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."
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
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.
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.
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?
Microsoft expects people to pay for Windows?
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,
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
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!
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.
....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.
[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]
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Sapere aude!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
- 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
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?
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.
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
Not my problem. Make the upgrade cost competitive, or I'll install Linux. (Oh, wait...)
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. ;)
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.
> 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
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.)
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...
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
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.
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.
adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty...
Some of us still have 512 MB machines at work.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!