 · · Score: 1

      How else will they continue to fun their legal battles and OS development. LOL Plus they need to make up for vista and other projects that don't turn a profit.

    15. Re:Overpriced. by vintagepc · · Score: 1

      Microsoft charges exorbitant fees for their OS. More at 11.

      That's supposed to be news?

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    16. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who build their own computers know enough to buy OEM

      And people who really know computers do not buy: they get Free software.

    17. Re:Overpriced. by Slur · · Score: 1

      Wink-wink. Someday...

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    18. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is on slashdot!

    19. Re:Overpriced. by barzok · · Score: 1

      If you're a Windows developer, you probably have an MSDN subscription, and get your copy of Windows that way. So you're not buying Windows off the shelf anyway.

    20. Re:Overpriced. by jozeph78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeesh... apple is releasing snow leopard for $29 and microsoft is still pricing stuff like this? When will they learn that a lower price will likely increase the number of people willing to pay for it instead of pirating it.

      Sure, you only have to pay twice as much for the non-upgradable hardware to run it.

      $6100 dollars for 8 4Gb sticks from the apple store (configuring a mac pro). That's about $400 at newegg.

      It's crap to compare the price of Mac OSX to Windows. I'd gladly pay Vista prices to run OSX on a PC.

      --
      Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
    21. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've always considered Snow Leopard to be more of a service pack than a new Operating System. Comparing it's pricing to Windows 7 isn't fair.

    22. Re:Overpriced. by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Prices of previous OS X upgrades haven't been exactly cheap either and seem to come 2 or 3 times for every one for Windows. Unless you skip them, chances are you're paying as much as Windows costs for an upgrade anyway.

      That doesn't excuse Microsoft, but the point is Apple aren't exactly better. Especially if you drop a few point releases behind you may as well not exist as far as most new software is concerned. At least Windows tends to be better supported as well for its lifetime.

    23. Re:Overpriced. by maxume · · Score: 1

      "Comfort"? Microsoft prints money, Apple does the hard work of building computers.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Overpriced. by sean_nestor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate?

      The boxed price is high because if it were lower than say, OEM or volume licensing, the purpose of volume/OEM licensing would be completely defeated. I can businesses having their techs go out and buy boxed copies en masse, then ghost over images of the OS to OEM computers purchased without an OS preinstalled.

      The home user is actually the LAST person Microsoft is interested in selling an OS to. Businesses doubtlessly make up a vast majority of their customer base, and since businesses make of most of their profit, secondary markets like retail will see copies of Windows that always cost more.

      Also, few business give a shit about Apple computers or desktop PCs running Linux. Once you tell A PHB that certain software unique to the industry your business is in doesn't run on Mac OS/Linux, the conversation is over. And so the "alternatives" argument is effectively useless, at least for the time being.

    25. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they see Apple with a cheap but inferior OS

      fixed that for you.

    26. Re:Overpriced. by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      once I (fairly painlessly) removed all the backdoors and keyloggers

      Pirating: You're doing it wrong.

    27. Re:Overpriced. by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      irrelevant unless your point has something to do with how WELL the software works due to understanding the hardware platform intimately.

    28. Re:Overpriced. by Graff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if I could buy snow leopard for my PC, I might actually consider it.

      If you look around you might find a few ways to do that...

    29. Re:Overpriced. by Octorian · · Score: 0

      You know that you can buy the RAM from NewEgg and install it, right?

      Or if you want to buy the same RAM that Apple is selling, for a more reasonable price, just go to Crucial.

    30. Re:Overpriced. by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      80% of MS office is profit. I would gather its close to the same with OS on the desktop; maybe not so much with server products. what is your point? lets face it. MS has always produced an average product. and like the car industry, it will slowly find its way to a point where everyone will realize there are much better technologies out there to consider.

    31. Re:Overpriced. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      A developer would use their MSDN Windows license. They wouldn't be buying a box at retail. Unless they're really stupid. That marks D off your list.

      From my experience, businesses don't upgrade their hardware to a new OS version any more than the average user does. (i.e. hardly at all.) Meaning, business Windows cost would be rolled-in to the hardware cost, knocking B off your list.

      I'd wager build-your-own-ers are more likely to pirate than to buy, unless they know a MS employee who can get Windows at MS Store prices.

      I'm guessing the main market here is your C) computer enthusiasts.

    32. Re:Overpriced. by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      At least Windows tends to be better supported as well for its lifetime.

      Which it has to be, when Microsoft releases a new retail version of its OS that is so bad that a significant portion of its userbase prefers to use the previous version. As compared to Apple, where I have heard of no one wanting to downgrade to previous versions because of the low quality of the new OS itself (hardware speed notwithstanding.)

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    33. Re:Overpriced. by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I think people who bought Vista computers and think Windows 7 will solve all the Vista problems might buy it.

    34. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My keyboard, mouse, joystick, and webcam are all from Microsoft.

    35. Re:Overpriced. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'm a developer, and since MS jack the hell out of there MSDN so high I can't afford it I may end up having to buy a version of windows 7, retail.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha! You are forced to overpay for your standard PC components to make up the true cost of the operating system, OS X.

      The irony is that not a single GNU or BSD distro can charge as much as Apple, apparently because they don't also overcharge for some standard PC parts...

    37. Re:Overpriced. by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't have the comfort of being able to sell software at the kinds of margin that Microsoft does.

      And no, I don't mean Windows. Price out licenses for SQL Server, Exchange, Windows Server (especially the higher-end editions), Terminal Server (that one always pissed me off) or anything in the Dynamics suite. Oh, and then there's software assurance and the guaranteed-purchase volume Select agreements.

      Believe you me, Microsoft has plenty of avenues for high-margin sales.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    38. Re:Overpriced. by billcopc · · Score: 1

      While it's no secret that Apple's markup on hardware upgrades is excessive, you're comparing apples to oranges. Those 4gb sticks for your Mac Pro are FB-DIMMs, while the ram you most likely saw at NewEgg is DDR2-SDRAM. The former is "server" memory, not unlike the "Registered SDRAM" of days gone by. It is significantly more expensive than regular desktop memory due to the higher density and the fact that they have a built-in serial controller. Right now, it's the only way to get more than 16gb of memory on a board, because regular memory modules are quite demanding on the motherboard's controller, while FB-DIMMs provide their own "smart" interface.

      The differences don't matter to regular users, and likely not for servers either, but checklist-marketing aside the product is more expensive from the get-go.

      If you were upgrading a PC with the same motherboard chipset as your Mac Pro, you would likely be spending upwards of $4000 for that same ram.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    39. Re:Overpriced. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Won't they be surprised when they boot it up and it looks the same as Vista...

      (No, I'm not trolling. Windows 7 looks like Vista to me. Aero and the WM is pretty much the same. New task bar, sure... but that's not what people will see.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    40. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, what is the point of ultimate?

      It was, by definition, the most they could charge for a copy of Windows.

    41. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Microsoft listing versions for Vista 6.0 and 7 6.1? That sounds an awful lot like a service pack than complete new version to me.

    42. Re:Overpriced. by Carl.E.Pierre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heres the thing though, that is exactly what people will see. Change the UI up a bit, and they will come en masse to buy this 'new' OS.

      Of course they will learn their mistake afterwards, but as the say, hindsight is 20/20.

    43. Re:Overpriced. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When will they learn that a lower price will likely increase the number of people willing to pay for it instead of pirating it.

      The won't. They (like the record and movie companies) believe that anybody who would pirate it wouldn't buy it no matter what the price, as long as the price is above "free", and that their wares are so wonderful and everyone has a limitless supply of money so everyone but pirates will pay any price they want to charge..

      It's an incredibly stupid, belief, but they believe it anyway.

    44. Re:Overpriced. by rliden · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate? As far as I can tell its nothing but a rip-off, there were none of the promised features, and you would think that MS would give them a free upgrade to 7 but I guess not.

      I'm A, B, C, D. If I want free I'll install my favorite Linux distro. If I want to install Windows I'll pony up the price or buy a box, board, and drive from a local vendor with an OEM install. If I want to install OSX on that box I'll just buy.... oh wait I can't. I'd have to dump out a couple grand for a comparable system just to get that $30 upgrade.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
    45. Re:Overpriced. by keytoe · · Score: 1

      $6100 dollars for 8 4Gb sticks from the apple store (configuring a mac pro). That's about $400 at newegg.

      You're either lying or misinformed. You need DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM for a Mac Pro. That's some beefy stuff on it's own. You're also talking about getting it in 4GB sticks, which is about as big as they make a single stick these days. And you're talking about needing 8 of them to fill the slots available to get to 32GB total. Those are the requirements.

      Newegg carries DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM, but only in densities up to 1GB per stick. They're from Crucial and they cost $18.99 as of right now. That's interesting, but that's not what you said. Crucial does actually make 4GB sticks of the correct RAM, but they go for $430 each. Purchasing 8 of them would run you about $3440.

      Now, I'll admit that a $2660 premium for getting the RAM configured directly by Apple is a terrible deal - but most everyone already knows by now to never by RAM from Apple. Had you perhaps used real numbers to make your point, it would have stood and no foul committed. Instead, you discredited yourself.

    46. Re:Overpriced. by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the main market here is your C) computer enthusiasts.

      Except a computer enthusiast would most likely be running Linux, unless they are checking Wine compatibility or some such good reason.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    47. Re:Overpriced. by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      When will they learn that a lower price will likely increase the number of people willing to pay for it instead of pirating it.

      MS are not dumb - because with their current pricing will squeeze more $$$ from their user-base (customers and pirates). I.e. 100 @ $139 + 200 @ $0 is better than 300 @ $39.

    48. Re:Overpriced. by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      Most of the people who will pay $29 for snow leopard paid apple for their hardware. How many vista users bought their hardware from microsoft?

      All of the ones that bought Vista bundled with their PC, since all OEMs have to pay Microsoft to do that.

      Keep in mind that this constitutes a large portion of their user base.

    49. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, unlike their software MS hardware is cheap and good quality. The wheelmouse optical in particular is indestructible and a bargain.

    50. Re:Overpriced. by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Best thing to ever feature the MS brand.

    51. Re:Overpriced. by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't have the comfort of being able to sell software at the kinds of margin that Microsoft does.

      They don't? Then why is the OSX version of Shake $499, while the Linux version is $4999?

    52. Re:Overpriced. by TypoNAM · · Score: 1

      A developer would use their MSDN Windows license. They wouldn't be buying a box at retail. Unless they're really stupid. That marks D off your list.

      Might want to check the MSDN Subscription Software Use Rights. Especially this interesting part:

      Many MSDN subscribers use a computer for mixed use--both design, development, testing, and demonstration of your programs (the use allowed under the MSDN Subscription license) and some other use. Using the software in any other way, such as for doing email, playing games, or editing a document is another use and is not covered by the MSDN Subscription license. When this happens, the underlying operating system must also be licensed normally by purchasing a regular copy of Windows such as the one that came with a new OEM PC.

      So by installing a copy of Windows of which you are legitimately using by having a MSDN subscription and had received it by downloading it from MSDN site, and then editing any document or configuration file (such as the Windows registry maybe?) via not using their developer tools then you're using the operating system outside of the terms of use... Wow nice licensing there Microsoft.

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    53. Re:Overpriced. by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS

      That comes conveniently prepackaged with expensive but not really better hardware.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    54. Re:Overpriced. by sarhjinian · · Score: 1

      Think about how many people buy Shake versus how many people buy Exchange Server.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    55. Re:Overpriced. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This might help a little bit.

    56. Re:Overpriced. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Xbox 360 with it's over priced wireless adapter and custom and highly over priced hard drives?

      While a 360 isn't required for a PC and, in fact, has little to do with a PC (other than MS would love for it to replace the PC) it just goes to show, if given a chance, MS will gouge the customer on hardware as well as software.

    57. Re:Overpriced. by jozeph78 · · Score: 1

      $6100 dollars for 8 4Gb sticks from the apple store (configuring a mac pro). That's about $400 at newegg.

      You're either lying or misinformed. You need DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM for a Mac Pro. .

      Yeah I have the choice of sticking to DDR2 which is just as good as DDR3 in pretty much EVERY case. And they used to charge $9600 for 16GB of DDR2 a year ago when someone tried talking me into getting Mac. At that time I could get 8gb of DDR2 for $40 bux after rebates on techbargains. No it's not ECC but I DON'T WANT OR NEED ECC. Regardless, I have to start at $2500 base price just to get a computer without the monitor attached (I have a beautiful 24" and 30") already.

      Besides the punchline of my post was, I would pay Vista prices for OSX but they're too snobby to disable the BIOS lock. So saying that leopard costs $29 is an effing LIE. It would cost $2499 for me and not only get software that's obsolete in 3 years, but an enormous piece of aluminum to go with it.

      --
      Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
    58. Re:Overpriced. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I use a Microsoft Mouse on my Linux laptop!

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    59. Re:Overpriced. by Knara · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I think his point is that Apple overcharges you on the hardware end while putting out cheap upgrades. Whereas Microsoft might charge more on the OS end, but that's because they're really not making any money from hardware sales.

    60. Re:Overpriced. by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      meh. what do I know about pirating? I'm just a user trying to use the product I purchased.

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
    61. Re:Overpriced. by Draek · · Score: 1

      Not really. Windows XP was widely considered a pretty good OS yet support for Win2K only started to fade a couple years ago when .NET (unsupported on 2K) started to gain significant momentum. Same for 2K and 98, and for 98 with 95. So no, its cute that you use Vista's suckage to defend Apple but reality says otherwise.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    62. Re:Overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an IntelliMouse, you insensitive clod!

      [citation needed]

    63. Re:Overpriced. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer.

      People in groups B and D will have MS licensing agreements that will make this upgrade cheap, as in free as they've already paid for the licenses and its non specific as to which version of Windows is used (technically it's for the latest version with downgrade rights). An SA or MSDN license agreement is far cheaper then OEM (works out to A$50 per win license per year).

      A and C aren't large enough as a group to justify a significant discount, A will only upgrade when they build their new PC, OEM boxed copy of Vista are about A$150 for Vista Home Premium (A$250 for Ultimate) when purchasing a new Proc or Mobo. C will wear the cost of being an enthusiast/early adopter.

      What you are forgetting is that Microsoft is a monopoly, who are they competing against? Therefore why does their pricing need to be compensative?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    64. Re:Overpriced. by metaforest · · Score: 1

      As compared to Apple, where I have heard of no one wanting to downgrade to previous versions because of the low quality of the new OS itself (hardware speed notwithstanding.)

      Funny you should mention that. I found it cheaper to upgrade my hardware to more recent Macs and get a new OS for free, that to pay upgrade fees into aging hardware....

      It helps to consider that timely upgrades mean that the secondary markets, such as Ebay can provide a considerable rebate your upgrade, assuming you don't wait too long to catch up. Eg. If you are still rocking a G4 or G5, you are fucked. As well you should be....

      No manufacturer owes you a break when you haven't purchased a significant product in 5 to 7 years.

       

    65. Re:Overpriced. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Right now, it's the only way to get more than 16gb of memory on a board, because regular memory modules are quite demanding on the motherboard's controller, while FB-DIMMs provide their own "smart" interface.
      Not entirely true, there are definately boards that can take 32GB of ordinary ram, I dunno if any of them are intel based though.

      The real problem though is that if what you are after is a normal desktop apples range sucks.

      For the midrange buyer on the one hand you have the imac which has no expansion room, only two cores and locks you into apples choice of monitor (which also pushes up the effective cost if you already have an acceptable monitor). On the other hand you have the mac pro which is built out of server parts with a pricetag to match.

      When it comes to low end desktops things look even worse for apple. During a previous argument over whether apple was expensive I specced out a vostro 420 and a mac mini as close as possible, the vostro was both considerablly cheaper and considerablly better specced. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1245805&cid=28115689

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    66. Re:Overpriced. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Those wishing to downgrade their copies of Vista to XP actually did wish to do so due to hardware speed.

      Go figure. I used to think the same, until I was given a free (legit, directly from MS) copy of Vista Ultimate to use on my sufficiently powered laptop. I'll never go back to XP.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  6. Editions by sleekware · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.

    1. Re:Editions by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.

      Personally, I'd like to see all the various flavors go away. Just sell Windows 7. Have a default load and then allow all the extra bells & whistles to be installed as add-ons.

      There's no good reason why an XP/Vista/7 "Home" machine can't join a domain or run terminal services, Microsoft just decided to disable those features.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Editions by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.

      • XP: Home, Media Center (Home with media), Professional (no media)
      • Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium (Home Basic with Aero and media), Business (no Aero, no media), Ultimate (Business with Aero, media, and BitLocker)
      • 7: Starter, Home Premium, Professional (now includes Aero and media), Ultimate

      The big change from Windows Vista to Windows 7 is that Professional is now a strict superset of Home Premium. But then what's the big draw for Ultimate?

    3. Re:Editions by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They should just have one edition.

      I do not understand why the extra cost of ahving many editions outways the cost of one edition. When you consider thay all come from the same base code, the cost to write that code is sunkm, plus the adition boxing, manufacturing, markets and support costs.

      "Windows 7 - one version for all peoples needs. MS, making your life easier."

      then sell the damn thing for 99 bucks.

      One of the big goals on windows 7 is too make it attractive enough in features, performance and cost to get people to leave XP in droves.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Editions by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Hear hear! It is exploitative marketing bullshit, pure and simple.

    5. Re:Editions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.

      Power User? What "power" does Ultimate provide of interest to a Power User?

       

      Vista Ultimate, if I'm not mistaken, is Vista Business with the Home Premium apps (aka, Microsoft's half-baked attempt at Apple's iLife suite, bundled free with every copy of Leopard). 7 would probably follow the same model?

       

      Windows 7 Business is probably the version of most interest to the Power User. The Home version has historically been a crippled version of the Business or Pro version, with useful network and other OS features deliberately limited or disabled altogether. Power Users would probably care less about the Home-based Ultimate stuff for which there are better, cheaper, and probably free alternatives (and "Power Users" know how to find them!)

    6. Re:Editions by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? The parent wasn't bashing Microsoft and slobbering over Apple or UNIX or Linux.

      Seriously, their edition simplification is nice, although they do have a Starter Edition too! Of course, why don't they just make one version of their OS like a company I will not name does with their OS?

    7. Re:Editions by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft just decided to disable those features.

      And sell those editions cheaper.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    8. Re:Editions by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      It's called price discrimination. More editions help Microsoft soak up more consumer surplus.

    9. Re:Editions by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Microsoft just decided to disable those features.

      And sell those editions cheaper.

      My complaint isn't so much with the price as the arbitrary restrictions. If I buy XP Home and later decide I need to join that computer to a domain I need to buy a copy of XP Professional. I can't just install the right package. I'd even be willing to purchase a "domain add-on" for a reasonable price.

      Instead, I have to buy a copy of XP Professional and run an install. Maybe the upgrade install will work... Maybe it wont and I'll have to start from scratch.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:Editions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no good reason why a new car shouldn't have a satellite radio or power locks, the dealership just decided to disable those features.

    11. Re:Editions by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      While there is no package manager, since Vista there is something called Windows Anytime Upgrade that makes upgrading easier.

      Upgrading to another version of Windows Vista or Windows 7 currently requires the purchase of a license online, which gives the user the ability to upgrade. Included in the license is the Product Key, but this is not seen as the upgrade process is automatic. The user is not required to input any key, such as that associated with packaged products bought in the shops or provided by OEMs with their products. The license download can be achieved direct by either going directly to the website address or by using the Windows Anytime Upgrade feature included in the Control Panel. One can then complete the process by downloading the license software that is required for the process. This prepares the computer for the upgrade and the use of the DVD media containing Windows. It is important to note that Windows itself is on the Windows Anytime Upgrade DVD and is not downloadable during this process.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    12. Re:Editions by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They disable those features so MS doesn't have to support them - it costs money for them to support every feature in their OS on a computer.

  7. Going right after Mac OS X by guruevi · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apparently they have noticed their pricing was too ridiculous compared to other systems. Vista was the pinnacle of it, a crappy system that was sold for what... $499 retail?

    Mac OS X starts off at $129 as well for new releases (and goes down from there) and $199 for a 5 license pack and I believe that Apple has been eating Microsoft for lunch on the home desktop market and is making inroads on the business as well.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Going right after Mac OS X by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with you, but to be fair, Apple knows that 99.5% of every boxed copy of OSX thats sold is going to be installed on a Mac which they already made money on. And up until now, every boxed version of OSX (which apple considers to be an upgrade) has been $129.

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    2. Re:Going right after Mac OS X by fermion · · Score: 1
      The bigger difference is that Mac OS X is one SKU, while MS Windows 7 is n SKUs, where n>>1, to such a degree that it makes my head hurt. I know they do this to reach certain price points in the market, as well as to collude with the OEM to make it cheaper to buy a machine that to upgrade an old machine, but the strategy sucks for the consumer.

      I can't believe that they can't see that part of the problem is the SKUS. For XP there was pretty much home and pro, with media center added later. I can see the need for entry level home, and full copy of home, but why fragment the bussiness market? Why not have simply a pro version. If one wanted some sort of developer version, why not sell it as part of the MSDN? As far as the home market goes, why not allow users to install the home premium on a few machines, or at least buy discounted licenses.

      Of course I answered the question. MS does not want to sell individual copies of the software. Even with the outrageous prices, they probably don't make any money off of it. They have to provide support, they have to package the product, they are responsible if something goes wrong. Blame is not shifted to the OEM. And the high cost fo the MS product means that the OEM only makes money off volume, so MS has to make the retail version as complex and undesirable as possible. So old machines go into the landfill to make way for new machines.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Going right after Mac OS X by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Which raises an interesting possibility.

      Could Apple sell an more expensive 'unlocked' version of OS X that works on non Apple hardware and make money? My guess is that they could add a couple of hundred bucks for the unlocked version and it would sell. Now there are hackintoshes that run the locked version, but Apple can and does break them with updates.

      Essentially they'd have two tiers - Apple hardware and software as the high end option and Apple software and generic hardware as a lower end one. Of course there's a risk that Mac users would defect en masse to cheaper commodity hardware, especially as some PC vendors would start to sell machines that looked like Macs but were much cheaper. Plus unlocked software would be pirated.

      Actually I think this is too risky for them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Going right after Mac OS X by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      The main reason they give for not doing this (and conspiracy theories aside, it makes sense) is that the cost of supporting the OS on any random hardware config would be greater than the potential profit. Part of the reason OSX works as well as it does is because Apple cherry picks hardware (not that they always use the best hardware, witness Intel video in the plastic MacBooks, but they know what it is and how to integrate it), tweaks firmware and drivers, and make sure their configurations work before they ship. Stick the same OS on any old hardware and you'll see less stability and functionality unless consumers are careful about compatibility. You'd see a lot of the same hardware issues that dog Linux, but unlike with Linux, Apple represents a big and easy target for people to complain to when $cheapowirelesscard doesn't work or $obscureprintingdevice can't be found.

      With tons of untested configurations waiting to be built, and tons of probably unsupported hardware waiting to be installed, and without the dominant Microsoft market share to make sure that hardware vendors test for compatibility with you rather than you having to test for compatibility with them, Apple is understandably nervous about opening the flood gates. Then top of that is the fact that Apple are notorious control freaks and probably really want to control every aspect of your "Apple Experience".

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:Going right after Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me right up until this comment:

      they are responsible if something goes wrong

      I have yet to find any software manufacturer that accepts responsibility if something goes wrong with their software, including Microsoft. In fact, every software company I've ever run across goes out of their way to remove themselves from any sort of responsibility for their software going wrong whatsoever.

  8. Does anyone actually buy windows? by ActionJesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me that everyone I know has a pirated copy of windows: the few people people that have legal copies have them because they were bundled with the computer they bought. When was the last time someone actually went out specifically to bought a copy?

    1. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets see, businesses do, gamers very often do (hey, if they have the money to buy a $1,000 Core i7 extreme CPU, 6 gigs of DDR3 RAM, a top of the line graphics card, etc, $300 for an OS is a drop in that computer's budget), as do people who are still stuck in the '80s upgrade mentality or people who have Macs and want to run Windows under Boot Camp.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be behind the times. $1,000 doesn't seem like a lot to build a high-end gaming machine. I usually spend closer to $2,000.

    3. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I actually was referring to $1000 for the CPU alone. (see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200 )

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      I priced my i7 system at ~$700. Must be a miiighty small bucket you got if one drop fills it a third of the way.

    5. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by cliffski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a legit copy.
      I store my business details and do internet banking from my PC. Why would I be dense enough to trust a copy downloaded from thepiratebay?

      Theres no need to write trojans that bypass windows security and firewalls when there are people happy to actually get hold of a malware-infested O/S from day one.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    6. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      I downloaded XP, off edonkey2000, over a 56k modem.
      Though I didn't buy it, I feel I earned it.

      That was before I went to university, and found they had free student licences anyway.

    7. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Gaming machines are not "high-end". They are just over priced.

      If I could get a system that met my needs for under $5k I would be thrilled.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2000? Sorry, thats pathetic. I spend at least $5000 on my high end gaming machines. Considering thats only a week's salary for me, its not all that much, though.

    9. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by xxuserxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So a graphics card pushing more polygons per second than anything else on the market is not high end?

    10. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by vintagepc · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't for your Commodore 64 (with 300 baud modem).

      Being an avid Linux user, I did try the Win 7 betas, and was fairly impressed... Things seem to be going in the right direction with regards to hardware detection, drivers, etc.

      ->I await the horde that is coming to confiscate my geek card for saying that <-

      --
      Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
    11. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      I must be behind the times. $1,000 doesn't seem like a lot to build a high-end gaming machine. I usually spend closer to $2,000.

      The $1,000 is for the Core i7 CPU itself. Typically you'll then spend another $1,000+ on GPUs, several hundred on RAM, another couple hundred on a motherboard...

      When I worked at EB I'd see people spend $5,000 on a gaming system without even blinking. If you're already shelling out that kind of cash a couple hundred for the OS doesn't seem like much. And if you're going through some place like NewEgg you can typically get an OEM version that won't cost as much as retail.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    12. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      Core i7? What is this, the middle ages?

      What you need is this bad boy. You aren't really having fun unless you're playing on Xeon E7450.

      Act now, and the shipping is 299% more free than on that outdated POS the i7. That's right, 299%! [Hey, anyone spending that kind of money on a single processor has got to be bad at math].

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    13. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by aj50 · · Score: 1

      If you're buying a gaming PC, you can usually buy an OEM copy of windows with any of the main components for about half the price.

      If you're a student you get it either free or very cheap (through MSDNAA or another student offer).

      --
      I wish to remain anomalous
    14. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems to me that everyone I know has a pirated copy of windows: the few people people that have legal copies have them because they were bundled with the computer they bought. When was the last time someone actually went out specifically to bought a copy?

      Your average "Joe Sixpack" home user will probably be running a pirated copy of Windows. Their computer may have come with a legal OEM license once upon a time... But they probably lost the discs somewhere along the way, and their OEM key probably didn't work with the discs their buddy found when they had to reload their computer to get rid of the viruses, so they wound up with a cracked copy of Windows. And then they heard about the shiny new Vista thing and their buddy hooked them up with a cracked copy of that, too.

      Mot IT-ish folks I know have legal copies - frequently acquired using some kind of student discount or corporate volume licensing program. They aren't paying retail, but frequently don't trust the cracked copies available.

      Most of the gamer folks I know have legal copies, but they're usually buying the OS with a pile of new hardware and get some kind of OEM version, so they aren't paying retail.

      The big businesses will be on some kind of software maintenance plan with Microsoft. They'll be able to download and install whatever flavor of Windows they feel like. So they won't be paying retail.

      The folks who typically wind up paying retail prices, from what I've seen, are the small/medium sized businesses. They don't want to run a cracked copy of Windows for fear of being audited... But they don't need enough licenses to make volume licensing or maintenance plans affordable... So they wind up buying a pile of retail boxes. And it can be expensive. Sometimes it is actually cheaper just to replace their computers entirely, and get the new version of Windows pre-installed on the machine.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    15. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      CPUs for the extremely stupid. The people who buy these aren't 'gamers', their primary interest is in dick-waving forum signatures.

    16. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since for home power-users, if you're going to drop $300 on an MS OS, you might as well spend $350 for a TechNet subscription, which lets you get any MS OS you want and upgrade/downgrade all the PCs in the house (in a quasi-legal sort of way...) As a bonus, if they release a new version within your subscription period, you can get the upgrade, too.

      As a bonus, you can grab Office, too...

      Not that *I* would ever do such a thing...

    17. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like me, who do you like?

    18. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by n30na · · Score: 1

      I did once, but that was just because my mom wouldnt let me pirate it >>

    19. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Correct. Because polygons per second isn't the only metric.
      For example I wouldn't build a medical imaging product around a GeForce GTX 285 or 295, even though they would be pretty good for gaming. I would probably prefer an FX 5600 or FX 4800, even though they aren't considered ideal cards for gaming (less performance at a higher price is what gamers generally say about them).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    20. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $300 for an OS is a drop in that computer's budget

      Even if you assume $3000 (including Windows) for a high-end gaming system, that makes the OS 1/10th of the cost! I hardly consider a half-gallon to be a "drop" in a 5-gallon bucket.

    21. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Or running server apps since, you know, its a server processor.

    22. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by xxuserxx · · Score: 1

      I see your point however isnt "high-end" more of a relative term? You could have a high end server or a high end business desktop workstation. What exacly determines "high-end"? Granted a gaming PC is not going to have a Raid 10 configuration(some do) and be able to work as a server in an enterpise environment but it surely can do "high-end" gaming.

    23. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I try to buy the latest bad bow and max out the RAM when I build a new computer becasue they will last for years.
      I am playing TF2 on a 5 year old machine and a 6 year old machine. The only upgrade has been the video card in one box, as well as putting Vista on it.

      In fact I ahve a 8 year old computer that can play a lot of games still shugging along.

      Basically I can spend 1000 dollars ever 1-3 years or 1500 every 4-6 years.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2008 I dropped $20 each on *two* legit OEM discs, plus a little more for Office 2007. From my University computer store. Academic licensing rocks, dude.

    25. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, 5k a week isn't much. I get that much an hour. Bill gates makes that much every minute.

    26. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by uzytkownik · · Score: 1

      Why not buy ORM? At least here I could buy ORM from shop which was cheaper. It had limitations (lack of support[1]) but still it was worth (i.e. total cost was lower then full version and in this specific circumstances I had to buy windows for someone). [1] I don't use it anyway. Last time I ask simple question I needed answer really quickly they redirected me to newsgroups. I have it with my favourite OS (I only home-support Windows) for free...

      --
      I've probably left my head... somewhere. Please wait untill I find it.
      Homepage: http://blog.piechotka.com.pl/
    27. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by pregister · · Score: 1

      I buy Windows. I use an iMac and linux via vmware for most of my computing needs, but I do build a new gaming PC every 3-4 years. I'm no longer a poor college student and I no longer pirate my games or OS. I, and most of my friends, stopped pirating software once we got real jobs and could afford to buy the software we use. I simply prefer to have a completely legal and clean PC.

      That said, I'm still using XP. I'll probably buy Windows 7 at some point. I'd like to try the 64 bit version and have heard decent things about DX10 from gaming friends. I saw zero point in giving Microsoft money for Vista but will probably make the jump to 7.

      So. Some of us actually do go out and buy Windows.

    28. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are missing a point somewhere. i am building a new gaming system and i am saving money for 5 month's to get my i7 you think i am going to want to wait 2 more months? to get money for a operating system from a company that has a monopoly. nah ill use the RC till it expires and then switch to a pirated version. ill prob get a legit copy one day once i buy a desktop with the license.

    29. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      I got a free copy of Windows XP by attending the .NET launch at George Mason University.

      I got another one through my college's MSDN license program as a Computer Science student.

      So I own two legitimate licenses and paid for neither.

      I currently have no plans to pay for a shiny new version with irritating usability features for the braindead like and DRM in the kernel.

      --

      Question everything

    30. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great to see the Dot-Com contingent still frequent Slashdot. Oh for the days a 30% starting premium was considered a 'drop in the bucket'.

    31. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "these beers are 6 dollars fifty"

    32. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      Nearly everyone pays for Windows... I remember when I was jaded too (in college) and thought a lot of people pirated Windows. But it's more like just 12%, almost all of which are younger people, especially college students.

      As you pointed out, it comes pre-loaded on machines, so that's how a lot of people get it. But it's not like they're suckers, nor are the people who actually pay for new versions and upgrades.

      I buy Windows, and I also paid for Office 2007 Ultimate. Yeah, I could have torrented it, but you know what? Being able to write my term papers without worrying about new updates or WGA routes disabling features in either my OS or my document-writing program of choice. I know that I have the most up-to-date software, with no hassle, no registry hacks, and no waiting around for hacking updates.

      Then of course there's businesses. They nearly always buy their OSes for obvious reasons.

    33. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I remember it, it states you may only use it for as long as you're a student: IE you graduate, license goes away.

      I could be wrong about that though.

    34. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you're wrong. OTOH, my reading of the MSDNAA license technically excludes the use of its Windows licences for things (like game playing) unrelated to program development.

    35. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Well nobody pays me to play games, so I have a hard time taking the whole thing as seriously as teenagers and 20-somethings.
      I guess I'm just lame, I have as many graphics-intense games that I think are fun and replayable as ones that push 8-bit sprites. But "funness" is highly subjective. The amount of money you blew on your "gaming rig" is cold hard facts.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    36. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about the pirated copies,
      there's a strange phenomenon with those. I keep hearing that people don't trust the cracked copies, or the pirated versions because of viruses etc etc
      but I've never had a problem with them.
      I think they're actually better than the original versions. There are so many flavors too, there's a gamer version that has a better graphics support, there are those with registry hacks, or just downright enhanced and optimized versions. My favorite ones are the stripped Windows versions that contain only the essential parts for the system to run.

      I've had experience with plenty of windows versions, legal and illegal. and from what I've seen, I'd damn right pay for the pirated versions. Maybe not a few hundred dollars, but a good amount.

    37. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. Two years ago. I guess my time of freeloading is over - I'm actually buying almost all of my games now ;)

      XP cost me 99 euros (about 120 dollars?).

      - jcz

    38. Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? by metaforest · · Score: 1

      or people who have Macs and want to run Windows under Boot Camp.
      No we buy second hand, DOA PCs for $10 and junk them for the windoze license.

  9. Value proposition by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    200 Buck's, might be worth waiting till the next version of Windows comes out since they are releasing it early and often nowadays.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    And I do not mean the store 7-11.

    Here:
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/ptech/06/25/cnet.windows7.pricing.upgrade/index.html

    From the article: "From Friday through July 11, consumers in the U.S. will be able to buy an upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home premium for $49 or Windows 7 Professional for $99."

    No ultimate and an upgrade not full though. But the upgrade from XP is a full wipe install anyway.

    And I do agree with others who said that upgrade from vista ultimate should be free to win 7 ultimate.

    1. Re:Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've developed a flying car, as well as personal jet packs and all natural herbal pills that increase penis size by 3000%. I'm going to be selling them for $5000 a piece, but if you give me $50 now, I'll ship yours out first as soon as they are ready.

    2. Re:Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      So they're offering you a discount if you purchase before any reviews of the OS are released. Maybe they did learn from Vista...

      Also, I was looking at the Edition Comparisons (curious what was left out of 'Ultimate' since it's not in the discounted upgrade offer). Does that say you can't choose your language unless you buy Ultimate, or am I just reading that chart incorrectly?

    3. Re:Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      It looks like "Languages" check mark refers to the inclusion of MUI Language Pack support. According to MSDN, this is for dynamically switching the language of the user interface.

      So, you can choose what language you want to use when you install the system independent of which edition you have (well, except maybe Home Basic, but that's a different situation entirely), but only with Ultimate you can change the language on the fly.

      So they're offering you a discount if you purchase before any reviews of the OS are released. Maybe they did learn from Vista...

      The idea of preorders has been around in the gaming world for quite a while. Also, the Windows 7 Beta/RC has been officially downloadable for a few months now, so people have had quite a good opportunity to get an idea of whether they like it or not.

    4. Re:Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      You do know Windows 7 is out and well reviewed already in pre-release form, right? Or do you think they're just going to say "screw it, let's totally change it over the next 2 months and obsolete all those reviews!"?

    5. Re:Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 by ais523 · · Score: 1

      This strikes me as desperation, in a way. You get a discount if you install something before everyone's got a chance to find out it's no good? The discount worries me; I'd expect early installs to cost more if there was nothing to hide.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
  11. 10% lower than Vista? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    They've dropped Home Basic and moved Home Premium into its price slot.
    Other than that, every version of Windows 7 costs as much as Vista does now.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  12. You Mean by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Microsoft expects people to pay for Windows?

    1. Re:You Mean by riegel · · Score: 1

      No Microsoft gives their stuff away, Apple is the one charging to much for their stuff ;)

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    2. Re:You Mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ian Alexander's shitty post should be modded 'Redundant'.

    3. Re:You Mean by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Micro$oft already lost me as a customer. I switched to Ubuntu when I bought my last laptop with Vista on it. I asked and Best Buy wouldn't even give me the option to have XP installed.

      When it came to that trial software package thing. The technician at the store said he would uninstall it for me for $100. I said how about you don't put anything on it in the first place, save me $100 and then you wouldn't have to waste either of our time uninstalling it.

      I took the machine home, wiped it and went back the next day with a bill for time they cost me... Something tells me I'm never going to collect on that.

    4. Re:You Mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense buddy, but you sound like an assfuckingcock.

    5. Re:You Mean by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Why start now?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:You Mean by kjloc · · Score: 1

      Actually you do, the original poster wasn't even being antagonistic. Switching to an alternative or asking for nothing pre-installed (aka rammed down your throat and then charge you for it) is reasonable. It's people like you and companies like MS that deserve to be coined the name you used. Choices are a good thing, package deals and monopolization are not.

    7. Re:You Mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you do

      No, you do!

  13. Time will tell. by gubers33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I doubt we are going to see any big move towards Windows 7 until people see that is is worth the price tag. I mean with all the issues people saw with Windows Vista, no one is going to want to upgrade their working Windows XP for a Windows 7 that could be just as bad as Vista. If we see that Windows 7 is stable and worth the money we might begin to see a larger transition to it 6 months from now.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:Time will tell. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I skipped Vista entirely. Tried it a few days and went back to XP until recently.

      When Win 7RC came out I decided to give it a shot and quite frankly, I'm hooked.....
      It's a damn fine OS for a average to power user. If you're still running XP this is a upgrade to consider. If you're running Vista.. hmm, might aswell wait until pricing dropped a bit.

      But.. this is the first time I'm actually considering to buy Windows.
      It runs smooth, behaves as one would expect from a OS.. In the end Win7 might end up as their best OS till now.

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    2. Re:Time will tell. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      We just did a big upgrade (22 workstations), and because of my budget, I couldn't pay for the downgrade rights to XP. Thus far, Vista hasn't been the pain that I had thought it would be. Of course, this is a domain environment, so group policies can rescue you from a lot of crap. I have no intention of putting $200 per workstation to get them up Windows 7 Pro, not at this stage. In a couple of years that may happen, but until then, it's Vista.

      Heck, by then I may actually have convinced my boss to go to web-based groupware and we'll just kiss Windows goodbye entirely. After my five month experience with their SAM licensing guys on a crusade to shore up Microsoft's bottom line by finding license non-compliance, I'm seriously looking at a long-term upgrade path *away* from Microsoft.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Time will tell. by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      $49 for Home Ultimate, and $99 for Professional for a pre-order upgrade. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order.aspx)

      I don't have Windows at home, but if I were considering upgrading, I would probably pay this price, and wait until I was convinced 7 was ready to install it.

    4. Re:Time will tell. by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      It took XP 3 years to get decent - and i love my XP 64 build finally!!. Win 2000 less time. but your point is exposed - its always been average and a struggle (always!!) - what's the point at all? even if Win7 turns out to be good - really good - whats the point? after 15 years+ they finally got it! yeah!! to bad I have been happily in UNIX and Mac OS for over 25 years. what are all you people clamoring about? its junk - it always has been and always will be. now, I use junk, and sometime happily roll around it. but lets get real and with some perspective. Ford put a car in everyones driveway, and MS a computer on everyones desk. doesn't mean its the best option - just an accessible one for the common man. and like anything in this forsaken country and western world, they spoon feed us third rate stuff with first rate hype and crackpot marketing.

    5. Re:Time will tell. by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      mee too! XP is still more viable for me than Vista.

    6. Re:Time will tell. by xxuserxx · · Score: 1

      I would say your average user has no idea that Vista has flaws. Currently with SP1 Vista has no serious issues that would keep me from reccomending it to a client other than "Dont get Vista because 7 is about to come out."

    7. Re:Time will tell. by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite:

      system 1:
      My aging (bought in 2003) home PC is currently running WinXP Home. It's a P4 2.4Ghz with 1Gb ram (maxed), an ATI 9600XT (AGP only, no PCIe), and still just a 30Gb drive. (dual boots to PCLinuxOS) Last clean install was ~2 years ago. Since I'm not stupid, it still runs well. OpenOffice, Paint.net (best things since sliced bread), manages my audiobooks downloads from the library, internet crap, even a little Octave when I don't have my work laptop handy. My gaming is mostly limited to 3-5 year old titles (just not enough time to catch up...) and abandonware.

      system 2:
      Slightly younger (bought in 2006) Inspiron 6000 laptop. WinXP MCE, 60Gb drive, 128mb ATI x300, 1.7Ghz Pentium M, 2Gb ram maxed. Runs fine, even though I never did a fresh wipe (pc decrapifier FTW!). Holds my wife's photo's, the few MP3's she wants, MS Office, everything over the net we care about, and some games to keep her happy.

      So, I'm considering: sell me on an upgrade.

      Note: I have a wife and kids who like to lay claim to my cash. So, you're in competition with: (1) other OS options, (2) other financial needs, (3) the 'do nothing' option.

    8. Re:Time will tell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious. For everyone touting these 'problems' with Vista, how long did you actually give it? I mean what actual 'problems' did you have? Be specific....and don't include anything that was caused either by your inability to adapt and change, or bad hardware drivers.

      For my own part I can't believe anyone actually uses Linux. I mean I installed it and when I couldn't immediately install and run Hello Kitty Island Adventure I gave up. Maybe when the OS doesn't have so many 'problems' we'll see a larger transition. (There, that's about on par with your comment.)

    9. Re:Time will tell. by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Your system #2 will probably run it just fine.. I won't try and sell you anything, but you could back up your data and download a free trial of Win 7 from MS and try it.. Also, just for the future.. have a look at some of the motherboard "combo's" at Tigerdirect there are some that come with ram, or with ram and hard drive.. and they are fairly reasonable, and this stuff isn't hard to do.. The reason I mention the combo's with hard drive, is that you could use the ability to install more ram, and while your at it you may as well go to SATA hard drives because you definitely could use more hard drive capacity.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    10. Re:Time will tell. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      If we see that Windows 7 is stable and worth the money we might begin to see a larger transition to it 6 months from now.

      Umm... This is quite likely one of the reasons why Microsoft is allowing the Windows 7 RC to be used absolutely free for so long.

      If you're at all interested in the stability and viability of Windows 7, you're either going to try it out yourself or check out the reviews of those who have.

      They're giving you plenty of time to come to a conclusion before the release date.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    11. Re:Time will tell. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Mmm, I pretty much plan on moving PCs to Win7 (we skipped Vista) starting in 2010. A lot of it depends on the economy and how soon we run out of stockpiled WinXP licenses.

      More likely, 2nd half of 2010 for us. Which should be just about the time that SP1 comes out.

      Still on the fence about upgrades. All of our boxes are dual-core, 64bit, 2GHz+, with at least 2GB RAM. Bumping them up to 4GB would be inexpensive and will probably be enough for Win7.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    12. Re:Time will tell. by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      you failed to answer the question: why

      Sure, I could upgrade the laptop to Win7. I could upgrade the hardware in the desktop. But why would I? I currently don't need more hard drive capacity. When I do, an external is an cheap option. If that's all I needed, for $30 I multiply my disk space several times.

      Why do I need to upgrade the OS?

      Fair enough that you won't try to sell me anything, but other people are. They're taking it for granted that 'why' should be self-evident with no need for an answer. It's not.

      Why?

  14. Preordering it is cheaper starting tomorrow by utexas+delirium · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think starting June 26, you can preorder the upgrades for a lot cheaper. $50 for a Home upgrade and $100 for a Pro upgrade.

  15. More importantly... by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can I use the windows 7 license to legally run windows XP? ;)

    1. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I believe you can with some of the editions.

      Microsoft has added some kind of VM-XP feature like what Mac OSX had for Mac OS9 apps.

      That said, I don't keep a close watch on this stuff. I like my Ubuntu from ubuntu.com much better. :)

    2. Re:More importantly... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

      Since Windows 7 comes with "XP mode" for compatibility, I'd say that yes you can.

      I'll stick with Ubuntu and run a virtual XP for all the "windows only" things I need to do thank-you-very-much.

      Seriously, Vista and Windows 7 pricing are such a joke.

      --
      "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    3. Re:More importantly... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      Yes, for up to 18 months.

      "You can only move from Windows 7 Professional to Windows Vista Business or Windows XP Professional, and from Windows 7 Ultimate to Windows Vista Ultimate or Windows XP Professional.

      Organizations with Windows volume licenses, which cover 250 PCs or more, will be able to downgrade to any prior version of Windows - a standard policy.

      But the downgrade window will expire before 18 months if a service pack ships. Downgrade rights to Windows Vista will not expire."

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    4. Re:More importantly... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      In case I wasn't clear, the 18 month window refers to OEMs being able to ship a new machine with a windows 7 OEM licence, but an XP install disc. Beyond that point, no new downgrade sales will be allowed, but home users who already have copies of XP acquired using OEM downgrade rights can carry on using them indefinitely (until support ends for XP security patches, anyway), as can volume licence businesses.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    5. Re:More importantly... by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Professional edition comes with XP mode.

  16. Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should Microsoft care if the Win7 prices are "competitive" or not? They've got a captive audience consisting mainly of new PC buyers and existing corporate seats. I suspect they simply did an analysis to determine the amount that maximizes license revenue from those two fish in a barrel and didn't even consider the cost of other alternatives.

    Best,

  17. 10% cheaper but... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 0

    still 100% overpriced.

    Sure, Mac OSX is less, but you are paying for that with the outrageously over-priced hardware.

    1. Re:10% cheaper but... by stillpixel · · Score: 0

      still 100% overpriced.

      Sure, Mac OSX is less, but you are paying for that with the outrageously over-priced hardware.

      I paid $1299 for my 24" iMac (2007) and I think it is worth every penny. It is a rock solid machine with an awesome OS on top of that. I do web development on it, surf the web ( /.), edit movies in Final Cut Express, watch TV on it (eyeTV), watch movies on it (DVD, HULU, iTunes) with the remote and I've never had one issue with it since I bought it two years ago.

      When I'm ready to move up to a newer one, I'll be handing mine down to my wife. She'll be handing down her 20" iMac (2005) to our son and he can hand down his old CRT iMac (2001) to his little sister. Just like how my wife handed down her iBook (2001) to her parents so they could use it when they travel.

      Overpriced? No I don't think so.

    2. Re:10% cheaper but... by stillpixel · · Score: 0

      Almost forgot.. I also play COD4 on my iMac about 3-4 nights out of the week and I kick ass on it.

    3. Re:10% cheaper but... by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      The only outrageously overpriced Macs these days are the Mini and the Pro... and a case can be made for the Pro.

    4. Re:10% cheaper but... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      Overall price for my current machine, about $1000.

      Quad core 64 bit,
      8GB RAM
      5 TB HDD (4TB usable - RAID 5)
      2 - 24" 1080p HDMI flat panels.
      KUbuntu 9.04

      Except for the video editing, I do everything you do. I do not currently have a TV Tuner in it though. I also run multiple BOINC threads simultaneously as well as several automated processes 24/7.

    5. Re:10% cheaper but... by Jason1729 · · Score: 0, Troll

      But when you want to upgrade your iMac, you have to pay for a new screen to replace the perfectly good one with the old computer. And if you want multiple machines on a KVM, you're screwed. For me, the Mini is underpowered, the PowerMac is over priced, and I will not buy a computer with an integrated screen. The day they release something comparable to an iMac but without an integrated screen and a price that reflects the missing screen is the day I switch to mac.

    6. Re:10% cheaper but... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Math error. $1400.

    7. Re:10% cheaper but... by bstender · · Score: 1

      ...and a case can be made for the Pro.

      but really, how much will this save you?

      --
      look sig is kool
    8. Re:10% cheaper but... by stillpixel · · Score: 0

      But when you want to upgrade your iMac, you have to pay for a new screen to replace the perfectly good one with the old computer.

      As I said, I pass the old machine down when I get a new one and the new one comes with a nice new screen

      And if you want multiple machines on a KVM, you're screwed.

      I don't need multiple machines so I'm fine. I do run Parallels when I need Windows for testing my sites out in the different flavors of IE.

      Previously I had run 7 PCs under my desk with a KVM and since I got rid of them and keep Windows or Linux in a Parallels image I'm much happier.

      For me, the Mini is underpowered, the PowerMac is over priced, and I will not buy a computer with an integrated screen. The day they release something comparable to an iMac but without an integrated screen and a price that reflects the missing screen is the day I switch to mac.

      I agree about the Mac Mini, somewhat about the Mac Pro and for your sake I hope they do eventually come out with something for you.

    9. Re:10% cheaper but... by stillpixel · · Score: 0

      That is great and I can tell you built it yourself, which is great.

      I used to build my own PCs way back, but I really got tired of it all and just wanted to do my work and use the computer.

      I'm happier now and my wife is happier now that I don't have to "fix" or "tweak" anything anymore.

    10. Re:10% cheaper but... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      It is a trade off.

      I could have done the same with OTS and RAM & HDD upgrades for a few hundred more.

      I mostly build my own to avoid the Microsoft tax.

      However, OTS, even with the Microsoft tax, is still cheaper for a comparable system than Mac's current high-end offerings.

    11. Re:10% cheaper but... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      However, the downside of the fully integrated model is maintenance for hardware failures.

      If your iMac LCD goes, you have to have the machine serviced or replace it entirely. I can throw a spare LCD on it. Comes in handy when I am on a project under a deadline.

      Even if I need other hardware, finding parts or service locally is a lot easier as well.

    12. Re:10% cheaper but... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What, did you buy that iMac from some dude in a white van who claimed it "fell off the back of a truck" or something? Even today, you're paying $1499 for a 24" iMac (base model), in in 2007 you would be paying considerably more for it. Though you're right, Apple hardware isn't too expensive once you knock a few hundred off the price.

  18. Wow, $319US! by kawabago · · Score: 0, Troll

    $319 United States dollars for the opportunity to have my computer assimilated by a botnet? I think I'll stick with Ubuntu for free. I've also just realized that Windows Vista is much more difficult to administer than Linux has become so if you want simple and easy to manage, it's now Linux not Windows.

    1. Re:Wow, $319US! by Colourspace · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you think by using windows in any form will get you 'assimilated by a botnet' by default, then are you sure you can administer any OS that well? Once again, users of any minority OS will see less attacks, simply because they don't have the market share. Simple as that really.

    2. Re:Wow, $319US! by WndrBr3d · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yeah, because Ubuntu has never had remote exploit. Ever.

      Who mods this crap?

    3. Re:Wow, $319US! by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're stupid enough to think that your Windows installation is going to be automatically assimilated by a botnet (or you're stupid enough to let it happen), then you're probably stupid enough to let it happen on Linux, too.

    4. Re:Wow, $319US! by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      If you think by using windows in any form will get you 'assimilated by a botnet' by default, then are you sure you can administer any OS that well?

      Remember MSBLAST.EXE? You obviously don't, or you wouldn't post such rubbish.

    5. Re:Wow, $319US! by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Not true -- Linux is FAR less vulnerable to any sort of exploits due to its open nature, the only people that can find and fix weaknesses in the Windows code are M$ employees, whereas any of the millions of Linux nerds out there can find and fix vulnerabilities in the Linux code, coupled with the fact that Linux does not grant root permission to every piece of software that comes across its path. Even if you reversed the market share numbers, you would not see anywhere near the virus/spyware issues on Linux, the code really is far superior. It certainly not is for everyone, as a lot of programs simply aren't available (although Wine is changing this), but it is certainly getting to the point very quickly where you would be a fool to be running Windows.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    6. Re:Wow, $319US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL @ kawabago who thinks Windows is more difficult to admininster than Linux.

      Ever tried setting up grandma's dual monitors and printer on Linux ?
      If you did it successfully, you should know better ; I am taking away your geek badge and giving you this troll badge.
      If you failed, I am taking away your geek badge and giving you this Newbie badge.

    7. Re:Wow, $319US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in fact I do. Not because I or anyone I know ever actually got it, but because asshats like you keep bringing it up as some prime example of how insecure XP was.

      Funny how myself and none of the folks I know got it. Funny how it has *nothing* to do with any OS following XP.

      What, can't find anything more relevant to the modern computing age?

      Imagine that....

    8. Re:Wow, $319US! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Who mods this crap, indeed? He's sitting at "-1 troll", but I don't see anything trollish about his post. A "remote exploit" is not a virus in the wild. Windows' insecurity compared to every other OS out there is indesputable fact.

      Apple sells millions of computers a year, plenty to form a huge botnet, but I don't see them targeted. Why climb the tree when you can snatch the low hanging fruit? If Windows was twice as hard to write a virus for as Apple, the botnets would run on Apples (same goes for Linux).

    9. Re:Wow, $319US! by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Yes because XP is the most secure OS ever released...I cannot even type that without LMAO

      --


      Got Code?
    10. Re:Wow, $319US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like ssh scans and multible vnc login attempts ? ?

    11. Re:Wow, $319US! by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      Codepunk has the balls to post with his UID at least. Never had a single infection with XP, used it since it came out. Same with Vista. Oh, and by the way, I use Ubuntu too. My point is, if you can't configure and use any OS without getting your little panties in a twist, don't come on here trying to score easy points on /. slating another OS without [citation needed]. Asshat is a pretty lame thing to call someone too.

    12. Re:Wow, $319US! by tiggertaebo · · Score: 1

      If you think by using windows in any form will get you 'assimilated by a botnet' by default, then are you sure you can administer any OS that well?

      Remember MSBLAST.EXE? You obviously don't, or you wouldn't post such rubbish.

      well since the way that generally happened was by connecting a fresh install to internet without any firewall then yeah I'd class that as pretty poor in the OS administration department!

  19. MacOSX starts as free by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Well, free with purchase of overpriced computer.

    If Apple hardware was sold at prices for comparable non-Apple hardware, they would have to raise their software prices or eat the loss.

    Of course, there are some operating systems that are free, companies make their money on services.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:MacOSX starts as free by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      when comparing apples to to pcs - spec for spec - i rarely see the disparity of cost that has echoed in the minds of people since they released the 15k lisa in the early 80's.... and since the hardware is nearly the same commodities that make up some of the finer pc builds, i don't see your point. the hardware is basically the same; apple dresses a little better, but if you look under the hood and know what you are looking at, its fairly equivalent - and in price. And I would gladly pay the little extra premium for software tools that actually work and are efficient to use.

  20. Wow! Microsoft you really dont have a clue do ya? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goin for the $200 price point after that last pile of shit you tried to sell us? And in this economy. You must be crazy..

    $200 for some software that by itself wont do a god dammed thing for you. still gotta buy all the stuff to run on it.

    And these are the prices for people who already have some sort of OS working on their system. Not the bundled with their brand new dell price.. The price you expect people to pay to upgrade their already working computer to the latest greatest? $200... really?

    Home premium should start at $100. And the ultimate wizbang got everydammthingincluded should be a MAX of $200s

    s
    Look. after all these years its pretty obvious you guys at microsoft dont have a clue at all about what to do and how to make things work. I suggest you HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CLUE. Any geek off the street could do a better job these days. And hey. theres alot of them laid off right now. SO get out there. get you a clue!

  21. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by qoncept · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't believe those cocksuckers at Microsoft didn't plan their release dates around an unforseen event happening to one fucking person. They're definitely at fault here. You know, as opposed to the guy that stole the laptop.

    --
    Whale
  22. Not in Europe by benwiggy · · Score: 4, Informative
    You're missing the bigger picture. MS is selling a version without IE in Europe, at increased prices, and you have to erase and install.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8118749.stm

    1. Re:Not in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually very pleased with the Windows 7 pricing for the UK. We get the version without IE (for which the only use is to download Firefox/Chrome), which MS say they haven't had time to test the upgrade process on, so no upgrade versons, except they're selling the full version at upgrade prices! As for erase and install, I never trust the windows upgrade process anyway. On top of all that, the preorder price is £50! Retail upgrade packages of Vista Home Premium are currently ~£70.

    2. Re:Not in Europe by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      From the article you linked to:

      "In Europe, the full version will be priced as if it were an upgrade version." - where's the increased price you mention?!

    3. Re:Not in Europe by Draek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Convert them to US dollars and you'll see retail prices are still higher:

      Home Premium - £149.99 -> $245 vs $199
      Professional - £219.99 -> $360 vs $299
      Ultimate - £229.99 -> $378 vs $319

      So a more accurate statement would be "upgrade versions will be priced as if it were a retail version", except it'd be a PR nightmare to admit as such.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  23. Re:Wiped by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait, a copy of DOS 6.0 would have solved the Northrup Grumman problem in the other story?

    "All exiting drives must be reformatted with Dos 6.0, which will Promote Data Volatility past the expected recovery half life."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  24. Upgrade paths by haystor · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if it is possible to move from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Pro with an upgrade, or does that require another full license?

    --
    t
    1. Re:Upgrade paths by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, the "upgrade" editions all work (license-wise) from XP and Vista, no matter the edition.

  25. Need a price for ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ...upgrading from Vista Home Edition, but then I discovered that it lacked features I needed, so I switched to Vista Professional. But then that didn't support my hardware and ran slow as a pig. So I switched to XP, which ran fine, but Microsoft might discontinue support for that any day. So I'll give them just one more chance and try Windows 7. Or just say, "F*ck it all" and go to Ubuntu.

    What's the price going to be for that?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Need a price for ... by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Apparently it'll cost you infinity dollars, since there is no Vista Home or Professional editions, and upgrading in place doesn't change anything about the base install to make it not support hardware or run slower. This comment is in place of modding you troll. Nice try.

    2. Re:Need a price for ... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there is Visa Home Basic and Home Premium, just because Microsoft's umpteen versions of its crap is confusing doesn't mean you have to be an ass, ass

  26. Really? by dr00g911 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a nod to the global economic downturn, it is interesting to note that upgrade prices are still more expensive than a non-upgrade OEM copy with far more reinstallation hassles.

    1. Re:Really? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      OEM copies are only licenced for install on a single PC; generally considered to be the motherboard. Replace the motherboard, or build a new PC? that's a new OEM licence you need to pay for.

      Retail and upgrade copies can be reinstalled on an unlimited number of machines, as long as it's only on one at a time - though given the activation hassles if you do it too often (phone activation to say, yes, you are only using it on one pc) you may not want to - and of course, upgrade installs still need the OS you're upgrading from on the hard-drive, even on a new PC, leading to the ludicrous situation of installing a clean copy of windows twice, with the 2nd install counting the first as the 'upgrade qualifier'. It was a lot simpler when the upgrade disc would take a windows floppy or CD as proof of older version ownership.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    2. Re:Really? by dr00g911 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But in reality, I buy an OEM copy of Windows Ultimate Whatever from Newegg for $129. I don't have to deal with the utterly retarded upgrade process every time I have to nuke & pave, and I've got an ugly little sticker to refer to when nuke & pave time rolls around.

      You're assuming I give two shits about honoring the finer points of Microsoft's licensing, which I don't. Is MS going to come after me? Are they going to deactivate my Windows randomly? They deactivate retail copies randomly.

      To be honest, It's more convenient for me to get a legit serial number that doesn't self-destruct than to deal with suspect WGA patches & cracks that work like an arms race and require constant vigilance.

      As long as you don't reinstall more often than quarterly, activation goes through without the need for a dreaded phone call. In the case that it fails, I make the phone call and say (and I quote): "I had to replace the motherboard" and get an activation key in about five minutes. If you do this once a week, the phone drones sound vaguely annoyed with you, but you still end up with the number.

      So, really, what's the downside here (apart from paying for it at all)? I'm curious.

    3. Re:Really? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      I have had OEM copies refused phone activation after having actually legimately replaced the motherboard for a customer. OK, I rang up again 5 minutes later with the same reason, and got approved - but the only reason microsoft allow people to claim that and get an activation is forbearance - according to the licence terms, they don't have to.

      Now, whether the EULA actually overrides the doctrine of first sale such that they can actually legally spring that on you post purchase is a different matter of course - but you fancy explaining that to a phone drone?

      The downside is simply that the workaround that Microsoft allow for OEM copies might one day disappear in a puff of WGA logic, which it won't with retail. Plus of course, you're in breach of the licence terms, and if you're going to do that you might as well rip it off entirely and save yourself the grief of phone activation.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    4. Re:Really? by dr00g911 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To clarify: I'm not talking about using a single sticker to activate a ton of PCs, which is certainly possible under the current OEM activation structure.

      To be sure, I have had no moral issues whatsoever pirating Windows in the past, but I consider paying $129-ish per machine to keep version and config parity on my modest home office render farm a bargain in comparison to any alternative (apart from Linux, but we're talking Windows at the moment). I built the machines, and paid to get XP64 OEM for each of them (legitimately under the license terms). I'll be paying to install a Windows 7 OEM on those same Core i7 boxes later this year, and the day that Microsoft refuses activation of an OEM copy on an honest to God homebuild is the day that their platform gets abandoned entirely. An upgrade from XP64 or Vista 64 is most certainly not worth the price from a SOHO point of view when you're dealing with 5-6 machines.

      I guess my primary point was that a full, non-upgrade, OEM copy of Windows is both cheaper and more convenient to own in the long run (and even the short term) than an "upgrade" retail box... and the upgrade boxes are retailing for pennies on the dollar less than a full install. There's no compelling reason whatsoever to pay for an "upgrade" box because it's incredibly inconvenient to have to reinstall from one in the long run.

      There is no good reason to ever purchase an upgrade copy from Microsoft given pricing, convenience and licensing terms. If your personal moral code objects to sticking an OEM copy of Windows (or education copy for even cheaper) on a machine that isn't technically brand-spanking-new, then fine... but for God's sake don't buy the upgrade copy. Just spring for the full retail install.

      You save about $20 off retail (which costs twice as much or more than OEM) to buy yourself about 3 additional hours on every reinstall, and that's the part that chafes me. Or you can buy the OEM copy that's far cheaper and is the exact same as the retail box, minus superfluous packaging and which serial number it accepts.

      Until it's as convenient to be 100% EULA-compliant as it is to fudge a little on the OEM terms I'm gonna continue saving money at upgrade time and not lose any sleep over it.

      So, Microsoft: make upgrade boxes less of a pain in the ass over the long term -- or make the price on par with the additional hassle -- and I'll consider doing things your way. I don't trust you, I don't respect you, but I'm stuck with you for certain apps. You'd do well to learn a little about customer loyalty from Apple.

    5. Re:Really? by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      Slightly off topic, but reading about the convenience of full versions as opposed to upgrades reminded me of a funny story.

      I had pirated copies of Windows 95, and a pirated copy of the upgrade to 98. Well, I must have installed those things a hundred times. Relatives, friends, building myself new machines. I was the "IT Kid" in the family.

      So one day, I'm installing Windows 98 and playing bomberman with my friend Mark while I wait for the installer to run. First, I install Win 95, then I run the 98 upgrade installer. As it's running, Marks asks me why I installed Windows 95 first. I explain that I only have the 98 Upgrade. Oh, he says, didn't I know that you could run the install by booting off the upgrade disc. You only have to insert your 95 disc half way through to verify you have one, you don't have to actually install it first.

      I must have wasted whole days of my life installing Windows 95 unnecessarily.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
  27. Convenient... by ternarybit · · Score: 0, Troll

    I still think it's a bit convenient that M$ takes 6+ years to develop something as awful as Vista, then spends less than 3 developing something remarkably usable, innovative and stable (at least compared to its predecessor.) I just thank Canonical, FOSS coders everywhere, and the good man upstairs for (K/U)buntu!

    1. Re:Convenient... by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, they were also working on XBox 360 and Zune at the same time they were working on Vista. I'm not aware of any other *major* projects they were working on while working on Windows 7. Also, Windows 7 is mostly just an upgrade to Vista, while Vista has a lot of changes under the hood compared to XP.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  28. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps ANNOUCE THE FREAKIN' FREE UPGRADE DATE more than a day before it starts. That'd help.

    It'd have helped alot actually.

    --
    import system.cool.Sig;
  29. IMO... by stalky14 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    An OS should never cost more than $80.

    System Utilities should never cost more than $40.

    Games should never cost more than $50.

    Productivity apps can cost whatever, based on the size of their target market.

    1. Re:IMO... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An OS should never cost more than $80.

      Maybe $100, but that's it. An OS is basically supposed to make your computer work - not be the focus of your attention on the machine. It's supposed to more-or-less stay out of your way and let you get work done. I don't want to pay more for my OS than for the application I'm trying to run.

      System Utilities should never cost more than $40.

      I'd go as high as $50... But again, it's supposed to basically make your computer work and get out of the way. I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars just to keep my computer working correctly. And I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay another $50+ every year to keep getting updates... If I want the new version, I'll go out and buy it. If I just want the antivirus definitions they should be free... Or maybe some nominal fee to cover the bandwidth... $10 or so a year.

      Games should never cost more than $50.

      Especially not with how little gameplay you get these days... My son bought something for $60 (+tax) last week, played through it in one day over the weekend... I thought maybe he just skipped over side-quests or gave up and quit early or something... Read a review or two on-line... There's apparently about 6 hours of gameplay in the thing. WTF?!

      Productivity apps can cost whatever, based on the size of their target market.

      Agreed. If you actually need PhotoShop, you need PhotoShop, and it is worth your money to shell out hundreds of dollars for it. If you don't actually need PhotoShop there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives that are much cheaper if not free. The same thing goes for just about any other product... If you really need the features that Acrobat/Microsoft Office/QuickBooks/whatever offers, you can afford to pay for it. If not, use something else.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:IMO... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      An OS should never cost more than $80.

      System Utilities should never cost more than $40.

      Games should never cost more than $50.

      Productivity apps can cost whatever, based on the size of their target market.

      Those are the prices I grew up knowing. True inflation has got to be biting these companies in the ass. Dos 5 was $90 if I recall. I also remember games sold on the 5-1/4 floppies in the huge boxes going for $50 and seeing the Sierra games listed in their catalog at something like $75. With all the inflation, that $50 can't be worth what it was back in the day even though it still feels like a chunk of change.

      This is not a defense of Microsoft's prices, more just shaking my head in bewilderment at inflation. I know I damn well won't pay $100 for a game, no matter how good it is.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that an OS you're going to use for 8+ hours a day for 3+ years should never cost even double a game that you'll play maybe 4 hours a day for a couple weeks? Also the OS is well more then twice as complicated and cost well more then twice as much to create. MS doesn't just make these prices up. People will pay more then twice as much. They do market research. You, on the other hand, are just making stuff up.

    4. Re:IMO... by tepples · · Score: 1

      I know I damn well won't pay $100 for a game

      Then I take it you don't play PC first-person shooters ($160 for licenses for each of four PCs in a household at $40 each), PC real-time war sims (likewise $160 for four licenses), PC online RPGs (monthly fees add up), console multi-instrument music games ($100 or more for game + guitar + drums + microphone), or any game on a new platform.

    5. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that $100, $50, and $20 respectively, and you'll get my vote.
       
      I justify my prices based on the frequency with which I'd like to purchase such things. (I mean really, a video game shouldn't cost more than a quarter of a minimum wage worker's paycheck for fuck's sake).

    6. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I should be surrounded by beautiful naked women 24/7!

    7. Re:IMO... by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      I want to know how in the '90s it became acceptable for games to cost $50.

    8. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the work you do should cost no more than $3! :D

      Setting prices for others is fun! And egocentric. :)

    9. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and caramels should never cost more than 5 cents! It's unfair to charge more.

      (hint: your opinion is part of what helps set prices in a capitalist economy but you're only one person and many others are willing to pay more)

    10. Re:IMO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An OS should never cost more than $80.

      System Utilities should never cost more than $40.

      Games should never cost more than $50.

      Productivity apps can cost whatever, based on the size of their target market.

      Hey, you and my old boss would get along well. You choose pricing the same way he chooses static buffer sizes.

    11. Re:IMO... by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      if you said that in the 60's, cars would never cost more than a few grand and salaries would still be around 6k per year.

      Inflation is (generally) all relative. You make 10 times what you made in the 60s, and stuff costs 10 times as much.
      Apples to Apples.

    12. Re:IMO... by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      in case someone wants to get smart with me:

      "The median income in 1960 was 5,600": http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf

    13. Re:IMO... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Are you saying they should put a steep discount on the OS?
      Or that they shouldn't put as much functionality in it as they do?

      Cos XP is worth far more than that out of the box, and if you don't hate it Vista is worth far more than XP. And 7 is apparently just Vista without some of the annoying crap.

      Most of the drivers you would need are included, certainly almost any typical hardware like mouse, keyboard, printer, scanner, lots of modems. It includes basic word processing, a web browser, SMTP mail via Outlook, media player, file sharing... you can do piles of stuff without ever installing anything. It includes a lot of system utilities already.

      So how should they get down to an $80 value?

    14. Re:IMO... by pennyloafer · · Score: 1

      I think he meant a single player game that did not require a sub. Your roommates could take turns you know.

    15. Re:IMO... by Knara · · Score: 1

      I know I damn well won't pay $100 for a game

      Then I take it you don't play PC first-person shooters ($160 for licenses for each of four PCs in a household at $40 each), PC real-time war sims (likewise $160 for four licenses)

      Er, why would you count 4 individual licenses as one game? What game do you own that requires 4 people to play it, and requires one person to pay for all the copies? I don't necessarily agree with what the GPP has to say, but this is silly.

  30. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For businesses , its about reliability, not price. If they ship it with default admin user again, it has no way of being secure and reliable, with the UAC bug and all.
    On the other hand, home user doesn't care about owning a legal copy, and will use pirated if presented the opportunity. Home users that buy original mostly do so UNKNOWINGLY, when buying laptop or brand machine. Or when the price is expressed as total - and the price is still right. That being said, those machines tend to be awful - for example where I live, a relatively big company sells their desktop machines with horrible hardware, Asus motherboards with tons of bios bugs, cheapest possible PSU, memory and disk. Price is OK, but without Windows user would get MUCH better machine for the same amount of money. So the choice is - bad bad machine with legal Windows, or decent machine with pirated Windows. (disclaimer: IMHO Asus is not too bad as mobos go, but really those specific motherboards are some of the worst Asus mobos that I've ever seen - and I've seen a LOT).

  31. for most people Windows is free... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [flame suit on]

    I know much of slashdot would vehemently disagree, but for the majority of users, Windows comes 'for free' with their PC. They buy a computer from Dell or whomever and it comes with Windows, then when the buy a new PC 4 or 5 years later, it comes with Windows again. Virtually no one I know 'buys' the OS - They'll simply get a the newest / latest when they buy a new computer.

    [/flame]

    1. Re:for most people Windows is free... by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      Unless Dell has some special arrangement with MS with regard to this, a new machine with windows installed as the OS has the price of the license bundled into the machine. You can refuse to agree to the MS EULA on the new machine and be compensated for it.

    2. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... the cost of Windows is nil as long as you buy a new computer? Like the cost of food is nil as long as I buy a new refrigerator every couple of years, or the cost of gas is nil as long as I buy a new car every couple of years, or...

      I suspect that 'for free' doesn't mean what you think it does.

    3. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are still paying for Windows they just don't realize it because the cost is included in the price of the PC.

    4. Re:for most people Windows is free... by riegel · · Score: 1

      WOW! Its free! And I am sure Microsoft would love for everyone to continue to think that.

      And the government is out to get nice cuddly Microsoft for anti trust. How can it be they give me their OS for free.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    5. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      I know much of slashdot would vehemently disagree, but for the majority of users, Windows comes 'for free' with their PC. They buy a computer from Dell or whomever and it comes with Windows, then when the buy a new PC 4 or 5 years later, it comes with Windows again. Virtually no one I know 'buys' the OS - They'll simply get a the newest / latest when they buy a new computer.

      While it is certainly true that most "Joe Sixpack" home users have never actually purchased an OS... And many other people buy their OS for non-retail prices... That doesn't negate the fact that the retail pricing is excessive.

      We support a lot of small/medium sized businesses, and OS licensing can be a huge expense for them. Expensive enough that it becomes cost-effective to simply replace perfectly good computers with new ones, and get the OS "for free" with the new hardware. There's something wrong with that.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:for most people Windows is free... by tepples · · Score: 1

      for the majority of users, Windows comes 'for free' with their PC.

      Linux subnotebook: $299.88. Windows subnotebook: $349.88. What's free now?

    7. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, ummmm, . . . did you figure that out all by yourself?

    8. Re:for most people Windows is free... by kjloc · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!!!

    9. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      I think OEM's and shops should be obliged to have their pc's standard without an OS installed on it, and sell the (installation of the) OS as a separate item. So in a catalog it should be something like:
      PC $$
      Installed with Windows $$$$$ (Windows Super Ultra DeLuxe DRM-Enhanced Turbo Diesel Version $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ )
      Installed with Ubuntu (or your Linux flavor of choice) $$$

      That way, it would become clear to customers that there is a MS-tax and that there are other OS-es than Windows AND they would be given a choice.

      But i'm afraid some firm from Redmont (or Redmond, too lazy to look it up), might object....

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    10. Re:for most people Windows is free... by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      Is the hardware less powerful? That's typically the case, as far as I've seen.

    11. Re:for most people Windows is free... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Then why can't I buy a PC without Windows at all? And why do I have to go through six hoops of hell to attempt a refund if I refuse the first boot EULA?

    12. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      I don't think your post is at all a flame. I'll go one step farther and say that I don't think most people even *know* what an Operating System is. This is at the heart of why, outside of tech circles, praise for Linux falls on deaf ears.

      Don't get me wrong: They know that there is this thing called "Windows". I just think that, much like people think that Internet Explorer *is* the internet, they think that Windows *is* the computer.

    13. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the case for much of slashdot as well. Heck, when you can buy a computer at Dell with either Windows or Ubuntu - where both cost the same price - and Ubuntu is free, the math works out pretty clearly.

    14. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter to the consumer, because the ones who perceive it to be "free" with the computer, in all likelihood, won't be buying the Linux version.

    15. Re:for most people Windows is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more reason this sort of bundling should be made illegal. That's the only way to get a level playing field and real competition. Along with a stricter law prohibiting dumping practices. If you're selling a retail version of a product for $100 then flog it for $10 to an OEM, with the main difference the packaging and an installation CD worth a couple of cents, that's dumping in my view. (prices are there just to make a point.

      Consumers are not given a choice and most are not even aware there is one.

  32. Re:Wow! Microsoft you really dont have a clue do y by cliffski · · Score: 1

    So any geek off the street is smarter than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.

    I bet those two guys laugh like maniacs about comments like that, whilst sitting on gold plated thrones and guzzling Krug.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  33. Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of you zealots have actually used the W7 release candidate? From the look of the comments, not many. It's a fantastic OS already, and I'm betting it will be very successful, increasing Microsoft's market share.

    Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

    1. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

      Vista was released in 2007. Just sayin'.

    2. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. Microsoft fails to deliver on it's promises time and time again.

      They might have finally broken this habit. However, until my own
      circle of acquaintances are no longer being subjected to Microsoft
      driven malware infestations I will be staying as far away from
      Microsoft products as I can.

      So yeah... of course this Zealot hasn't run the latest pre-release
      version of Microsoft Broken Promises and Technological Sandbagging.

      If I get OS Wanderlust I will put MacOS back on one of my Macs and upgrade it to Snow Leopard.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by IsaacD · · Score: 1, Funny

      you slimy little windows fanboi!!! rot in hell!! Linux was sent by God himself. Microshaft suckware is useless. No one can accomplish anything using anything from Micro$hit. Linux and OSS has never once suffered any type of security flaw or any shortcoming of any type. Linux works flawlessly and requires zero time for configuration. Getting Windoze installed takes 4 days and costs 90 gazillion dollars - IT'S USELESS!!! The only way to be productive is to use Linux and OSS!!!! Oh, and Bill Gates is Satan!

    4. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize how retarded this logic is?

      Let's reverse it. I installed Linux in 2000. It was a piece of shit. It was difficult to install, didn't support my devices and was too hard for my grandmother to use.

      The latest Linux distros are pieces of shit also, because of my past experience.

      Of course, I haven't actually USED a modern Linux distro, as I'm sick of "broken promises".

    5. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You're the only retard here.

      Due to the fact that Microsoft is pervasive and they conspire to prevent you
      from using other products, it is actually quite easy to have CURRENT information
      about their products and how well they are doing at cleaning their act up.

      In practice, replacing as much Microsoft crap as you can with free software
      or other competitors is your best approach to avoiding trouble in a Microsoft
      OS. Oddly enough, this is a fact of life with Microsoft that hasn't seemed to
      change since the 16-bit days.

      So this is the version where Microsoft finally delivers?

      Excuse me for being a bit skeptical...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or did the W7 Beta run faster and smoother then the RC? When I was using the Beta, I thought it was very fast and streamlined like XP. The RC feels exactly like Vista (i.e. slow and bloated, hard drive chugging constantly). The one good point I'll concede is that the RC actually had all the newest drivers for all my hardware, even the motherboard chipset, which blew my mind since I have a custom built rig.

    7. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      WGA will still be required, right? Onerous licensing that means you don't have final authority over your OS? As far as increasing their market share, most Apple fans probably aren't going to be buying Win 7, and many Linux users probably won't either.

    8. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely; I had a test machine and was involved in the Windows 7 beta and saw very few issues with it. The day it was available as a release candidate I downloaded it and have been running it exclusively at both home and work.

      I have 0 issues in either regard running it with major office and business applications, including Office 2007, Open Office 3, Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server 2005, I.E. 8, Firefox 3, etc.

      Windows 7 is what Vista should have been when it released. I wish the upgrade would be cheaper/free for those of us that had to deal with the Vista fiasco but I will be buying a Windows 7 upgrade on Oct 22 when it releases.

    9. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that something like 80%+ of the people on Slashdot run Windows, right? (from site statistics)

      Slashdot the site may have a Linux bias but the people here are mostly running Windows. Most of the Microsoft bashing is just poseur herd mentality.

    10. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by greenbird · · Score: 1

      How many of you zealots have actually used the W7 release candidate?

      You know, I haven't seen one post, or for that mater any articles in the press, touting all these new better features that I'm supposed to be paying $120 dollars for. As far as I can see, the marketing for it has been it fixes all the screwups in Vista. Strangely, every new version of Ubuntu, which is on a fixed 6 month release schedule, compared to Microsoft's maybe every couple years (if you include service packs that add significant features like Microsoft's genuine advantage), includes a list of new and improved features. Some are rather esoteric and somewhat arcane to the average user but they are there none the less. What compelling new features does Windows 7 have that should compel someone to shell out $120 dollars for it?

      But, I know, I know, we zealots shouldn't actually be looking for value in spending our hard earned money. We should just be giving our money to Billy Boy simple because he's deemed to give us another of his infinity superior products.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    11. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by funkatron · · Score: 1

      I've just loaded up the release candidate in a VM. While it's pretty, there are still some problems. First, minesweeper won't work on my virtual graphics card (stupid design decision). Second, it's told me to install antivirus. Call me oldfashioned but if I NEED a piece of software shouldn't it be installed by default.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    12. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      I had the same thing. The Beta ran fine, a little slower than XP, but not much. The RC was sluggish.

    13. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      How many of you zealots have actually used the W7 release candidate?

      *raises hand*

      I thought it was okay. If I didn't already have XP installations for gaming, I'd probably install it instead. But there's no chance it hell I'd actually pay money for it; it really has nothing, on the user side of things, that my XP/Ubuntu dual boot can't.

      I've gone beyond the days where I actually care about the OS I use, and Windows 7 simply doesn't add enough to the equation to change that.

    14. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I agree that Windows 7 does indeed rock, but the RC I'm using is Windows 7 Ultimate x64 and my opinion is tied to that fact.

      I do not think that Windows 7 Ultimate is worth $319.00 and I have no experience with the lower tier options to be able to know before buying them whether they are worthwhile for the prices listed.

      The difference between XP-64 and Windows 7 Ultimate is not worth $319.00

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    15. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by maugle · · Score: 1

      Get out of the 90's? Where cave were you living in when Vista was released? It had plenty of security problems, and while it didn't have much in the way of crashes it compensated by being the very definition of bloat.

    16. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wanted out of the 90s, then MS gave us Vista and reset the clock!

      I do like Win 7 very much though.

    17. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 1

      >Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.
      95 = bloat, crashes, unsecure
      98 = bloat, crashes, unsecure
      ME = bloat, crashes, unsecure
      NT/2k = good
      XP = somewhat bloat but mostly good
      Vista = bloat, crashes, unsecure

      To me it looks more like the norm for Microsoft is bloat, crashes, unsecure, and occasionally they get it right on a fluke. I'll wait a year or so after 7 is officially released to think about evaluating it.

    18. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for everyone who has negative feelings toward Windows; but there are some really practical reasons to dislike the MS monopoly.

      If you have a computer that does everything you want, why would you want to change the foundation upon which it works? In the MS world, it is because they are going to drop support for your version of Windows; and because of that, software companies are going to stop supporting their software for that unsupported Windows platform.

      If that software is windows only, there's a pretty good chance that any data created with it that you value will be damaged, if not rendered completely unusable.

      Further, one of the most important pieces of software that will likely stop working on an unsupported version of Windows is the Antivirus software-- it's not economically feasible for AV companies to keep pumping out updated virus definitions for an outdated and unsupported operating system.

      Add to this the fact that there will no longer be updates for that Windows version, and continuing to run the unsupported OS is a pretty big security risk (assuming, of course, that you care about connecting to the Internet).

      So, do you not see that in the Windows world you have no *choice* but to eventually upgrade, if you are at all interested in being able to continue to use your computer?

      When my Windows XP machines start breaking, that will likely mark my exit from the Windows world. If I'm going to have to learn a new UI anyway, and if I'm going to invest in new hardware, I may as well make a clean break from my dependency on Windows. I know that I can do this with very little pain because I only choose platform-agnostic software so that my data has a better chance of remaining usable for a longer period of time.

      So, the point isn't whether Windows 7 is good or not. It probably is, judging from what I've read. But I'm not likely to get any first-hand experience with it. I will have real freedom of OS choice when I'm ready to upgrade my hardware, and I will make my choice based on the longevity, usefulness, and accessibility of my data.

    19. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by dedazo · · Score: 1

      That used to be true the last time Taco released an aggregate analysis of the Slashdot Apache logs. Which was in 2002, IIRC. I doubt it's 80% nowadays, considering other FOSS-centric sites that release their traffic numbers tend to figure about 50/50 in some cases. They are also highly Firefox-biased (I don't mean that negatively) with some being 90%+ of all visitors over IE and everything else.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    20. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      The problem with statistics is that they only answer one question, and inferences have to be made to their origin.

      In this case, the only answer you get is that "80% of people visiting Slashdot are using Windows", not that they WANT to use Windows, or have the ability to use an OS of their choice.

      I'm sure a large amount of users are browsing from their work computers, with the standard Windows 2000/XP image everyone else in the office has.

    21. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

      let's see :
      Vista == 00's
      ME == 00's

      care to tell us what was so much worse in the 90's or do you want to keep some of this credibility?

    22. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

      I don't have to be stuck in the 90's to remember Vista. It's still all too fresh on my mind. I'm... damaged.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    23. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Zealots"...ah, yes, right. From one AC to another, I will say: Yes, yes in fact I have used Windows 7. Beta AND release candidate. In fact, I am forced to use it and test on it at work.

      It still sucks. All the foaming at the mouth you Windows "zealots" (see, i can use that word too) do over Windows 7 has baffled me from the start. Win7 is awful. It's just as bloated as Vista. It does absolutely NOTHING to fix the mass compatibility breakage Vista introduced. It manages to further break things that were broken by Vista, then fixed for Vista. The interface is even worse than Vista. Where did classic mode go? Oh right...a single radio box I could click on Vista or XP has been replaced by futzing with dozens of settings to make that godawful Dock ripoff look like a typical Windows task bar.

      Windows 7 is a triumph of marketing. Microsoft still has it, folks. After the stinking bomb that Vista was, they still managed a hail mary of marketing and managed to make Vista's replacement look like an all new operating system. And they still have their army of "Steve Barktos" running around the net playing interference for them too.

    24. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it fantastic. I would call it one of the best OS's MS has put out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because most people read the site from work, and have to use a windows PC at their job.

    26. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

      That's not slashdot, that's the real world. It just stands out more to people that are used to using oses that are efficient, stable, and secure. Particularly when said oses cost significantly less, if they cost anything at all.

      As far as getting out of the 90's, of the 3 consumer oses that MS has released since 2000 (me, xp, and vista), only xp has been worth a shit. Vista was dissapointing on such a level that you can still purchase pcs with xp preinstalled instead. So please forgive us our skepticism when 2/3rds of the oses they've released for consumers in the last decade have been downgrades from previous versions, while costing upwards of twice as much as their competitors if bought on their own.

    27. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.

      What was Windows in the 90s ? 95/98 and NT4.

      Are you claiming that Windows 7 is 'less bloated' than these ?

      It may well be less boated than Vista, but is still more than the post-90s ME/2000/XP.

      I am certain that there are far more Windows zombie botnets now than there were in the 90s. Maybe most are XP, but that is still more than 95/98/NT4 ever had.

    28. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90's? My new dvd r/w is causing bsod's on my xp build right now with the newest drivers from the vendor. Works fine in linux. My vista install on my laptop takes 7 minutes to boot and get into a usable state, and then is sluggish as hell.Forgive me though if I haven't installed an RC to see how much greaterest this version will be, it must be the zealot in me.
      Disclaimer: Some MS products don't suck. But to say their products are categorically secure, stable, and slim ain't my experience.

    29. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by trampel · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that (according to what I heard) Windows 7 is pretty good, but increasing Microsoft's market share?

      That would mean that somebody would switch from OS X or Linux to Windows, wouldn't it?

    30. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by PingXao · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward. How long did it take you to rate this up to a 5 using your sockpuppets?

    31. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people here agree with that, their point is that it should be cheaper cuz they paid a lot for Vista and to them it was crap.

      Apple isn't helping here, specially since the upgrade price for Snow Leopard is around $30 and a family pack is around $50 and there is another version that sells for $170 if you don't have Leopard, but it also includes the latest versions iWork and iLife.

    32. Re:Fear of Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck microshit windaids.

  34. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Add to that users that are too non-technical or frightened to try something different but hate the issues they constantly have with Vista. If there is a better reason to upgrade to Windows7 than "your machine is running Vista", I haven't heard it yet. IMHO. Spending that much to get rid of problems, not learn anything new, and not have to buy new versions of your existing software is the price point Microsoft is shooting for.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  35. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    They've got a captive audience consisting mainly of new PC buyers and existing corporate seats.

    Exactly.

    If you buy a new computer, it'll come with Windows 7. You'll wind up paying for it whether you want it or not.

    And if you're a corporate client with one of their maintenance/upgrade/support plans you're already paying a yearly fee to use their software - so they're getting your money regardless of whether you upgrade(?) to Windows 7 or not.

    That's the problem with Windows these days, there really is no competition. Microsoft's got a steady stream of cash and they don't really have to be better than anyone else.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  36. What exactly do I get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What exactly do I get for my hard-earned $199 or $119?

    -A glorified file manager?
    -Shiny new icons?
    -a DRM crippled media player, that can only play "approved" formats
    -Buggy drivers
    -A "free" web browser, full of security holes
    -Wordpad, Solitaire, Reversi?
    -"Promised" compatibility with old software
    -A crippled email application
    -A crippled media recorder/editor

    So lets see, I basically get a glorified file manager, and at worst case, need to repurchase new versions of most of the critical applications, unless I do so, my system is mostly useless, unless I'm satisfied with web broswing and typing in wordpad.

    Sorry, not worth it. I'd rather pay/donate to slackware/ubuntu and get a DVD that contains USEFUL software.

    1. Re:What exactly do I get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What comes on that DVD?

      - A file manager that crashes every time I use it and a forum response for support telling me to edit some config file and reinstall the package? (example only)
      - Shinier icons?
      - A DRM-less media player that can't play the "approved formats" that the end users recieve?
      - A lack of drivers
      - A free web browser that you could have gotten anyway
      - More of the same?
      - No promised compatibility with old software, or even current software
      - Potentially more of the
      - SAME

      I'm not bashing Linux, it's just that there isn't as big a difference as you think, other than the price.

    2. Re:What exactly do I get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      - If my Linux system dies, I can restore in it under 20 mins, from a dvd backup, config files and all. Try doing that with windows, WITHOUT buying a $80 backup program

      - Linux has issues, Windows has issues, I pay less for one, and in my experience, get LESS issues.

      - Linux generally does not issue 'security' updates that restrict my ability to use my computer or media

      - Linux does not assume I am a pirate, and insist on scanning my entire system to determine if it is 'genuine'

      - WIth VMWARE/Wine I can run only other kernel, application, and there are no "virtualization" license clauses in Linux

      - I get a Free:
              - Compiler C/C++/ObjC/Fortran
              - Java Interpreter
              - Debugger

      - Driver support has long since ceased to be an issue. Driver quality is comparable or better than windows for most commodity hardware.

      - No CD-Keys to lose, No 'authorization' needed to run software

    3. Re:What exactly do I get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:What exactly do I get? by kjloc · · Score: 1

      I realize you're just being funny, but there are actually quite a few real improvements in Win7

      Maybe so, but the sarcasm in the OP makes a valid point. Why are people paying $300 dollars for an OS Upgrade? And with Windows, even the Full version is still an upgrade if you used a Windows OS before. Going from Windows 95 to Windows 7 is still upgrading. MS just takes more dollars from your wallet first.

      And if you upgrade with every new version, based on the current rate of release by this company you're leasing your OS for $150 per year. Ouch.

    5. Re:What exactly do I get? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      you forgot "Except in Nebraska" you insensitive clod!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    6. Re:What exactly do I get? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What exactly do I get for my hard-earned $199 or $119?

      An OS that runs most applications on the market (and particularly games).

    7. Re:What exactly do I get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were possible to close threads on slashdot (in an effort to go out with a bang), I would do it right here.

    8. Re:What exactly do I get? by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      And if you call in the next 20 minutes (because we can't do this the whole day), well give you MS Works ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    9. Re:What exactly do I get? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not this tired shit again. Jesus Christ get a grip. If you can't be bothered to read the list of new features to Windows 7, why bother posting to slashdot just to show everyone how ignorant you are. Also:

      1. The file manager does a lot more than allow you to move files around.
      2. The icons, while new and shiny, are merely there for aesthetic reasons, and not a feature in and of themselves
      3. Windows Media Player is not crippled, and will play anything thrown at it provided the provider of the content has not explicitly stated they don't want you to (allowing anyone to watch more media on it than any other video player. With DRM you get *more* content. But that's not a fashionable thing to say on slashdot, even though it's clearly demonstrably true
      4. The drivers aren't buggy. Windows has WHQL driver certification for drivers, providing excellent drivers. Any bugs are not from MS but from the companies who wrote the drivers. Guess what - the same issue affects Linux
      5. IE8 isn't as bad as you seem to think. It's not full of security holes, at least not on Vista and 7
      6. Yes, you get those. And a shit-tonne more.
      7. Yes, the compatibility is there, and it's actually fucking impressive.
      8. It's not crippled - it's powerful. It works very well indeed.
      9. Media recorder? Can you be more clear?

      You also missed the fact you get Media Center, Powershell, disk encryption, compatibility with most of the software and hardware out there, and, shit - just go read the list and save yourself more humiliation. Also, if money's your issue, you can still go and download Open Office and all the other OSS you want, as a great deal of that works in Windows, too.

  37. OT, but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    You need to meet Bob.

    1. Re:OT, but... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The buck's stop's hear!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. The price of Windows is factored into PC's price. by Doug52392 · · Score: 1
    Technically, the price of Windows is factored into the cost of a new PC. Even though it might seem like Windows is "free" when purchasing a new computer, it's not. The companies don't include "Windows - $x.xx" in their pricing breakdown, so you can't tell the difference.

    "You didn't pay anything for Windows."

    Since the price of Windows was included in the price of the computer, they may try to argue that you didn't pay anything for it. This one is easy to debunk. Windows costs money -- everyone knows that. Once you establish that Windows does indeed cost money (and you can't get it for free) then the only remaining issue is how much you paid. Since Microsoft contracts out with hardware vendors, there's no actual way to know how much Windows costs a given retailer. This being the case, I was asking for the price of an OEM copy of Windows XP Home SP2 that I found on Newegg, which was $89. In the end they gave me $52.50. I don't know if this is really how much Windows costs, but it's a non-trivial amount and I can well imagine that one of the world's largest computer makers can get a good deal on Windows licenses from Microsoft.

    http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/59381

    In this case, it was determined that Windows XP added $52.50 to the price of a Dell PC.

  39. Re:Wow! Microsoft you really dont have a clue do y by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I suggest you HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CLUE.

    It's not necessary to have clues, honesty, professionalism, courtesy, security, or lack of bugs when you have the market share Microsoft does. Hell, if I could make tons of money producing overpriced crap, I'd sell crap and overprice it, too!

    Gees, guys, lay off poor Microsoft.

  40. What I really want to know ... by Jumperalex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is how much will it be as an "OEM" version from the likes of Newegg when I purchase it with a HD? Because anyone paying Brick and Mortor retail pricing is just paying an ignorance-tax.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
  41. Stop Comparing to MacOS Pricing by xianthax · · Score: 1

    Seriously, not the same market...

    Mac computers can run Windows, but this is a second operating system purchase to the user, thus not the same primary OS market.

    Windows users can not run Mac OS on their machines (at least not legally/easily) therefore this is again, a different market.

    Mac OS upgrade has better be cheaper as their hardware costs a large amount more.

    The only direct competition with windows on the desktop with generic hardware is linux (solaris/freebsd to lesser extent) but quite clearly this issue is much more complicated than pricing alone.

  42. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Well, price it competitive and sanely and I'll buy it. Keep it priced like it is and I'll just pirate it and make sure to recommend alternatives wherever possible.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  43. Frickin' idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back and take econ. Or basic math. Selling more units at a lower price does not necessarily increase profits. Of course, though, you are on slashdot and a complete idiot, and I am replying to you. Who is more of a schmuck?

  44. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you buy a new computer, it'll come with Windows 7. You'll wind up paying for it whether you want it or not.

    According to that pricelist, you're buying Windows 7 and getting a free computer that comes with it.

  45. No thanks, I'll be pirating Windows 7. by Doug52392 · · Score: 2, Funny

    After the two years I had to spend on Windows Vista, I figure a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate is a justifiable compensation for all of the frustration and emotional trauma I have endured.

  46. Alternatives? by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    If we, in the Linux world, would stop all of the BS bickering, we could have taken advantage of this situation. Arguments over Gnome vs KDE vs whatever and the horrible treatment newbies get on the forums are killing any kind of mass migration.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I like KDE, but if you prefer Gnome that's fine. I usually suggest KDE to people switching from Windows as it's not that much different, less different than Gnome is.

      As to the treatment noobs get, I agree with you, treating new users like that is just stupid.

  47. Do not hate me. by raijinsetsu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been using Windows 7 for the last month or so (since it went from beta to RC) and, I have to say that I have liked MOST of the experience so far.

    Stability is at least on par with XP (have not had to restart since I finished driver installs). Annoying messages have been minimal - they only appear when I am doing something that should require administrator credentials, such as installing a new application or driver.

    Performance... I have no concrete figures but this also seems on par with XP.

    The only down-side has been the installation time (hours, even on my beast) and the size of the OS(how DO you fit 20GB of data on a 3GB DVD anyways????).

    So, the reason I want Windows 7 is so I can use all of my system's memory without a ramdisk/virtual memory hack and 64-bit support. There is really no other reason to upgrade because everything else seems on par with XP.

    1. Re:Do not hate me. by radish · · Score: 1

      Same here, really liking Win7. I've already switched my laptop over from Ubuntu to Win7, likewise my netbook (managed to get the install size down to under 5gb which is good for a small SSD!). I'm pretty sure my wife's machines will be moved over too once the retail version comes out. Personally, I prefer it to XP, OSX and Ubuntu - all of which I have at home on one machine or another.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Do not hate me. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I've seen pretty much the same thing with my Windows 7 install. Sad thing is that Ubuntu's unstable with the SATA drivers on the same machine (keeps disconnecting drives under heavy load), so I'm seriously considering switching the machine to 100% Windows :(

    3. Re:Do not hate me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only down-side has been the installation time (hours, even on my beast) and the size of the OS(how DO you fit 20GB of data on a 3GB DVD anyways????).

      Uh.. something isn't right there. It installed on my 'beast' in less than thirty minutes. Or maybe my beast is just beastlier than yours.. :)

    4. Re:Do not hate me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(how DO you fit 20GB of data on a 3GB DVD anyways????)"

      Huh? Where do you get a 3GB DVD from? Never heard of dual layer? Double sided dual layer?

      Windows 7's interface is atrocious. Microsoft have let 'The Ribbon' (another bad idea) go to their heads. Now we have a huge taskbar - is Windows 7 designed for the partially sighted? Three year olds? All I want is Windows XP just as it is - it works fine for me, and I don't NEED another 'better' OS.

    5. Re:Do not hate me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really haven't given a very convincing reason to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a new OS. Is "on par with XP" supposed to be a feature?

    6. Re:Do not hate me. by jj00 · · Score: 1

      I've been trying it out, and so far I'm liking it for the most part. I completely skipped Vista, so I must admit some of the features are new to me.

      I do have some gripes here and there, but I can't help but think back to the days when I hated XP and swore I would never use that crayon-colored bloated OS. Eventually I had to use it, and I discovered the Windows Classic theme (is also included in Win7).

      My biggest fear so far has been the upgrade policy for the RC. I know that it's a beta product, but from what I understand you have to reinstall the entire OS once the final product comes out. I would really love to see a simple upgrade path - enter a new license number, upgrade a few files, etc.

    7. Re:Do not hate me. by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I prefer it to XP, OSX and Ubuntu

      Can I ask why? Not a troll or flamebait or anything - maybe there's something I missed. I agreed with the grandparent down to the letter; I couldn't see how it was anything other than a mildly better XP. I can't say it would be worth it for me to try and squash it onto a netbook when Ubuntu or XP would work just fine, so if you like it so much maybe you noticed something I didn't.

    8. Re:Do not hate me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      have you noticed winsxs lately? I can't say that I agree with why it is there, but space is cheap these days anyways, so I don't care how much windows uses.

    9. Re:Do not hate me. by AndyGJ · · Score: 1

      I ran into the installation size surprise when I was testing server 2008 - I was pretty surprised when the system partition was about 20gb a few days after install without me installing anything on it.

      This is how they fit 20gb onto a 3gb DVD.

      So its using hardlinks, but the kicker is I think every installer, and explorer report the size as multiples of the actual file size.

      Id love somone to tell me that I'm wrong here, as that seems pretty crazy to me!

    10. Re:Do not hate me. by Iberian · · Score: 1

      There must be a bug with some machines. My Asus eee pc 1000h installed from a USB drive in about 17 minutes to full ready to use W7. Two other newer desktops with new intel CPU's took almost an hour. Both Asus mobos ironically enough. The VM install on Fusion took 1+ hour as well. There is a write up on HardOCP and their install was quick.

      Not sure what the deal is but hopefully some larger data sets can turn up something.

    11. Re:Do not hate me. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Windows 7's interface is atrocious. Microsoft have let 'The Ribbon' (another bad idea) go to their heads. Now we have a huge taskbar - is Windows 7 designed for the partially sighted? Three year olds? All I want is Windows XP just as it is

      1. Go to Control Panel -> "Change the Theme" (under "Appearance and Personalization") -> "Windows Classic".
      2. Right-click the taskbar -> "Properties" -> "Taskbar Buttons" -> set to either one of two options different from "Always combine, hide labels", whichever you prefer.
      3. In the same dialog from the previous step, check "Use small icons".

      And there you have your classic Windows look & feel.

    12. Re:Do not hate me. by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I too have used the RC for some time now and find it to be quite good. It is stable and reasonably fast (Although logging onto a domain seems to take a much much longer amount of time than it does in Windows XP for some reason. Completely anecdotal though as I've only tested it on one machine.)

      The one thing that really really bothers me that started late in Windows XP is the new "Desktop Search." Maybe I'm a complete idiot but A. Having Search indexing turned on bogs down the machine at times and B. I'll do a Search for a file that I KNOW is present (As in, I browse to a directory and look at the file) and Search simply doesn't find it!?!?! I'm talking non-system, non-hidden files. Just foobar.txt or the like. There is probably some utility I can install but more and more I have found myself dropping to the command line to do a dir /s foobar* or something to find the files.

    13. Re:Do not hate me. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      My XP install was 32 bit. Just installing Windows 7 gave me 700MB more RAM, and now I can go up to 8GB if I wanted to.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    14. Re:Do not hate me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly because of all the sparse files created during installation; a large part of MS users are actually impressed by a huge OS footprint, so bigger is better...

      Also, last time I checked a single layer DVD holds about 4.7GBs, not 3 (but that's just me being pedantic).

      The first part of the first line was tongue-in-cheek, though the second part of it seems to be sadly true.

      Spending multiple hours on an install? What a bloody waste of time; reminds me of the good old days of having to install W3.11 from 7 floppy disks though. Glad to see MS keeps the good old days alive... (no really).

    15. Re:Do not hate me. by radish · · Score: 1

      Sure, although this is my personal preference, so YMMV :)

      Why Win7 is better than...

      XP: Eye candy. It runs just as well as my XP install, but looks much, much better. Obviously I don't care about that for headless servers, but if I'm staring at a desktop for hours I like it to look nice. Other minor things - start up is quicker, wireless seems to connect faster and stay connected better.

      OSX: Primary reason is that I grew up on Windows (well, DOS, but then Windows) and never really grokked OSX. There are too many things about it which annoy me - why doesn't maximize actually maximize? Why can I only resize a window from one place? What's with the shared toolbar? OSX obviously is slicker and shinier than XP, but Win7 catches up nicely - the first thing my wife said when she saw Win7 was "that looks just like the Mac". So maybe they copied the good bits, that's fine by me :) I also appreciate the vastly greater hardware support in Windows compared to OSX.

      Ubuntu: This one is tricker. I run 8.10 on my server and wouldn't even consider a non-linux OS in that instance. I also started out with UNR (and the Dell Ubuntu distro) on my netbook, and liked it. But Win7 feels way more polished: the UI looks better, the wifi works MUCH better. When I enabled the fancy UI eyecandy on the Mini 9 it became pretty useless (too slow) but Aero runs just fine. I also got surprisingly confused with admin on Ubuntu - I'm used to using apt-get on the command line (which is awesome) but on the desktop version I had at least 4 different way of installing/uninstalling apps and they all seemed to work slightly differently and give me different options/errors. Utterly confusing!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  48. buy Naked by dominux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    perhaps I could direct your attention to a fine catalog of vendors prepared to sell a PC in the natural state - start naked and free from all operating systems. For those who prefer not to pay for an unwanted proprietary operating system there are Naked Computers. If anyone sees a vendor out there with a naked system for sale please let me know. It has to be an up front option (full frontal if you prefer) not an under the counter, if you ask specially kind of deal. We are also mostly interested in complete computers, not a pile of bits, and we want a minimum order quantity of a single unit.

    1. Re:buy Naked by dominux · · Score: 4, Informative

      grr submit button too close to the preview button (PEBKAC) the link is Naked Computers

    2. Re:buy Naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is not the place to whore out your shitty attempt at beating newegg.

    3. Re:buy Naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly they seem to bundle FreeDOS rather than selling a truely naked computer, as the manufacturers' deal with Microsoft requires them to bundle an operating system (funny that the OS is never Linux, maybe there is something in the fineprint of that contract).

    4. Re:buy Naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I thought your paragraph about Naked Computers was just some sort of innuendo-laden satire crossing between PC talk and soft-core pornography. Then you posted that there's a link and I saw that you were being literal.

    5. Re:buy Naked by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      grr submit button too close to the preview button

      You should be grateful. Two highly moderated posts are better for your karma than one ;-)

      --
      I am not really here right now.
  49. Re:Fear of posting with your username by DeskLazer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have really no issues with Vista to be honest, and Windows 7 seems like it'd be alright. But seriously, if you're going to have an opinion and criticize other users for what they've said, at least post under your handle and have some balls so it doesn't look like cheap attempts at astroturfing.

  50. So how much does it cost? by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have purchased only one copy of Windows(tm) in the last years; XP Professional(tm), and I paid almost $300 for it (all in, after taxes). Yes, I know I was taken for a fool, more on this later.

    Now, I know that OEMs can't possibly be paying anything CLOSE to that, because I can buy a computer now WITH Windows and pay just a bit more than that.

    So, I was led to believe that as a single consumer, I was being ripped off, and the only way to get a reasonable price for Windows was with a new computer. Simple, right?

    Wrong. My wife works as a middle-school teach in the TDSB (Toronto District School Board). They have, what, 40,000 (more?) employees. My wife just got an offer - buy Windows Vista(tm) (Business?) for $21, and Office(tm) for $21. As far as I can tell (from the literature), there don't seem to any resale restrictions. And no "OEM" restrictions. The literature also mentions that the retail price for Office is north of $600.

    How much DO Windows and Office cost? Since only idiots would buy retail Windows or Office (yes, I used to be in that category), the only reason to have ANY "suggested retail price" is to attempt to establish some sort of valuation.

    "It's expensive, it MUST be good",

    but no-one actually pays that price

    "but I got a GREAT deal on the software!".

    And now the suggested retail pricing pops up here, just to help spread the meme.

    Of course, it is possible that the purchase was subsidized by the TDSB, in which case I will be very upset. The TDSB just ok'd the use of OpenOffice, and thus should have no need to spend the money.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:So how much does it cost? by paiute · · Score: 1

      Usually the student/teacher package is available on the honor system

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:So how much does it cost? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much DO Windows and Office cost?

      How much are you willing to spend?

      The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has no standard price. They've got discounts and deals to fit pretty much anyone and everyone - you just have to know about them. Government deals, educational deals, developer deals, big business deals...

      It's ridiculous.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:So how much does it cost? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      The "honor system".

      Whose honor? Mine? The TDSBs? Microsofts?

      I never considered wasting money to be "honorable". Or engaging in enterprise to be dishonorable.

      Anyway, the main problem is that the software is STILL valued at $600+. And is tied to employment. Which means that it will be seen by the revenue service as a taxable benefit. Taxes on that would come to around $200, making the purchase price ~$240 (after tax), with a tax burden of around $220.

      Now, it is true that very few people will declare this purchase, but that WOULD be criminal. However, I don't consider it honorable to induce x10 tax burdens without warning the employee!

      I guess that leaves Microsofts honor. Care to explain how not reselling has anything to do with that?

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    4. Re:So how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it is possible that the purchase was subsidized by the TDSB, in which case I will be very upset. The TDSB just ok'd the use of OpenOffice, and thus should have no need to spend the money.

      I think you just answered your own question. It seems to be a typical Microsoft ploy - once confronted with a possibility of alternate products in a marketplace, the price drops dramatically.

    5. Re:So how much does it cost? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      What's with this "buy" of the operating system? All you are getting for your money is a promise that Microsoft will permit you to run it on one specific machine, witt no guarentees that it will do anything useful. You own nothing, you get no promises of its worth. You only get a half-hearted promise that they might not send the BSA after you if you can prove that you actually bought it, but then again, they might do it any way. Make sure that you have a receipt with: the serial number of your copy of Windows, the serial number of the PC you are going to run it on, a DNA sample of the person who will be using it, signatures of three Microsoft lawyers, and the signatures of seven arch-bishops. Even then, they'll probably print it on that termal paper that fades within days.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    6. Re:So how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in academics and see those similar price deals for MS software. It comes from the fact that most school license MS software per person, not per machine. So if the school has 4000 students they pay $x per student per year to be able to use the core MS products (OS and Office). The agreements also usually also students and sometimes faculty/staff to purchase at low rates such about $20. The $20 is actually more of a "processing fee" the pays for the media and distribution. The license to use is based on being a student or employee and usually you are only allowed one copy.

      This does show very well though one way that microsoft double charges a lot of companies. As a school we pay $x per student/employee per year for the MS products. But with virtually every Windows computer we purchase we are also paying the vendor for a copy of the OS since you can rarely get a computer without an OS installed. At least it lets me get a free copy of Windows though to run as a VM on my Mac when I need it though.

    7. Re:So how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the Microsoft® GetEmWhileThey'reYoung® scheme, that is run by the First Hit Is Free division of Micrososft®.

      Go ahead, e-mail the Vice President of Soul Stealing and Leeching off Society, Brad Fuckbuddy, if you don't believe me: fuckbuddy@microsoft.com

    8. Re:So how much does it cost? by fermion · · Score: 1
      I believe the $20 is a media fee, the fee charged to cover the processing and media. IIRC, at lest back when I was in academic, the campus license for MS products covered not only the machines on campus, but also employee and student personal machines. This allowed employees to take work home and students to learn how to use the software. It was actually quite lucrative. While one could argue that Linux is a better deal than MS since with MS you have to pay for all this other stuff, with the MS licensing the way it is, MS becomes the better deal because the application are free. In fact this has been pretty constant through most of my career. MS has won by shifting all computing costs to the employer. I wonder why employers do not complain about this practice they way they complain about health care.

      In any case, I think MS has it set up so that each user has to buy the OS, which is why MS hate naked PCs. For each naked PC they lose revenue, revenue that is often a result of a duplicated charge. The PC industry is based on people buying new computers, not upgrading the OS, which is why the retail cost of the OS must be as high as possible, while the applications must be as low as possible, at least as seen by the consumer.

      In fact, I believe, employee can install a copy of most MS products on their personal machine. Even more interesting, I recently read where Sutodesk was allowing customers to do the same thing, install Autodesk Software on non-corporate machines with a site license.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:So how much does it cost? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      If I may weigh in on the subject, I can offer some insight.

      I bet the $21 price tag does come with restrictions. It is probably "non-production" use only. I recall buying Visual Studio during school, and inside the readme.txt (or maybe license.txt) file it went into detail as to how the various types of licenses apply. Is it a boxed copy? Is it just a license sticker? More info is required.

      As for have a "worth", you're right, many companies do this to establish a newbie fee. Anyone that isn't aware of the various sources for any given product will likely pay the highest marked value. Take car parts for example. I bought a pretty simple device, called a purge valve solenoid the other day. I was quoted $33, at which I was a little shocked. The sales clerk said "well, I could charge you list price!" with a bit of a smirk. I laughed a bit, and said that it was ok, I like my money in my pocket just fine...he said list was going to be $50.

      All companies sell stuff, and they establish various prices based on their customer. Some companies hide them, charge the public the highest price, but give their returning customers a discount.

      In my above case, the car parts store cares more about making a sale than fleecing its customers, so they are willing to show the different prices (they know that another store is willing to sell at a lower price, so they do as well). And this is the point. Stores will sell products at a price that is acceptable by most people. If every other car parts store sold at list price, I would have been charged $50. Same thing with Microsoft's apps and OSes, there are many places that sell them at lower prices, so people expect it.

      How much does Windows or Office cost? It depends on the buyer. There are OEM and Retail version of these licenses. If the buyer is Dell, HP, Gateway, or the like, they pay a very small amount (XP Pro OEM is likely near $30, Office 2007 Small Business OEM is likely near $130) because these companies have to support them, not Microsoft. Retail versions, completely different angle. Microsoft has to support them. In essence, Retail versions include a support fee in the price. Supposedly, any OEM is supposed to charge a little bit extra to cover support costs...so the raw dollar value of the OS/app is low.

      Having said that, Microsoft's requirement to have a properly license OEM version is pretty relaxed. One could buy XP Pro OEM for around $135 at one point, as long as some piece of hardware was included in the sale (a hard drive, cpu, ram, memory stick). Thus Microsoft doesn't support it (no calling them if something isn't working...which is how MS likes it. I bet over 95% of all Windows sales are OEM), you get a piece of hardware all for less than the cost of the retail version.

      So yes, the retail price is an inflated price so that they can say "Wow! You can save $300 off the full price!", which is good marketing-speak...which is something we all know Microsoft has a lot of experience.

      I doubt it's subsidized by the TDSB...it's more like they have a bit of leverage because they'd buy so many licenses.

      Nuff said.

      (sorry, no time to proof read my post...if I goofed anything up, it's because I'm goofy)

    10. Re:So how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iirc, back in 2003, the wholesale price for an oem xp licence was about $90-120 depending on the flavor.

    11. Re:So how much does it cost? by Shados · · Score: 1

      Educational pricing aside, thats always how commercial software works when it comes from the big companies (Microsoft, Oracle, etc).

      Take MSDN Subscriptions for example.

      1 year subscription, 2000$~ (Im making numbers up, but the proportion is accurate)
      2 year subscription, 2250$~
      3 year subscription, 2350$

      See where this is going?

      Where i'm working for is a corporation that is not educational or charity in nature (nowhere close...making billions in profit), and Microsoft sells us Windows and Office for something silly like a few douzan dollars per seat for all of it together, including sharepoint enterprise CAL and whatsnot, and we only pay at the end of a given period of time (so if someone gets hired and then quit before the period is up, we dont pay for them).

    12. Re:So how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schools almost for sure to get deep discounts from companies like Microsoft, not subsidized.

    13. Re:So how much does it cost? by Allador · · Score: 1

      You cant compare education pricing to the real world. Educational pricing for MS software is like 10-cents on the dollar, or thereabouts.

      Plus much of the time the deal the school has with MS includes 'home use' rights for a pittance, which is not much more than the price of labor & materials to burn a new CD.

  51. Upgrade pricing should be permanent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad the 50% discount on upgrade pricing only lasts until July 11. $50 for an upgrade copy of Win7 seems workable. My problem is the odd division of features between versions. For example, Home Premium does not include a remote desktop server (client yes), but Windows Homer Server has the ability to remote into client computers. How dumb is it that Home Premium does not allow a remote desktop connection from Home Server? Hello, "Home!".

  52. Bad summary by ProppaT · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where's the part of the summary telling people that they can upgrade for $49.99 by pre-ordering?

    "Finally, as a way of saying thank you to our loyal Windows customers, we are excited to introduce a special time limited offer! We will offer people in select markets the opportunity to pre-order Windows 7 at a more than 50% discount. In the US, this will mean you can pre-order Windows 7 Home Premium for USD $49.99 or Windows 7 Professional for USD $99.99. You can take advantage of this special offer online via select retail partners such as Best Buy or Amazon, or the online Microsoft Store (in participating markets).

    This program begins tomorrow in the U.S., Canada and Japan. The offer ends July 11th in the U.S. and Canada and on July 5th for Japan or while supplies last. Customers in the UK, France and Germany, can pre-order their copy of Windows 7 starting July 15th and will run until August 14th (or supplies last) to ensure folks donâ(TM)t miss out on this. Act fast if you want to be the first in line to get Windows 7 at this screaming deal! Note: The special low pre-order price will vary per country."

    Granted, it's a small window for a bloated Windows, but you have to applaud Microsoft for this. If you hate Vista and are convinced you want an upgrade, it's only $49.99 if you do in in the next few weeks.

    --
    Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    1. Re:Bad summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Granted, it's a small window for a bloated Windows, but you have to applaud Microsoft for this.

      No, in fact, I don't. Instead, I am entirely free to believe that Vista is a gigantic lemon out of which lemonade cannot be made, or at least apparently not without an operating system release for which I am expected to pay, and that Microsoft's only honorable option was to give every Vista user a free Windows 7 upgrade. Which is lucky, because indeed that's exactly what I believe. I say this as someone who is indeed using Vista right now. I bought a used PC which came with it, and since it was already there and the OEM-restore function worked, I decided to see what everyone was bitching and moaning about. Indeed, Vista is atrocious in every way that I can so far discern, and the fact that I am expected to suck it up and enjoy it when Microsoft has prepared an operating system which is very much a big fat service pack and perhaps a new visual theme on top of the last one is ridiculous to me.

      Someone has to pay for Windows 7 development, but I'd rather it not be me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Bad summary by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Is there somewhere we can see that official press release? It claims it's between June 25th (today) and July 11th, and Windows 7 shows nothing special on Amazon and I can't even find it on Best Buy's site. Something smells fishy about the info.

    3. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's legit: quote is from this MS blog, the pre-order page is here.

    4. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Australia, you insensitive clod.

  53. The upgrade price should be lower by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Honestly, Vista was pretty much just a beta for 7, asking people to pay $119+ to upgrade an OS that shouldn't have been released is an insult. I'm not an MS hater, I'm running 7 and like it pretty well so far. Did my best to like Vista but went back to XP after a few months.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:The upgrade price should be lower by Shados · · Score: 1

      Thats why early upgrades will be half price. Google it. (not kidding)

  54. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need a valid Win XP key to run XP Mode in Win7. It's a separate download. Basically just WinXP in a VM environment.

    1. Re:Nope by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      Windows 7 Professional and up includes the fully licensed XP in a virtual machine. (But it is a separate download, yeah.)

      And it is not just a VM, programs running in the VM can seamlessly integrate with the Windows 7 desktop. If installers place icons in the start menu of the virtual machine, those icons also appear in the start menu of Windows 7 and can be used to start those programs in the VM directly.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  55. Microsoft makes input devices too by tepples · · Score: 1

    Most of the people who will pay $29 for snow leopard paid apple for their hardware. How many vista users bought their hardware from microsoft?

    Microsoft sells a good deal of replacement keyboards and mice, as well as smaller mice for laptop PCs. Microsoft also sells Windows-compatible USB gamepads under the Xbox 360 brand.

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. At the very least by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    At the very least, it's good that they're providing an option to upgrade from XP and not just from Vista. I never took the Vista plunge on my XP box but I may very well take the Win7 plunge at some point down the road, so it'll be worth that to have a legit upgrade.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  58. I'm upgrading to Snow Leopard for $9.95. by Shag · · Score: 1

    Those who bought new computers from Apple after June 8 get it for $9.95 to cover shipping and handling. :)

     

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:I'm upgrading to Snow Leopard for $9.95. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you went in and picked it up directly it would be free, as there would be no shipping and handling?

  59. OEM's by mpapet · · Score: 1

    Why should Microsoft care if the Win7 prices are "competitive" or not? They've got a captive audience

    Resellers!!! I'm waiting to see what the differentials are on the Dell/HP models to get a sense of how they are getting screwed by Microsoft. The smaller resellers are going to get the worst of it. Hopefully, that will be enough economic motivation for more resellers to promote/package a Linux distro.

    Retailers extract a pound of flesh for every unit sold, so Microsoft can't bully retailers as easily.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  60. just move on to something else by tizan · · Score: 1

    This is what threw me into Linux ...remember how windows 3.1 would freeze and have to reboot etc etc.. Then when you tell them of the bugs they tell you oh its fixed in the next version which you have to buy again....so why did i bay for the buggy stuff then ? So i just jumped in linux ...was buggy ...was hard to get X11 going (this in 94 'm talking about) ...but once it got going i did not have to reboot for months. Why struggle and spend your time with something you pay hard earned cash when you when you can lose less time and work on something that is free and open....after all its just the OS....Most of the other stuff either you buy (matlab etc) or you have open version for or you run wine on it.

  61. Mod parent up! Yess MS needs to learn by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Nod to the economy? What the hell kind of BS is that? ...oh, wait - shills galore. Got it.

  62. It pays for itself by copponex · · Score: 1

    Much as I hate to admit it, I know that when I build a machine, install windows, install anti-virus, and make an image of it to revert to in an emergency, the cost of the license and the time it would take still ends up being cheaper than screwing with xorg.conf - if your time is worth $25 an hour, I mean.

    Extract that over 2 years and the costs are quite minimal. The fact that Apple can charge anything for OS upgrades when their hardware is so obscenely overpriced is the real ripoff.

    1. Re:It pays for itself by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Stop with the old trolls. No one using linux has had to touch their Xorg.conf for at least the last two years. Try a livecd and find out for yourself

    2. Re:It pays for itself by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I've done both many times, and $300 is way too much. I have rarely had to muck with the GNU/Linux video configuration files in the past 3 or 4 years, and when I did it did not take me 6 hr. The last windows license I bought (I stopped pirating years ago) was XP for $150, which was a significant fraction of the hardware cost even then, about 3 or 4 years ago. I have only used GNU/Linux since then, usually Ubuntu. Wine is starting to be a seriously viable alternative to Windows, IMHO.

      The pricing is far too high. Windows 7 Professional should cost $50 or less. You are not getting more value than that. This isn't 1985. They have been making OSs for nearly 30 years, it is absurd to expect customers to believe that there is that much additional value in it when the hardware cost is so low.

      On the plus side, this will add yet another small impulse to the slow relentless move towards GNU/Linux. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but the days of $300 consumer operating systems are coming to a close.

    3. Re:It pays for itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much as I hate to admit it, I know that when I build a machine, install windows, install anti-virus, and make an image of it to revert to in an emergency, the cost of the license and the time it would take still ends up being cheaper than screwing with xorg.conf - if your time is worth $25 an hour, I mean.

      You left off visits to Windows Update. Sometimes as many as 5 or 6 depending on the state of your install CD. Yes, you can slipstream all that crap. Problem is, I may have need to do that every few months at best and, by then, the old version would be obsolete. Plus, the tools I used to use that make life with MSFT easier - like autopatcher - were shutdown by MSFT. When I have a hardware or PC problem, it is so easy with my Debian or Fedora DVD to put on a new OS. At least they detect and work with SATA drives seamlessly. My only recent problem was a notebook winmodem that Windows XP wasn't picking up either. Likely, when I find the specs on it, it will be just as easy to fix in Linux as in Windows. Likely = 70%. Also, Windows 7 is only $99 if your time is worth nothing. I beg the real cost at closer to $1000.

    4. Re:It pays for itself by timster · · Score: 1

      the time it would take still ends up being cheaper than screwing with xorg.conf - if your time is worth $25 an hour

      If your time is really worth $25 an hour, I would hope you'd at least have the sense to use Ubuntu.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    5. Re:It pays for itself by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, this will add yet another small impulse to the slow relentless move towards GNU/Linux. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but the days of $300 consumer operating systems are coming to a close.

      No way, they will claim its loss of sales due to piracy and the OS will rise higher in cost until it crashes due to no sales when everyone leaves

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    6. Re:It pays for itself by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I did very recently actually.

      In fact on debian at least they have made it more hell recently. They only generate a "minimal" config which is fine if it works but if you are say using a KVM switch or an old monitor you basically end up writing an old style config from scratch without any tools to help you.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:It pays for itself by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Ok, so stop using Debian.. Debian is for trolls, Ubuntu is for Human Beings (I kid, I kid).

  63. Reasonable upgrade by wozzinator · · Score: 1

    I really hated Windows Vista and immediately formatted my laptop to Ubuntu when I got it. However, I installed Windows 7 just for kicks one weekend and was then forced to use it the whole week since I was away from my install discs the whole week and it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I hate Microsoft just as much as the next guy, but the product is definitely a legitimate upgrade from Vista (performance-wise), but still not nearly as performance conscious as XP was. Damn, I miss XP. (but not it's lack of software for Windows XP x64 Edition which I still use on my other box.)

    --
    BSD is for people who love Unix, Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
    1. Re:Reasonable upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forced to use it for a week? Don't lie. You can boot Ubuntu many different ways without have it installed. There is NO reason to not have a USB stick or cd with Ubuntu on it if you are as anti Windows are you are claiming to be. Back to the install though, why did you even install Windows 7 in the first place and when you did, you had no settings or things you wanted to back up from your previous Ubuntu install that you wanted later? I find it hard to believe you were using Ubuntu on your laptop as long as you claim and just flat out wiped it off on day on a whim to "test" Windows 7. I think you are full of shit and trying to be cool and act like you don't like and use Windows.

  64. PC games cost $159.96 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Games should never cost more than $50.

    Then why does a PC game for four players cost $159.96 plus shipping and tax? In other words, why does a PC game require that each player use a separate copy? And why does a year of World of Warcraft or many other MMORPGs cost well over $100?

    1. Re:PC games cost $159.96 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Then why does a PC game for four players cost $159.96 plus shipping and tax?"
      Because the game industry convinced everybody that's normal.
      However I only need 1 monopoly set for my whole family to play.

      Family licensing needs to become standard. There are many games I don't buy because I can't afford to get 4 copies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:PC games cost $159.96 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Family licensing needs to become standard.

      It already is standard on consoles, which are usually hooked up to a monitor big enough to accommodate four people. But as of June 2009, the majority of gamers still either have only an SDTV or aren't aware that the D-shaped jack on the back of an HDTV is for a computer. And consoles are still closed systems that lock out hobbyist and student projects.

  65. And Apple's Not? by bkaul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple charges $29 for their OS upgrade, but the Mac user who's getting that cheap upgrade paid 50% more up front for the computer that he bought from Apple. Microsoft, despite selling a few keyboards and mice, is not a hardware company, and doesn't make its money by maintaining exclusive manufacturing control of the hardware that Windows runs on.

    1. Re:And Apple's Not? by Zuato · · Score: 1

      50% more than whom?

      Windows still requires hardware to run (captain obvious moment, I know). Microsoft forced their way into OEMs with some crazy contracts back in the DOS/Win 3.1 days and earned an anti-trust suit from the US government over it (along with bundling IE with Windows, but Microsoft did force vendors into some interesting contracts to be the sole OS they used).

      And the last time I built a PC the hardware came up to be more expensive than a Mac and I had to buy an OEM version of Windows to go along with it. Seems I still had to acquire hardware to run that OS, and an iMac was damn similar in specs (2006). That PC runs Ubuntu now and I have an iMac. And I upgraded the RAM in my iMac from 1GB to 3GB by purchasing a 2GB SODIMM from new egg that cost less than $50.

      My point is while Microsoft does not produce PC hardware, they certainly work with hardware manufacturers and PC manufacturers to get the product out. Whether you chose a PC with Windows or a Mac you are still buying hardware irregardless of the source.

    2. Re:And Apple's Not? by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Apple charges $29 for their OS upgrade, but the Mac user who's getting that cheap upgrade paid 50% more up front for the computer that he bought from Apple.

      Utter bullshit. Apple hardware prices have typically been less than 1:1, generation over generation. The notable exception is the high end towers and servers, where the prices are very volatile from generation to generation.

      I have built high-end PCs and purchased midrange macs.... I get WAY more bang for my buck out of the Macs than the PCs.

  66. Pirate Edition by g34rs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard the Pirate Edition was free. Just sayin.

    1. Re:Pirate Edition by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not only is it free, but it comes with malware preinstalled, saving you the time of downloading!

    2. Re:Pirate Edition by Knitebane · · Score: 2, Funny

      But it only installs to drive R:

      --
      "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
    3. Re:Pirate Edition by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Pirates get all the best deals. It's the honest people that get screwed over...

      Visited Windows update on a damaged XP system... It recognized it as pirated, gave me a link to follow, where I was then offered the option of buying either XP Home or Pro at half-price.

      I guess Microsoft figures they've got a better chance of getting half the money from a pirate, rather than no money at all. Meanwhile, I figure I got screwed, because I wasn't dishonest enough the get the big discount...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Pirate Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look, mcgrew, your anti-piracy trolling is well known (you made it to my foe list years ago), but at least don't make it sound like all pirated windows have malware. You just have to know where to get it, as with any other software.

  67. As a Mac user... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    let me say I overpay for hardware so I can use a nice Unix operating system with a great GUI without the need to tinker with it like Linux. Plus, I get more app support than Linux.

    I'm paying extra so I don't have to use Windows. It's my decision and I think it is worth every penny.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:As a Mac user... by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      You have every right to that decision.

      Not sure what all the 'tinkering' is everyone keeps talking about though. Not a single bit of 'tinkering' was needed for the GUI on either my desktop or my laptop, save for the wireless on the laptop which is not that much of a bother.

  68. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sort of attitude is one of the main reasons why anti-piracy lobbyists get so much love from legislators.

    If you pirate Windows, why the hell would you care about "alternatives" ? And vice-versa: if you're a linux fan, you don't need to pirate Windows.

    One thing is certain: bragging about your hypocritical stance on /. is not going to make Microsoft lower their prices.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  69. Valid point, but... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Yes, the OS is perceived as "free" by many. If you remember the dark days of Win ME, it really sucked, and a lot of people had problems with it. Yes, MS killed it as soon as they could, but that left millions of people with a crappy, poorly supported OS that developers didn't want to write apps and drivers for.

    I expect people running Vista will soon be in the same boat, and the solution will be to spend $500 for a new computer or $119+ to upgrade the OS. Who wants to invest $119 in a 2-3 year old machine? MS should do the right thing and make the upgrade dirt cheap, to get all their users on the same page. But they have a near-monopoly so why should they care if they piss off millions of customers?

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  70. No shit sherlock but this is Whine Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we like whine here at slashdot !! Howz it gonna look if we whine about $50 upgrades? Not very good.

  71. No point for home users to buy this by kjloc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why would a home user pay hundreds of dollars for an OS when there are free options that are just as good if not better?

    I can only see one major "pro" for a Windows OS in home use which is large video game market yet I see many cons like:
    - high price-tag
    - bloated and operates slow unless you have high end / very recent hardware (even with recent hardware it's notably slower)
    - biggest target for viruses
    - history of instability and security vulnerabilities
    - majority of major applications for this OS also come with high price-tag

    I can at least understand why some businesses use them since they have a higher budget and want to pay for extra phone support. So I can see how the "professional" and "server" versions sell. It's the "home" edition that doesn't make a lick of sense, especially in this economy.

    1. Re:No point for home users to buy this by Knara · · Score: 1

      majority of major applications for this OS also come with high price-tag

      The actual attraction is "most of the major applications in popular desktop computing run on Windows", and "Windows does 99% of what you want to do, 95% of the time, for 95% of the desktop computing population."

      Also, as stated many times above, the majority of consumers will get it pre-installed on their machines after a certain date, so to them it's "free".

  72. Considering... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

    I'm not an Apple zumbi, but I should applause the upgrade price for OS X: $ 29.

  73. Users doesn't demand by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    The users who were prisoned to Windows will see Windows 7 as second coming. Why? Their quality expectations are just ''it doesn't crash'', ''performs as fast as XP'.

    I am actually testing the 64bit 7 on latest gen Mac Mini (with a real gpu) and I just shake my head asking ''dear MS, when will you learn what your users want?''. Issue starts with needlessly rebooting the system 3-4 times on such a basic (no scsi and fiber etc) computer while installing. Why? Why on earth your reboot a freaking machine 4 times? If I could find a place to feedback at MS, I was ready to submit that question. While on it, I will ask them if they will die if they put a eject icon instead of ''safely remove hardware'' in case of USB key drive.

    Windows users won't sit and argue about the geometrical and perspective issue of dock (taskbar). It actually happened on OS X scene. Snow Leopard must be so good that people will upgrade their perfectly running Leopard which will be likely at 10.5.9+ levels to 10.6. The bar is really set high. For MS, it should just perform as XP and look like Vista. That is all they care about.

    1. Re:Users doesn't demand by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on all your points - well said.

    2. Re:Users doesn't demand by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > ''dear MS, when will you learn what your users want?''

      Microsoft doesn't design or market for the end users. That's neither here nor there for them.

      Uptake of Microsoft products is determined mostly by OEMs and the CTOs of large corporations. THAT is who they design and market for. Every time you hear them say, "Our customers were asking for..." and you want to scream that a much larger number of people were asking for something different, stop and ask yourself, "but which of these things would a larger number of OEMs and large-corp CTOs be asking for?" That's who they listen to. That's who they design for. That's who they market for.

      *shrug*. Most of the software that I use is driven by the features that *developers* want, which for the end users isn't really a lot better, though it's not really worse either, and it sure is better for advanced users such as myself.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  74. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by El+Gigante+de+Justic · · Score: 1

    The problem is that because the deal is based on when the computer is purchased, any early announcement of the deal would hurt sales for those Microsoft partners until the day the upgrade deal starts as anyone who didn't need a new PC immediately would wait until June 26th.

    I'm sure part of the contact with all of their retail and OEM partners states that they can't announce any sort of special deals like this in advance.

  75. Perhaps it is the absence of a low-end player by davidwr · · Score: 1

    For some of us, the comparison is "our requirements are X, compare the price of the lowest-price MS solution and the lowest-priced Apple solution that meets our spec."

    You do have a point though.

    Apple having cheaper hardware is kind of like saying a high-end luxury car brand gives you free scheduled maintenance for 5 years. That's all fine and dandy but if you need basic transportation, it's not even on your radar. And rest assured, TANSTAAFL, you pay for the oil changes one way or another.

    Now, if Apple had $299 bare-bones PCs and $399 bare-bones laptops and some low-to-mid-range models, then we could do a real low-end-of-the-market apples-to-Apple comparison.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Perhaps it is the absence of a low-end player by Zuato · · Score: 1

      Why do we need to do a low end comparison when we can compare existing models from Apple and (pick your maker) Windows based PCs now?

      Personally I won't be in the market for a $299 PC or $399 laptop. They tend to be cheaply made and do not have the power that I want.

  76. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by mofag · · Score: 1

    I think his point is that those same legislators are abdicating their responsibility by allowing an effective monopoly (as pointed out by many previous posts) which then is free to abuse its market position. The point being then that capitalism is no longer working as advertised (i.e. increases consumer choice and leads to competitive pricing through... competition) and so one can either roll over pay up whatever they demand or rebel and pirate.

  77. Windows 7 is a solid OS. It is still not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have and use the Windows 7 RC. It is cleaner and faster than Vista. It looks nice. No complaints really.
     
    I will never buy it though. Not because it is not a good operating system, but because after sinking $300 on Vista Ultimate x64, I feel that I am *entitled* to a free upgrade to Vista SP2 aka Windows 7. I disagree that $300 doesn't matter. I can buy 3TB of HDD. I can upgrade to 12GB or DDR3 RAM and still get another 1TB of HDD. I can get an additional Samsung 24'' LCD. I can upgrade from the i7 920 to the 950. All these area meaningful upgrades.

    I use Ubuntu for everything, including my work, and Windows only for gaming. Ubuntu's GUI looks much better (with Compiz), is faster, and much more configurable.

  78. No mention of a family pack license by Xian97 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had hoped that they would do like Apple this time and offer a family pack license. I can get Leopard with five licenses for a little over $130, less than half the cost of a second standalone copy. With four PCs in my household (my game PC, wife's, and two the kids use), even the cheapest upgrade option is nearly $500 if I upgraded all of them.

    1. Re:No mention of a family pack license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does OSX have any install restrictions or activation process? Maybe that family pack is a hope that someone with more than one OSX machine will not buy one copy and upgrade the whole house. I could with Windows, someone would buy the family pack and split the cost and licenses with their "family" which may or may not be related to them ;)

    2. Re:No mention of a family pack license by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      OS X comes mainly with hardware/tech restrictions and no activations as far as I can tell. You can't install Leopard on the original blue 1997 iMac for instance but you can install it on 3 relatively new Macs. For the most part, Apple would like you to pay for each copy or a family pack for 5 computers but it is really on the honor system. Since Apple's model is dependent on you already buying their hardware, there is not as much downside if every copy is not legit. MS on the other hand sells no computers to they have to ensure each copy is legit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:No mention of a family pack license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's so few "families" with one Mac, let alone several of those overpriced pieces of junk!

  79. WINE Is Not an Emulator by HannethCom · · Score: 2, Informative

    From WineHQ
    Myth 1:
    Windows applications that do not make system calls will run just as fast as on Windows (no more no less).

    I will agree on the having to test, but also on Windows, to an extent, you have to test to make sure that the device that says it works on Windows actually does properly.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:WINE Is Not an Emulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those that use the free alternatives know how to choose the hardware carefully, and it works great for them. I sometimes wonder if all the gather-drivers-install-the-keep-fingers-crossed dance, and the bundle of vendor CDs/DVDs is worth all the trouble...

    2. Re:WINE Is Not an Emulator by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uuuhhhhh....You Do know nobody actually does that,right? They just take it to a guy like me who uses something like driverpack and then uses something like Almeza to install the programs. Makes my job real easy and the customers are happy. I actually use a driver disc on DVD, but the guy puts out updates often on Rapidshare and since I haven't downloaded the last .rar for the latest I'd rather it not be Slashdotted.

      And I know the Linux guys will hate me for saying this, but you really want to know why Linux didn't gain squat even with a super turkey like Vista as competition? Because of the trinity of shopping-Best Buy, Staples, Walmart. You see almost nothing you buy in those three stores actually works in Linux. The few things that do will require major research to make sure that you don't get the "wrong" model, and from nearly 15 years in the PC biz I can tell you folks don't research anything that costs less than a car. And no matter how popular online shopping is to us geeks, ordinary folks like walking into those stores and going "Oooh...Sale!" and putting stuff in their cart. And the odds are when they get that stuff home it won't work in Linux.

      Which makes sense, actually. Linus can talk about desktops ALL he wants, but as in anything all you have to do is follow the money to see that talk of desktops is bullshit. Red Hat, IBM, Oracle, all the companies that spend major bucks on development and support for Linux spend it on server not on desktop. That is why things in the server market "just work" in Linux. By contrast unless you can write your own drivers a lot of times with the consumer level stuff in Linux just "don't work". And please let go of that "It's not our fault, they won't write drivers for us" because that is also bullshit. It is COMPLETELY your fault, because there is no stable ABI and writing a binary driver for Linux and having it work long term is like trying to hit a dartboard with a bumblebee. And give it up the vast majority of companies will NEVER release their specs and code under GPL, okay? Not going to happen.

      So if you want to know why MSFT can release a pile of poo and Apple can "fart in your general direction" while having crazy prices and Linux can't catch a break, that's why. The stuff consumers want to buy won't work without research they'll never do. This makes returns 400-600% higher when selling a Linux machines over Windows, which makes Linux a more expensive proposition from a retail standpoint than Windows. Sorry, that is the truth and that is just the way things are.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:WINE Is Not an Emulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is COMPLETELY your fault, because there is no stable ABI and writing a binary driver for Linux and having it work long term is like trying to hit a dartboard with a bumblebee. And give it up the vast majority of companies will NEVER release their specs and code under GPL, okay? Not going to happen."

      who said we wanted a binary driver at all? binary drivers are from companies whose products have no market advantage except the software tie in. anyway, it's pointless buying products from companies run by control freak mentalities. you'll ALWAYS be stuck in their sandbox.

    4. Re:WINE Is Not an Emulator by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Then please do NOT claim that "Linux is ready for the masses" because it is not, okay. Not even close. And the masses don't give a flying fart about "The four freedoms" or "vendor lockin" they just want to plug that new all in one they just got on sale at Walmart and either have it magically work or come with a nice shiny CD where the nice guy/gal shows them little pics and wlaks them through the driver installation while holding their hand.

      Apple has the nice Apple stores with the Genius bars, Windows has Walmart, and Linux? Well they end up on some forum with some asshat going "LOL! LexBark LOL Windblowz!". Sorry, no contest. It is cheaper for me to pay the $89 for XP Home or the $139 for XP pro and pass it on to the customer than deal with your "free OS" because to the customer if it doesn't work or come with a CD with all those gadgets they get at Walmart it is "Free as in worthless". Sorry, no sale.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:WINE Is Not an Emulator by tttonyyy · · Score: 0

      And I know the Linux guys will hate me for saying this, but you really want to know why Linux didn't gain squat even with a super turkey like Vista as competition? Because of the trinity of shopping-Best Buy, Staples, Walmart. You see almost nothing you buy in those three stores actually works in Linux.

      And this was modded informative?

      Just to dispel your theory, these stores don't exist in some other countries (I know America does seem like the world to those within, but there is other stuff out there beyond the oceans). And despite a lack of the aforementioned stores, Windows manages to be popular over Linux in these places too.

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  80. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late for a friend of mine ... They

    Soo... your friend has multiple personality disorder?
    Or is he or she so fat as to equal multiple people?
    Perhaps the doc stopped halfway through the sex change operation, leaving no genitalia to speak of, and due to lack of gender, you find yourself unable to find a suitable pronoun?
     
    ... By the way, if it's the gender thing, what's that like?

  81. ms broke my vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have laptops that came with vista, I use ubuntu (dual boot w/ grub) most of the time now but I used to use vista and I might pay the 50 bucks to upgrade them to 64bit win7. I liked vista for the most part as it had ok tablet features and seemed relatively secure, even if it was hurling all over my resources. I only got maybe 1 or two blue screens in the year or two that I've had the machines, but by the far the most annoying occurance was when MS destroyed my box with one of their patches. Endless reboot cycle, had to go back to a restore point before the patch hit, and then MS apparently fixed the patch because I gave it some time and it took later. I didn't appreciate MS wasting my time like that, I almost called them.

    So, in summary, I hope if I pay them the 100 bucks to get 2 legit copies of 64bit win7, they don't bork out my windows install like a bunch of jerkbags and waste my time again : \

  82. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

    Pre-order for Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade is $49. For Professional, it's $99.

    Just an FYI...

  83. Through a glass, darkly by westlake · · Score: 1

    When was the last time someone actually went out specifically to buy a copy?

    Today:

    The most popular items in Microsoft Windows. Updated hourly.

    Software Best Sellers

    24. Windows XP Home SP2 1056 Days In The Top 100.

    the few people people that have legal copies have them because they were bundled with the computer they bought

    In other words as close to 100% of the home and SOHO markets for the last twenty-five years as makes no difference.

    sThe geek really, really, needs to spend less time looking in the mirror.

  84. Why Pay So Much For Language Support? by saudadelinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare-editions there's a feature which only comes with the Ultimate edition: "Work in the language of your choice and switch between any of 35 languages." It's interesting that Microsoft, with all its billions, only supports 35 languages -- at a serious premium. Compare this to volunteer-based projects such as KDE, which has (admittedly varying) levels of support for over 60 languages. For free.

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  85. Compare those prices to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Apple's OS and you can see that....oh wait, nevermind.

  86. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which is why someone needs to start one of those anti-trust lawsuits Microsoft loves so much. How can any marketplace be competitive when an expensive product is sold cheaper than a free product. Really, the only way to stop Windows marketshare is to ensure that when you buy a Dell, you have to pay the retail price (ok, or a discounted price - but you have to pay extra) for the OS too.

    If Dell had to be more transparent in its pricing, you might have the situation where you bought the hardware for X, the software for Y and a Dell-engineer installation (ie the disk duplication step) fee of Z. For Windows Y might be $100 and the installation $10, and Linux Y might be $0 but Z $200, but you'd see those prices and could decide to buy just the hardware and install your own OS. With the current situation, you just see that Windows is the cheapest option, which would be impossible in any other non-monopoly-based industry.

  87. No trouble for me by PenisLands · · Score: 1

    Heh heh! They could charge a billion for it, it won't matter to me. I'll just go and grab Debian GNU/Linux for free, and get a much better computing experience.

  88. Overpriced by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS likes it when people buy new computers. Most new computers run Windows, and customers have shown a willingness to upgrade OTHER products at the same time (especially MS Office). Remember also that MS touts the low [initial] acquisition cost of PC hardware. This low cost is their primary sales tool, as Linux [OEM] PCs are relatively rare, and Apple is perceived as having a higher initial cost. I used the word "perceived" because Apple simply does not exist in the bargain basement sector of the market.

    It is of paramount importance for MS to keep the hardware vendors away from Linux. This saves them the effort of keeping the users away from Linux. So MS throws a few perks to the hardware vendors, such as pricing software upgrades in such a way that most users would rather replace their machine. And once the decision is made to replace the machine, notice how MS' asking price falls of the face of the earth. Instead of $199 for an upgrade, it's down to the $50 "MS tax" (even less for netbooks) and made to look like $0.

    Those Windows 7 upgrades are ONLY for the captive users who have high-end machines and consider themselves dedicated to the MS ecosystem. MS could never force EVERYONE to buy a new machine, so they offer something pricey for those who truly have either no choice OR no sensitivity to price. The manufacturers like it this way, and to MS they are the #1 customer.

  89. Don't knock the pricing scheme too hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not that bad compared to how long you can get use out of it and it will stay current. And comparing it to Mac OS X prices does not work.

    I wish Microsoft pricing structure was lower, but comparing it to Mac OS X pricing is not a valid argument because OS X does not have service packs. It releases a 'new' OS every year or 2 instead and charges $40 for the upgrade, while service packs for Windows are free. Many of you have mentioned preferring XP over Vista which is still supported and still has updates and service packs for it and it came out 8 years ago. Average 4 OS X upgrades in that time and you have roughly the same price as the Win7 upgrade.

    I don't hold any animosity over any OS on the market. I love OS X and hope to have a Mac in the future, I love Linux (openSUSE, Red Hat, Ubuntu) and run it on a few machines, and I love Windows (XP over Vista, however Vista is getting better)

    The point I am making is don't attack the pricing scheme too hard considering how many years of use you will get out of it. If you don't like Windows, don't use it, recommend alternatives to users of it on the basis of why they are better, not that Micro$oft is evil or that Windows is horrible. Like it or not, Windows does get the job done. My work computer and home laptop both run Vista and I have not had any problems with either, granted I waited until SP1 to install them. They run the programs that I need, programs that don't run on Mac or Linux, and some that don't have a FOSS or even reasonably priced alternative.

  90. Did You Say Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10272703-56.html

    Did you say it shoud be free? You even got the "Vista Ultimate" bit right. Microsoft must be reading messages here on Slashdot.

  91. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    How do you know we didn't organise the theft?

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  92. Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    if you use your computer to talk to the real world sometimes you are stuck with windows if you want to get the work done.

    That's ludicrous, every OS can get on the internet. Adobe has PDF writers for every OD iinm, and Star Office will read your .doc files with ease, even though the formatting may be a little off.

    The onlt three reasons I can see for Windows is Excel, the program that does slideshows (what's that called again, haven't used it for years), and playing some games.

    Unfortunately, there are hardware vendors who don't bother supporting anything but windows

    Sad that there are such narrow minded vendors, but true.

    1. Re:Huh? by kjloc · · Score: 1

      if you use your computer to talk to the real world sometimes you are stuck with windows if you want to get the work done.

      That's ludicrous, every OS can get on the internet. Adobe has PDF writers for every OD iinm, and Star Office will read your .doc files with ease, even though the formatting may be a little off.

      The onlt three reasons I can see for Windows is Excel, the program that does slideshows (what's that called again, haven't used it for years), and playing some games.

      Unfortunately, there are hardware vendors who don't bother supporting anything but windows

      Sad that there are such narrow minded vendors, but true.

      And even out of those 3 reasons, OpenOffice has Calc in regards to Excel and it even can read/write in Excel format. And it has the slideshow/presentation app too, though the name escapes me (who actually uses slideshow stuff these days???)

      So really the only reason left is the games, and half of them work perfectly fine thru Wine (and yes that's not an emulator) for example WoW has been working fine for years.

      If game developers stopped developing only using directx, the windows home market would collapse. It's surprising to see that so many home users stick to Windows just because of games. A number of friends/coworkers of mine use their OS of choice for 99% of their computer activity and keep a dual-boot XP partition for games only.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who actually uses slideshow stuff these days???

      Pretty much the entire rest of the world. If you are unaware of the ubiquity of Powerpoint in presenting information you are far out of your league in even commenting on this sort of thing.

      As further illustration, you've missed (at least relative to Linux):
      - Photoshop (don't dig yourself in further by suggesting Gimp)
      - Any decent audio editing software
      - Pretty much any software one might need when purchasing a consumer electronics device
      - iTunes
      - Media Center
      - Decent accounting software
      - Chrome

      Some of the above can be run in Wine if you don't mind being a version or two behind or having some features that don't work. Firefox is passable but junk in comparison with Chrome and is saved only by its plethora of extensions, but to use those you have to be willing to tiptoe through the selection to find the ones that work with Linux, and even then half will break with every update and return, one by one, over the next several weeks if at all.

    3. Re:Huh? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      That's ludicrous, every OS can get on the internet.

      So what? You do realize that some people use computers to do things other than 'get on the internet', don't you? That some people have hardware that talks to the real world and needs software that can control it? No, maybe you think that "the internet" is all there is.

      Tell me how an OS that can "get on the internet" is going to control the PCI-based EEPROM burner I use. Just where 'on the internet' do I go to have my EEPROM burner read the 27256 I just plugged into it so I can burn another copy?

      The onlt three reasons I can see for Windows is Excel, the program that does slideshows (what's that called again, haven't used it for years), and playing some games.

      That's because you are ignorant. Your "real world" is "on the internet".

    4. Re:Huh? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      MS Office's slideshow app is PowerPoint. Incidentally, it is almost synonymous with 'slideshow'.
      OpenOffice's slideshow app is Impress.

    5. Re:Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I mentioned Excel because it's actually one of the few MS programs I actually like, and haven't used Calc because I have no use for a spreadsheet at home. I absolutely HATE Quattro and Lotus. Heck, Calc could be BETTER than Excel for all I know, but I do know I'd pay for Excel before I used Quattro or Lotus for free. I hate it when someone sends me a Quattro or Lotus file, especially Quattro; writing a PDF in it just doesn't work.

      About PowerPoint, I haven't used it in years, but I've read (and what I've read may be wrong) that PowerPoint is head and sholders above SO's presentation software.

      I wonder if games developers get kickbacks from Microsoft?

    6. Re:Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You do realize that some people use computers to do things other than 'get on the internet', don't you?

      The internet is what you use to communicate. You said you needed windows to communicate, it's just untrue that you need windows to communicat.

      That's because you are ignorant. Your "real world" is "on the internet".

      Actually my real world isn't even on a computer, and my work world involves mostly spreadsheets and databases. I use the internet to communicate, which is what you said you needed windows for.

      Your communications skills (both input and output) seem to be quite lacking.

    7. Re:Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      - Photoshop (don't dig yourself in further by suggesting Gimp)

      That's fine if you are a high-end graphics designer, but if you were you'd be running it on a Mac, not Windows. Apple has always had the creative image market. If you're just mucking around with your home photos, any number of graphics apps will suffice, that $900 copy of Photoshop is overkill for anyone except professionals.

      - Any decent audio editing software

      That's just bullshit. There is a LOT of good audio editing software out there for Linux, much of it used by professionals.

      - Pretty much any software one might need when purchasing a consumer electronics device

      Your info is sadly out of date. It's been my experience that with few exceptions, Linux just recognises the devices and they work. One exception is my Logitech keyboard, which works - except for the extra controls, like the volume, play, screoll wheel, etc. But that's Logitech's failing, not Linux's.

      - iTunes

      Useless for those of us boycotting the RIAA labels. I prefer to buy CDs and rip them myself.

      - Media Center

      More bullshit; MS's "media center" is far less useful than any number of non-MS offerings (even among offerings that run on Windows)

      - Decent accounting software

      You're probably correct on this one, I wouldn't know, as I'm a nerd, not an accountant. Didn't accountants ruin the economy? If so, can we blame Microsoft for out economic meltdown? ;)

      - Chrome

      Are you kidding me??? Chrome is just another web browser!

    8. Re:Huh? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, I don't really understand why the Linux guys point to OO.o as a substitute to MS Office when there is Oxygen Office Pro out there also free, which IMHO is a MUCH better substitute for MS Office since it already has the templates and clip art and all the bells and whistles that folks are used to with MS Office.

      That said until I can get assurances from the Linux community that a good 90%+ of the items sold in Staples, Best Buy, and Walmart work in Linux I won't be carrying it in my shop. The support costs for home users and Linux is a nightmare and I was looking at 600% return rates compared to Windows. Before you say "Ur doin it wrong" or some other snarky BS I'll point out that MSI was looking at similar numbers, and I bet if you asked them they would tell you consumers buying stuff in the big three retailers and then finding out it will never work was the cause of a great number of returns.

      So while Linux is great if you are running a server (its intended task) and wonderful if you are willing to research every single purchase for the life of the machine, that just cut out 95%+ of the market, including all my customers. Sorry, no sale.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Huh? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I was in your shoes I wouldn't be pushing Linux either, but whenever I see the MSI FUD I feel I have to comment.

      I am not one bit surprised that MSI got much higher returns on the Linux version of the netbook as they sourced hardware that wasn't 100% Linux compatible and then shoehorned a SuSE install where several of the devices that were compatible weren't configured correctly. In short, they actually tried to sell a completely broken Linux install, and then had the audacity to blame the returns on Linux.

      I'm sure their goal was to meet a certain price point and they simply assumed that people would install their own copy of Windows. If that was the case they should have shipped the box with FreeDOS and left Linux out of it.

      Dell, who has done a much better job bundling Linux on its netbooks, has a very different story to tell about returns.

    10. Re:Huh? by jgostling · · Score: 0

      ...the program that does slideshows (what's that called again, haven't used it for years)...

      Impress? ;)

    11. Re:Huh? by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      At work I deal with a few business to business applications. 1 requires IE to function for some tasks, the others require windows only applications to be installed.

      On top off the our accounting package uses a windows only client to access it and our sales package requires IE. Sure you CAN do some things without windows but if you try to it certainly makes life more complicated.

    12. Re:Huh? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      The internet is what you use to communicate. You said you needed windows to communicate, it's just untrue that you need windows to communicat.

      No, I said I needed to talk to hardware in the real world. Don't tell me what I use to "communicate" with the real world, because it is obvious that you are so stuck in "the internet is the world" mode that you wouldn't know what an EEPROM burner is if it bit you in the ass. Or an A/D converter.

      Actually my real world isn't even on a computer, and my work world involves mostly spreadsheets and databases.

      Yes, it's obvious you use computers for nothing but software, and have no clue what it takes to have a computer do useful work controlling real-world applications. For you, it doesn't matter what the OS is because someone IS writing all your applications for you and you don't need any drivers but the run-of-the-mill. How nice for you.

      Your communications skills (both input and output) seem to be quite lacking.

      Yeah, whatever.

    13. Re:Huh? by MichaelTheDrummer · · Score: 1

      There is a LOT of good audio editing software out there for Linux, much of it used by professionals.

      Umm, Ardour is the only good audio editing software out there on Linux. And although its getting there, it doesn't compare to something like Sonar.

  93. no family license? by glucoseboy · · Score: 1

    First of all, Win 7 is a nice OS, I have the release candidate and enjoy it much more than Vista. That being said, it's too expensive at $100. They should price it at $50 or at least have some sort of Family License (as Apple does) $200 for 4 PCs or something like that. If I'm going to have to go through the chore of upgrading 4 PCs, then at least give me something.

  94. Hold on a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't microsoft say those of us to got screwed with vista were getting windows 7 for free?
      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/11/238222

  95. Re:Fear of posting with your username by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now you've done it, he's picking up his chair...

  96. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    That's how it works now. Some vendors offer you the PC without OS or with various (for cost or not) OS options.

    You're missing the point that nobody gives a shit about alternative OS's. Almost everyone (in terms of percentage) wants their new desktop PC to come with Windows, and that's how they're sold. You're buying a PC that works when you plug it in, and that's how it's sold. If you want to go outside the norm you'll have to buy from less mass-market sources.

  97. Should be enough for anybody... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    And computers should never have more than 640K of RAM...

  98. Why will you pay for Windows 7? by stonewolf · · Score: 1

    Seriously, just asking. I, personally, have seen nothing that makes be want to use it. MS has done nothing to make me believe that I will get several hundred dollars worth of value from Windows 7. There are many people reading /. who believe they will get several hundred dollars worth of value from switching to Windows 7. Please tell me your reasons. Please tell me where you think the value is.

    Yes, I am asking you to do MS's job and explain the value of Windows 7 in a way that I will understand.

    Stonewolf

    1. Re:Why will you pay for Windows 7? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      So I can be part of the feel-good advertising which taps into tribal/herd-programming and thus live in a warm fuzzy bubble of self-congratulatory somethingorother until MS decides that my system is old and busted and in need of an upgrade.

      Ahhhh.

      So fuzzy. So warm.

      I wonder if there will be Bob Dylan music this time?

      -FL

  99. Paying for software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought programmers were supposed to code for free; Microsoft is doing it all wrong.

  100. My new Linux Desktop is $300 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    So I'm thinking shelling out an additional $200 for stuff I don't use that makes it slower is ...

    EPIC FAIL!

    But, then, I live in the real world where Chinese customers can get the Windows 7 OS for less than $30 total.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  101. Correction by dedazo · · Score: 1

    All of the people who will pay $29 for snow leopard paid apple for their hardware

    There we go.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  102. Upgrades for Retail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retail packages should be upgraded to the next version for free. From what I understand, there are oddities with terminal services between both Vista and Windows 7 that show the base OS is the same animal.

    I'm not certain if I'll buy into Win 7 or not... we'll see.

  103. Support?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, is Microsoft actually supporting their users now?

  104. $49 if you preorder by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

    Read this:

    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-pricing-announced-cheaper-than-vista.ars

    Windows 7 Home Premium ($49.99) and Windows 7 Professional ($99.99)

    That's valid at Best Buy, Amazon, Fry's, etc etc. Yes, it's only for preorders so you can argue its merits as you like, but if you're actually interested in 7, it's the way to get it.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  105. This just in... by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft Vista buyers to get free Windows 7

    SEATTLE - Microsoft said Thursday that prices for the Windows 7 computer operating system are largely in line with those for Vista, and that people who buy PCs before the new system goes on sale in October will get free upgrades.

    To drum up demand among people who aren't in the market for a new PC, Microsoft also said it is taking limited pre-orders for Windows 7, selling some for as little as $50.

    (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

    People who buy Windows Vista Home Premium, Business or Ultimate computers starting Friday can contact their manufacturer for a free upgrade when Windows 7 becomes available on Oct. 22.

  106. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wiped my XP machine and installed CentOS this morning...

  107. Pricing of MS vs Apple by blackholepcs · · Score: 1

    It doesn't really work. You can't really sit there and do a direct compare between the price of the Apple OS vs. Win7. Here's why :

    A Mac Pro configured to the tits on the Apple Store site costs $18,075.00 and includes the following : 2.93Ghz Intel Xeon Quad-core processors X2, 32Gb (8x4Gb) of DDR3 1066 RAM, Mac Pro RAID card, 1TB 7200RPM SATA drive X4, Nvidia Geforce GT 120 512Mb video card X4, 18X superdrive (optical drive) X2, Apple Cinema HD 30" LCD display X2, Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse, Apple Wireless Keyboard, Airport Extreme Wifi card, Apple Mini Display Port to DVI Adapter. Also obviously includes the standard case/powersupply/motherboard/sound card that you aren't allowed to change/choose during purchase. All this for a fucking HUGE $18,075.00!

    A PC configured on NewEgg, with equivalent or better parts (except the optical superdrive, of which I didn't find any @ 18X), including the following : Antec 1200 Black Steel Case, ASUS Z8PE-D12X Mobo, XFX GX295NHHFF Geforce GTX 295 1795Mb 896-bit GDDR3 viedo card X4, ABS Tagan BX1300 1300W Modular Active PFC power supply, Intel Xeon W5580 Nehalem 3.2Ghz Quad Core processor X2, Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB 7200RPM SATA 32Mb cache SATA drive X4, Logitech MX 5500 Revolution Wireless Keyboard/Mouse Combo, HP LP3065 30" LCD monitor X2, LG Super Multi-drive X2, Creative Sound-Blaster XFi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro sound card PCI-X, Encore ENLWI-N Wifi N adapter, Noctua NH-U12P CPU cooler. All that for $10,017.79. Add another $200.00 or so for shipping, another $299.00 for Win7, and another maybe $30.00 for thermal paste/a cable here or there/whatever, and your topping out at less than $10,600.00 for a BETTER system.

    The way I see it, I'd rather pay %100 for my computer and $120.00 to upgrade to Win7 than pay %180 for a computer AND $30.00 to upgrade my OS.

    Now, to be fair, I only made the comparison on the extreme high end. At the average consumer level, the Apple premium is closer to %170.

    --
    Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
  108. IBuyPower by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    I've bought a few computers from IBuyPower now and have been very pleased with the results. While they specialize in customizable gaming computers, they do have some precofigured packages available for sale. You can navigate to the third set of customize options when checking out the computer package you want and select a pre-formatted, no OS hard drive. Again, this is more of a customize your own ePeen-computer type site, but they might warrant your attention.

  109. Half Price Pre-Order Upgrades by Waste55 · · Score: 1

    There is also supposedly a way to get the upgrade at half the cost initially.

    So for upgrades:
    Home Premium: $50
    Pro: $100

    http://gizmodo.com/5302371/windows-7-pricing-good-news-mostly

    That would be nice for me, but we'll see.

  110. Prices seem high to me by NatteringNabob · · Score: 1

    I bought a copy of Vista 64 for my last build to run legacy software, roughly translated 'games', and it doesn't run a lot of them. I would have preferred to run 32 bit XP, but it wouldn't install. I'm doing everything I need to do on Linux these days, so I can't see ever buying another copy of Windows. At those prices, it is a very poor value proposition.

  111. The price of freedom by dandart · · Score: 1

    I doubt I'll be buying any. It's way too expensive for me, and doesn't contain any features that I don't have already. Come on, the Compiz cube is way better than that scraggy attempt Vista had. And I can search in the kernel sources for profanities! Beat that, Steves!

  112. Re: "It's too much!" by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    For Vista SP3

    Just stick to XP or your favorite Linux distro.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  113. How much extra... by CannedTurkey · · Score: 1

    ... for an actual start menu?

    --
    Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
  114. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Nope, nobody gives a shit about what comes on their PC as long as its "free".

    Once you show them the bill for the Windows OS, they'll ask "but what about that other option you have there?"

    Some people will want Windows because its Windows. Most people want whatever just works. As you can see by netbook sales which (despite the dubious claims by MS) show at least reasonable numbers of Linux installs.

  115. XP FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, what's the point of using Vista or 7? XP still does everything I need and much faster/better than Vista (and I'm guessing 7 too).

  116. I would love a durable low-power big netbook by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I would love a dirt-cheap "netbook" with a low-power cpu and chipset that:

    *was built as sturdy as your typical sub-$1000 notebook
    *had battery life on the high end of what is available on notebooks costing under $1000
    *had a good wifi chipset
    *had good, easy to use keyboard and trackpad and other ergonomics
    *had a good, nice display
    *is lightweight for its screen size and battery life
    *had cheap-to-adequate everything else

    It doesn't have to come with Windows, I would just use it for surfing and for remote-controlling other computers.

    I can see that being under $400 easy, especially without the Microsoft Tax (TM).

    As for $299 PCs, they are good for non-mobile "netbooks" and other "it's only a terminal"-type applications.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:I would love a durable low-power big netbook by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I don't get it? You want a netbook that has the features of a $999 laptop but would cost $400? There is a reason there is a $500 discrepancy. There are netbook-size devices that are light, fairly fast and have decent batteries but they're in the upper 1000 range and they're usually called Tablet PC's

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  117. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

    It's not like half of the Internet didn't know the date since January.

    --
    We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  118. What is the OEM / SYSTEM builder price? The buy a by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    What is the OEM / SYSTEM builder price? The buy a new pc with vista and later go to 7 price?

  119. wow by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    $319 for a graphical program launcher loaded with DRM? wow.

  120. Re: first rule of upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first rule of upgrades is: do not upgrade.
    The second rule of upgrades is: DO NOT UPGRADE. EVER!!!

    Seriously: I've worked at Microsoft, and I'm somewhat of a fanboi, but even I know that the only fully supported "upgrade" path is from a clean install of the old version, and even then you'll be lucky if it works right.

  121. $299 Is Not Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft will have to pony up more than $299 to get me to install Windows 7.

  122. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

    Somewhere hiding in a closet, I have an original "Microsoft Mouse" which had bundled with it, Microsoft Windows (1.x)!!

    Sounds to me like it's more or less the same, except now it's bundled with any "New PC".

  123. What the heck!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had heard rumors that the upgrade would be free for Vista users since Vista sucked so badly. I guess this really proves why we should all turn to Ubuntu!

    Die Microsoft, Die!

    Sithlord Coward

  124. Re:Fear of posting with your username by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

    This is /.

    He is brave, but not insane!

    --
    We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  125. Hey MS, suck me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reject your "nod to the global economic downturn". Fuck you. You need to do more than nod. How about get up out of your $14000 chair and hand me a copy? Either do a good deed, or stop fucking pretending you are. A 10% discount. That's not significant to consumers, don't you GET it?

    Microsoft just can't bring themselves to do something totally pro-consumer. If there's nothing in it for them, they won't do it.

    And, shut up capitalist zealots, I'm not saying they haven't the legal right to make a profit. I know what you're thinking, you fucking idiots! I'm just saying, their attitude makes me want to pirate their software, and they can change or not, it really has nothing to do with legality or capitalism. Just... do they want customers? Do they want people to like them?

    Well, looks like I'll be clicking "Resolve Later" (just be patient Bill, the check's in the mail) for a couple years yet.

    1. Re:Hey MS, suck me off by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      How about channeling some of that anger energy into something more positive?

      Why not use that energy to go learn a bit about Linux? Then, at least, you will allow yourself a choice, one of which will be free.

      If people want to go pay for Windows 7 then good luck to them, I hope it does what they want it to and if it's anything like XP it will be a pretty good OS for most people.

      But if you don't want to part with that kind of money, nobody is forcing you to do so.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  126. Clarification by raijinsetsu · · Score: 1

    The ISO, and hence the DVD, is 3GB. I did not say that Win7 came on a DVD that was in some mystical, previously unheard of, 3GB format. Please have a little common sense.

    Windows 7's interface?? I have not seen it. I continue to use AstonShell, which still works like a charm.

    Windows XP is old. It's very old. It's so old that all the other operating systems are laughing at it (except the other Windows operating system - they just drool a lot). It will not support future generations of hardware, especially those that take advantage of 64-bit functionality. It does not support more than 4gb of memory space(subtract your devices memory space from this and you get the total remaining available memory in your system - many memory cards will chew up 512mb of this space). Windows XP has been Microsoft's best personal (and commercial??) OS yet, but you can only keep an old car on the road for so long before it's time for a new one.

    Win7 seems to be exactly what the next generation of Windows should be.

  127. Pewpdaddy by Pewpdaddy · · Score: 1

    I smell more Linux users... At least at my house, my children have not yet experienced Winblows and will be introduced to Mandrake or Ubuntu before they have been polluted by this garbage. A re-hashed version of Vista IMO, long live solid free OS's =] Also who wants to spend $399 to be a guinea pig for all the adware/malware monkeys for the next year until they finally get majority of the bugs worked out.

    1. Re:Pewpdaddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might surprise you.. Nobody really gives a fuck what you do.

  128. Yes, I'm using dual monitors now by kawabago · · Score: 1

    The latest Ubuntu release 9.04 was able to correctly detect and configure both my monitors, a 16:9 22" lcd monitor and a 16:9 lcd tv at different resolutions without any problems. I have been using dual monitors and tv out with Linux for years without significant problems. It used to require modifying xorg.conf but now it's pretty much automatic. Linux has come a long way in the last two years, the gnome desktop is now a complete environment as is the kde desktop. Administration is simple and easy to understand. Things are well documented and it's easy to get help if you need it. I no longer worry about introducing newbies to Linux because with a quick introduction they quickly acclimatise to the new environment and become productive in a very short time. Maybe it's time you took another look.

  129. You missed the point by davidwr · · Score: 1

    What I do NOT need is a fast or even average-speed CPU. I don't need much disk space. I don't need much RAM. Basically, I need ThinStation plus a web browser, along with good, modern, video, keyboard, mouse, weight, ergonomics, battery life, and WLAN technology.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  130. Re:Windows 7 changes by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Oh no, they dropped windows classic menu option?
    Lame. If I can't turn all the crap off, I don't want it.
    Not that i particularly want it, but if and when it arrives preloaded that will be a big incentive to get rid.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  131. windows should cost as much as an xbox game by Flentil · · Score: 1

    That's all. Just as much work goes into an xbox game, and you probably get much more enjoyment from the game. Windows is and has always been too expensive for people not to pirate.

  132. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    No, people want what they expect to get. People expect Windows on a PC. Your netbook sales argument is specious - netbooks are a newish thing, people's expectations aren't as set in that space.

  133. Suckers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the release of Windows Vista & 7, everyone should now be aware that "There is a sucker born every minute" has now been officially changed to "There are 100 suckers born every minute"

  134. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its also so they can include it in 'potential revenue lost' in piracy suits via the BSA.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  135. Full is 199? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Well, my vendor is FAR cheaper. You might have heard of them before, piratebay?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  136. 300 for an OS by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So that could be actually more then you paid for your entire PC these days.

    ya, makes tons of sense..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:300 for an OS by Shados · · Score: 1

      Except that Ultimate is not targeted to the average user, and the vast majority of people who would be interested in it will have access to some form of discount or another.

      And if you buy a computer with one of the other editions preinstalled, it will be a fraction of the price, and netbooks will qualify for the super cheap edition.

      The rest will qualify for upgrades.

      People who build their own will be able to use OEM pricing.

      This basically only affects people who build PCs from spare parts at Best Buy. All 3 of them.

  137. Don't trust MD5 either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MD5 is broken. There's an example based on documents and EXEs.

    SHA1 is weakening, but there are no known practical collisions yet, that I know of. Even so, most Linux distros are now using SHA256 for their ISO sums and binary packages.

  138. You Microsoft, You. by atramentum · · Score: 0

    They should sell full versions (not upgrades) of every OS they've ever built for $35 (OEM only, no end user support). Then sell their current release at $60 upgrade / $70 new - and offer their genuine validation service at $35 to convert illegitimate installs to new keys. If it was $60 or $70 I would think, "Oh that's just about 1.5 tanks of gas. So I'll take a Win 7, 4 xp's, a 2000, and just for kicks give me one '98." There's $280 for MSFT, and I would actually feel satisfied that it was a fair purchase. The only reason why I bought a legit copy of XP was because eventually nothing useful would install without having sp2 updates. The only reason why I will upgrade is either lack of 3rd party development, or significant performance benefit from new OS's. The only reason why I bought Office 2007 was because it was on sale for a while, at about $50 (student) for the full version.

  139. WHY NO 32Bit TO 64Bit UPGRADE ?? by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    Why is Microsoft RETARDING the move to 64bit by FORCING users to pay the FULL PRICE and not allowing a 32bit xp to 64-bit Win7 UPGRADE ??!!! (or 32bit XP to 64 XP upgrade) It is little wonder that Apple sails by, since Apple encouraged upgrading from OS9 to OSX instead of PENALIZING ! Especially when Windows 7 consumes TWICE AS MUCH RAM ! (64bit allows over 4 GB of ram)

  140. Child labor laws by tepples · · Score: 1

    What game do you own that requires 4 people to play it

    Only a select few games designed for the PC support split-screen with gamepads, such as on a PC connected to an HDTV (EA Sports series, Lego $MOVIE series, Serious Sam series). A few more support "spawn" installations where each player has to use a separate PC but only one player has to own a copy of the game (e.g. Starcraft). The majority require a separate serial number per player.

    and requires one person to pay for all the copies?

    Any game played by minor children. Child labor laws in effect throughout most of the developed world prohibit children from working for money to buy their own copies of video games.

    1. Re:Child labor laws by Knara · · Score: 1

      This is still contrived. The number of computer games that are intended to be played in the same physical locale AND are not playable on the same screen is very small. The vast majority of games that require multiple players buying a license to play on a machine for a single player at a time are Internet based (XBL, etc), and so even if it was kids buying it, it would be different parents buying for their kids, not one parent buying it for a kid and all his friends.

      Sorry, there's a lot to be said about the price of video games, but your strangely constructed scenario doesn't fit in that conversation.

  141. I wouldnt mind paying by saur2004 · · Score: 1
    I quite seriously would not mind shelling out 299 for the full professional if it weren't for that pesky little thing in my head called morals.

    It is morally reprehensible that INTEL was literally crucified when they came up with the idea of a processor ID and yet Microsoft gets away, fairly unscathed when they implement a hash of hardware data as part of WPA. To me, there is zero difference.

  142. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by Draek · · Score: 1

    Or they could rebel and go out of their way to support the alternatives. But hey, people are lazy and why learn something new and truly kick Microsoft in the balls, when you can just go to TPB to get your warez and strenghten Microsoft's network effect on the cheap.

    No, if people truly cared about punishing Microsoft they'd be using Linux, the BSDs or hell, even Minix. People who pirate Windows are nothing more than cheapskates, no matter how they try to paint it.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  143. I'd like to see Mac OS X on generic PC mobos by vaporland · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see the installer DVD for Snow Leopard, surprise!, install on any Core 2 mobo. If Apple didn't advertise it and didn't promote it, and didn't officially support it, but let "it just work", imagine the turmoil in Redmond when a $39 competitor's upgrade runs on all of the hardware they were hoping to co-opt at $100+ a pop.

    After all, later versions of the Leopard installer DVD will install surprise! onto certain Dell laptops without intervention, and this is not an accident of Dell design...

    The Dell support staff will even give advice on how to make it work better!

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  144. Re:Does anyone actually need to buy windows? by vaporland · · Score: 1

    All you need is a legit XP Pro SP2 OEM installer CD image and any "authentic" serial number that you can copy off of the back of any PC you see anywhere and you can be 90% certain that it will install and authenticate with Genuine Advantage.

    Install SP3 afterwords and you are good to go.

    If it doesn't authenticate the first time, try another serial number from the POS terminal at your local grocery store or electronics retailer. Text the SN to yourself while waiting in line to pay.

    Big secret: 90% of those XP Pro stickers have never been authenticated...

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  145. Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate + Upgrade by JakFrost · · Score: 1

    Unbeknown to me I ordered Microsoft Windows Vista 64-bit for System Builders - OEM for $99.99 USD edition just two days before this limited-time upgrade deal was announced and now the package is in the mail. Luckily for me, I intend to refuse delivery and Newegg will take the items back and refund me the money. I'll be able to recoup my costs.

    Strangely if I bought my Vista version after June 26, 2009 I could get Windows 7 for only $9.99 USD for the upgrade, but because I placed the order on June 24th I don't get squat.

    I just downloaded the Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate 64-bit version for free and got a product key that will work all the way until March 1, 2010 and then expire June 1, 2010. I'm going to install this version on a new system upgrade that I just built with Intel Core i7 920 2.6 GHz, Asus P6T, G.Skill 6GB DDR3-1600 C8 memory, and Xigmatek HDT-S1284EE cooler.

    If I purchase the Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade pre-order for $49.99 USD by July 11, 2009 then I can jump from my Windows XP to Windows 7 for only $50 USD and I get to do a clean install anyway.

    When October 22, 2009 rolls around and they release the full version of Windows 7 then I can either update, upgrade, or at worst do a clean reinstall to the full release RTM version then. I think that this is the path that I'm going to take and save myself half costs and skip Windows Vista along the way.

  146. Re:Too late for a friend of mine by bunkymag · · Score: 1

    I read the title of your post, and thought you were talking about Michael Jackson..

  147. Fucking scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...while supplies last." - I must have woken up in bizzaro world today. These are digital bits and bobs(tm) - where the HELL is the restriction on supplies coming from, not from a limit on natural resources of any kind that I can see. It's a just a frenzy-inducing marketing line. Quick - TWO for the price of THREE - for a limited time only !!!!

  148. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by Allador · · Score: 1

    You're missing some key aspects of the PC business.

    Manufacturers like Dell and HP get alot of money from 3rd parties (like Intuit) to put trial version and nagware on the windows desktops.

    This can often drive the effective net price of a windows desktop lower than one without an OS (+$50 for windows, -$150 for various bundled trialware/nagware).

    In addition, if the manufacturer doesnt have their support infrastructure fully setup, then they may feel that there is a higher support cost to them for non-windows than windows.

    Then there are marketing subsidies from Intel, AMD and Microsoft to put labels on the machines, etc.

    There are many non-obvious aspects of the industry like this, its never as simple as hardware + os = total price.

  149. windows 7 home premium professional ultimate upgra by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Apart from the price what's the difference between 'Windows 7 Home Premium' and 'Windows 7 Ultimate'. Is it a case of taking 'Windows 7 Ultimate' and disabling core functionality and renaming it 'Windows 7 Home Premium', and then charging people more money to subsequently re-enable it ..

    Windows 7 Home Premium $199, Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade $119, Windows 7 Professional $299, Windows 7 Professional upgrades $199, Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade $219, Windows 7 Ultimate $319

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  150. Something wrong with this picture by tepples · · Score: 1

    The number of computer games that are intended to be played in the same physical locale AND are not playable on the same screen is very small.

    How about every first-person shooter or real time war sim that has ever been taken to a LAN party? The problem is that hardly any games designed for Windows 7 or any other PC-based platform are playable on the same screen because hardly any PC game developers have HTPCs in mind.

    The vast majority of games that require multiple players buying a license to play on a machine for a single player at a time are Internet based (XBL, etc), and so even if it was kids buying it, it would be different parents buying for their kids, not one parent buying it for a kid and all his friends.

    A focus on Internet play over local play leads to a situation where little Bonnie and Johnny who live in the same house, and then Bonnie asks to go to Chester's house just so she can play against Johnny. I'd say there's something wrong with this picture.

  151. Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Actually not true.

    I don't pirate windows, but I'll detail why one, even a linux fan, might need to.

    I prefer Linux for nearly any task. However, there is one application I like to run and one which I must run, which require windows. One of them requires direct access to the hardware.

    The result of this is that I must run Windows on my laptop. I use PuTTY and Xming to connect to a beefy Linux machie; the processing power of both machines and the speed and quality of my LAN ensures that my Linux applications do not suffer any in performance.

    Had I not received a free copy of Vista Ultimate from Microsoft, I would have pirated XP, although I am a Linux fan. In doing so, I would still care about alternatives, as it is one of these alternatives that is my preference.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  152. Linux... by programmer780 · · Score: 1

    Well that brings my count of reasons to switch to GNU/Linux to about 1,000

  153. Vista usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the same incorrect belief that nobody uses Vista"

    Please, could you point me to the person that believes _nobody_ uses Vista?

    Nonetheless, the non-uptake of the last version of Windows is staggering. It has been out for almost two and a half years, and I have yet to see more than a handful of computers running it. Our company stayed with XP on its several thousand desktops, as did most of the corporate world, AFAICT. This is even more astonishing in view of the fact that XP was already over five years old when Vista was released.

    Imagine the chairs flying if this scenario were known to MS in, say, 2003:

    "Six years from now, Longhorn will have been out for about three years, but the corporate world will avoid it like the plague, preferring to stick with XP. True, we will get it into people's homes because they won't have any choice on new computer purchases. For certain big OEMs, however, we can offer the option to stick with XP, because knowledgable users will be willing to pay extra for seven year-old XP rather than accept Longhorn".

    Vista has been utter humiliation for Microsoft. They have succeeded in bloating the base system to where it won't run acceptably on anything less than what was recently considered a supercomputer. I remember a quip from around 1998 about bloat in Windows that went something like "In a few years, Windows will need a 500 mHz Octium with 200 MB RAM just to boot".

    Now, Vista fans say things like "Vista isn't slow, it just needs a decent laptop, meaning a minimum of 2gHz and 2 GB RAM." wtf???

    Why anyone would think MS will do any better the next time around defies comprehension.