Are you going to buy Win7 at these Prices

[PhreePhly]

dmex, phreephly, thanks for those insightfull views - I really didn't know any of my versons of past software qualified me to put them on three machines - I always bought retail versions for each one!

Phreephly, on the subject of commercials, I think that however missinforming you think the advertisments are, they served their purpose - to inform (rightly or wrongly) the differences between the two platforms.

Now, perhaps they did contribute to people shunning Vista without good reason, and I know many who do and prefer to stick with XP, but they can't answer why as they have no personal experience of it!

But my point was this, Apple commercials are (mis?)infomercials, they say this is what our product can do, and this is how. People now not only have the choice, but they have an understanding of why they can choose having seen the thing in action and having it explained to them.

When I saw the "I'm a PC" commercial it told me nothing about microsoft, or it's Vista product. It told me what I already knew - that a global community uses M$ products. It did not compell me to go and buy or contemplate buying Vista.

Again, this is the difference between the de facto standard (Windows) vs. the little guy (Apple). As much as you and I would like MS to directly answer Apple's claim, they won't. They would rather not even acknowledge Apple exists. The new direction seems to be the more bang for the buck angle, so there might be a passing reference to Apple, but it will be immediately dismissed as not relevant.

Whatever you may think about apple, their marketing is slick, and it it very good at targetting - which in part comes from over a decade of people with PC's asking why Mac?

M$ need to take this and learn from it, you can't just throw a product to market and expect people to jump on it just because of who you are, you need to educate them into understanding why it's good for them to change.

I absolutely agree, Apple has a great advertising agency. Also, because they are the little guy, they have a rabid fan base that will excuse any mistake that Apple may make. Look at the huge U-turns Apple has made in the last 9 years. The move to OSX was big. It basically alienated anyone with a G3, as the performance was horrid, think Vista on a netbook. Then the switch to intel. A huge change and a abandonment of the PPC crowd. No more enhancement to those systems. And Apple fans just took it in stride.

Imagine if MS had decided to stop support for XP upon the release of Vista and only released Vista as 64bit. The Windows world would have been up in arms. Businesses would have rebelled. MS is too big and too many large organizations have too much invested in MS for those kind of changes to be tolerated.

If they're on the ball, they can win this with 7, perhaps even using those little film clips on the 7 website of the guys explaining features.

What they won't get is sales by showing people saying I'm a PC and then throwing an MS logo into view at the end.

The only people that ever managed to pull that one off was apple themselves back in the eighties with their people staring at a big screen ad, but then, they did get Ridley Scott to do that.

I think you under estimate the MS brand and the fact that Windows is the default OS on 99%( slight exaggeration) of the PC's sold. Also, who wants to listen to some geek describe what you can do on your PC for 60 seconds? HP does that already. Their commercials show all the great things you can do on an HP... that is running Windows. What else can MS do? Sure, they could make a commercial that answers back to Apples implications, such as all PC's get Viruses and crash. The best that MS can say is "so do Macs". What's accomplished? nothing. It turns into a schoolyard shouting match and MS looks like a bully.

M$ need and probably are aware that their potential customer base is now on the defensive, they all know that 7 is coming but there is the undercurrent that W7 might be the same old s**t in a shinier bucket.

You do realize that Vista has sold more copies than all of the Apple computers produced since the inception of Apple, right? That should give you an indication how big the disparity is between Apple and Windows. As an aside using "M$" is pretty lame. It tends to make the person using it seem childish.

All the people I know with vista all waited till SP1 came out before committing their cash, and if M$ is not carefull the same will happen with 7.

Just as with XP and Win2000. Anyone who is deploying Windows throughout and organization is probably going to wait for SP1, even with Win 7. It's just the smart thing to do.

The press are already hailing it as a great new product and rightly so, but joe public doesn't pick up a copy of custom PC or other specialist mag.

Joe just wants to know why he should pay premium dollar for this new OS as opposed to waiting a couple of Christmases time, when he plans to upgrade his computer anyway - but that's no good to M$.

How many times have you heard, oh I use vista, Iliked xp, but this is what came bundled on the new computer. We should be hearing I want to use Windows 7, my computer's only a few months old, so i'm not going to change it in a hurry but I want to use 7 right now.

Joe public is never going to care that much. It's an OS. The public cares about the applications. Can I read my e-mail, surf my porn and argue on forums

As for the original reason for the thread, I'd be happy to pay up to 150gbp for an OS, any higher (175) and i'd very much resent it. and over 200, i'd probably just go and install my old vista or XP copies again.

That's your choice. I look at is as I started using Vista fulltime in May of 2007, so I got 2 years of usage. It has been rock solid for me. I bought the OEM Ultimate for $180.

PhreePhly

 

[Mark Phelps]

To add my 2 cents ... no ... I'm going to wait and buy the OEM versions.

Given the rapid advancements in hardware, by the time that MS comes out with another OS, it probably won't work on today's hardware anyway. So, the way to go then will be new hardware with the new OS.

Plus, given how vendors treated their customers by pushing underpowered (read that, "cheap") machines on them just to sell new boxes with Vista, I fully expect them to pull the same tricks with Windows 7 this fall. So, no, I won't be buying a machine with Seven preinstalled; instead, I'll just limp along on my current machine until the (legacy) drivers don't work anymore and then build a new rig. And yeah, that will require a new OEM license, but by then, the computer places will be selling it at discount anyway.

 

[Night Hawk]

I think you under estimate the MS brand and the fact that Windows is the default OS on 99%( slight exaggeration) of the PC's sold. Also, who wants to listen to some geek describe what you can do on your PC for 60 seconds? HP does that already. Their commercials show all the great things you can do on an HP... that is running Windows. What else can MS do? Sure, they could make a commercial that answers back to Apples implications, such as all PC's get Viruses and crash. The best that MS can say is "so do Macs". What's accomplished? nothing. It turns into a schoolyard shouting match and MS looks like a bully.

That's your choice. I look at is as I started using Vista fulltime in May of 2007, so I got 2 years of usage. It has been rock solid for me. I bought the OEM Ultimate for $180.

PhreePhly

Vista was made strong when looking back at how many problems kept coming up on XP! In fact I know some that skipped past XP entirely and starting running Vista and stand by that. Well.... until I got them motivated to look into 7 that is!

Now as far as MS advertising? They already have that covered just by signing up for testing and a quick look around the next thing you see is...

 

[CB]

MS is able to make us being anxious time to time. Who doesnt work with computer?
I will just explore this 64-bit RC till it expire. Started to feel that some ways this OS work much nicer than my 64 bit Vista. Maybe I'll wait what the future offer me and course what I can afford too . Mostly I will make the decision based on the actual situation. No loss I hope.

 

[Digger]

Vista was made strong when looking back at how many problems kept coming up on XP! In fact I know some that skipped past XP entirely and starting running Vista and stand by that. Well.... until I got them motivated to look into 7 that is!

i totally disagree NH... made strong? you cant be serious. What problems with XP? In my case its the opposite, most ppl i know savvy or not, skipped vista altogether unless someone like my father had and emergency and had to run to the store to pick up a computer when i was out of town, with vista installed of course. All i hear about is his complaining... so he gave the pc to my brother... wanting me to build him another with either XP or possibly 7, but he would disown me if i showed up with Vista for him.

 

[PhreePhly]

Vista was made strong when looking back at how many problems kept coming up on XP! In fact I know some that skipped past XP entirely and starting running Vista and stand by that. Well.... until I got them motivated to look into 7 that is!

Now as far as MS advertising? They already have that covered just by signing up for testing and a quick look around the next thing you see is...

Absolutely agree. Vista was a much better release than XP in terms of quality. The problem was that the time between releases was so great that people were born, aged, and died before the next OS release. The memory of XP suckage was forgotten in the sands of time.

Some of us superhumans that live incredibly long lives, however, remember that distant past and smile. XP had no drivers for printers and scanners, games were slower, heck, there was a bug in the install that if you used a nVidia geforce 440 chipset during the install the system would BSOD. That finally got fixed in SP2.

I was one of those crazies that would not move from my Win2000 setup. XP used more memory, had less compatibility and was slower. I kept telling myself that, until I actually started using it.

Windows 7 will do just fine. XP is long in the tooth, Vista set up a great environment for drivers, and hardware gets cheaper and cheaper. I expect my company to hold out until 2014 when all support for XP ceases before moving on to Vista, but I won't care, I'll be running my secret Windows 9 beta and being quite smug about it.

PhreePhly

 

[mSeliga]

So I guess the upgrade editions will fall in line at about 60%-70% of the full cost?

 

[Night Hawk]

The upgrade disks are always lowered priced to start with generally requiring a pre-existing copy of an older version already installed seeing the installer started up there. Some have managed to get past the not being able to boot direct full install option with a full version to still see Windows installed at times however.

For an old 95 upgrade disk all those years back boot from floppy to start the installer manually at the dos prompt was the way that was done! That was lightning compared to 98SE when first seen speedwise. Following the big ME flop MS rushed XP out using it as the upgrade of 2000 as well as the immediate replacement for none other the ME but leaving the Fat shell behind.

 

[ikilledkenny]

Can I get this in U.S. prices?

If it costs $320 for Ultimate, then to hell with 7 RTM! I'm cracking my pre-release build so I doesn't expire!

 

[Night Hawk]

Since MS hasn't released the actual initial price listings the only reference see now is the fact that Vista now out for 2yrs. has seen a price drop from the original $399.99 down to the $320 mark for the retail version of Ultimate there. The retail packages include the 64bit version along with the 32bit.

That's one reason why XP along with the previous versions saw half that price from only seeing one disk per retail carton. The 64bit Pro was sold separately from the Home, 32bit Pro, and MCE editions. With MS since placing the emphasis on the 64bit Windows you buy 2 for 1 paying the higher price to start with.

 

[mSeliga]

Thats something I never thought about Night Hawk, with MS all up in arms over 64bit computing, will they sell 64bit versions and 32 bit versions on the same disc, or will they make it easier to get a 64 bit version. I was never able to find 64 bit when Vista came out, not at any retail store anyway.

 

[PhreePhly]

Thats something I never thought about Night Hawk, with MS all up in arms over 64bit computing, will they sell 64bit versions and 32 bit versions on the same disc, or will they make it easier to get a 64 bit version. I was never able to find 64 bit when Vista came out, not at any retail store anyway.

The retail version of Vista Ultimate had both media in it. I'm not sure if Home Premium did. That was one of the benefits of buying Retail.

PhreePhly

 

[zone23]

I think for Vista users the prices would be outrageous. I would be willing to upgrade for maybe $99 dollars for upgrade versions if I can do a fresh install, but I wouldn't be willing to buy OEMs like I have in the past. I currently run Vista Ultimate OEM I guess my question would be why would I pay $199.99 (guessing OEM price) for an OS with less features? When I say less features here are some examples: dreamscene, parental controls, windows photo gallery. I know you can download them from MS but thats just BS. The versions for download blow. The only thing I see thats different is the start bar and themes. In my experience in running 7 it is not any faster than Vista (sorry). MS should take a look at Apple, you can buy a 5 machine license for $199.99. I'm not getting all the hype over 7. Memory use isn't any better like Vista it uses memory based on whats available, and I want my PC to use my memory. Thats the big difference between Vista and XP, XP users don't like using there memory there saving it up for a rainy day I guess.

In short I don't think I will be willing to pay 200 dollars per machine for something that isn't any better then what I'm already running. Lets just face it if your running XP anything would be better so I guess I would be willing to shell out but not from Vista.

 

[PhreePhly]

I think for Vista users the prices would be outrageous. I would be willing to upgrade for maybe $99 dollars for upgrade versions if I can do a fresh install, but I wouldn't be willing to buy OEMs like I have in the past. I currently run Vista Ultimate OEM I guess my question would be why would I pay $199.99 (guessing OEM price) for an OS with less features? When I say less features here are some examples: dreamscene, parental controls, windows photo gallery. I know you can download them from MS but thats just BS. The versions for download blow. The only thing I see thats different is the start bar and themes. In my experience in running 7 it is not any faster than Vista (sorry). MS should take a look at Apple, you can buy a 5 machine license for $199.99. I'm not getting all the hype over 7. Memory use isn't any better like Vista it uses memory based on whats available, and I want my PC to use my memory. Thats the big difference between Vista and XP, XP users don't like using there memory there saving it up for a rainy day I guess.

In short I don't think I will be willing to pay 200 dollars per machine for something that isn't any better then what I'm already running. Lets just face it if your running XP anything would be better so I guess I would be willing to shell out but not from Vista.

I never understood dreamscene. It was cute when it first showed up, but it drove me crazy after about 3 hours of use. The photo gallery that you download is basically the same as Vista's. By not tying it to the OS, it can be upgraded on a different schedule than the OS. That's a good thing. Just like the mail client, the new Live Mail client is better than the version with Vista. Parental controls are exactly the same.

Now I agree that Vista is just not that bad, and I agree that if you are using and enjoying Vista, why upgrade to Win 7. Quite honestly, when Vista came out, I would get questions from friends about upgrading. When I saw the systems that they had, I suggested that they stay with XP, as the Vista experience would be sub-par.

For me, using the beta/RC has shown me that my system can easily handle it, and the added GUI features, plus live essential downloads makes it worth the upgrade.

As far as MS following Apple's lead, once again, Apple is a hardware company that has an OS as a loss-leader. Their margins are made on the hardware. MS sells the OS, it's margins come from that software. The two companies are not comparable.

PhreePhly

 

[zone23]

The reason I don't care as much for the live version of windows photo gallery is primarily do it the integration of SQL. I just don't want my say laptop running data base software, just like I don't index my hard drives. Now thats just me.. Parental control I have not seen in 7, betas had it completely stripped and I could have swore it was also a download from live now. With that said the download from live required my kids (or parent me) to create live accounts, my 6 year old does not need a live account (sorry Haley).

Dreamscene there are some other apps that do the same thing but it was kinda cool to run on holidays like a snowy scene for Christmas. It's definitely one of those things that in no way helps me get my work done, but I like it and thats what set Ultimate aside from Premium (or at least one of the things RDC). Do i run it every second of everyday? No way..


Please read my post slowly and comely because thats how its meant to come off, I'm not arguing. I'm a Vista user of course I like 7 IT's GREAT I'm trying to discuss cost and at this point cost is purely speculation. I'm just discussing some features that make me scratch my head wondering... why would I upgrade or is it really an upgrade from Vista?

I came to this forum from another because I got tired of the Vista haters, I love Vista and 7. XP sucks though.

 

[copernicus]

The tension is killing me

We we're all agreed then, you're all gonna chip in and get me a couple of licenses for win7 whatever the price?

 

[TechOutsider]

Pricing is to be revealed mid-June.

Microsoft set to reveal Windows 7 pricing mid-June • The Register

 

[zone23]

I think we should try and stay on topic you guys are hijacking this post. Anyway I will say XP has a bigger install base because mmmm its been out for ever maybe?

I just would like to see MS offer some sort of family pack license especially since 7 can be installed on a larger number of computers. I say that because it has lower system requirements and performs better than vista on older hardware.

5 license home use - $299.99

 

[ikilledkenny]

I think that it should have the same prices as Vista.

Or... (Prices in USD)
Starter at $50
Home Basic $75
Home Premium $125
Business/Professional $150
Ultimate at $175


As stated by someone else before, in this economy, nobody is going to buy it at the "official" price.

 

[PhreePhly]

I think we should try and stay on topic you guys are hijacking this post. Anyway I will say XP has a bigger install base because mmmm its been out for ever maybe?

I just would like to see MS offer some sort of family pack license especially since 7 can be installed on a larger number of computers. I say that because it has lower system requirements and performs better than vista on older hardware.

5 license home use - $299.99

I llike the idea of a family pack. MS does this with office. The Home and Student version of Office 2007 is $80.00 and includes 3 licenses.

I think a 5-pack is a bit much, I would guess a typical house hold has 3 PC's at most.

3-pack Home Premium for $250, Ultimate for $350.

PhreePhly