Windows7 prices(19 posts)
Not much than cheaper than Vista back then!! Regarding 32 & 64 bit, I think it´s about time MS completely got rid of 32 bit. It would make the software companies HAVE to program in 32/64 bit. The times of 16 bit are long gone!! Just my opinon, Matt
I really am puzzled by the price discussion. A product with nearly 60 million lines of code for around $300 is unheard of. Compare this to some other bigger products like Photoshop et al, or even the security programs like Norton, kaspersky, etc where you pay that much in 4 or 5 years too. I personally think W7 is a deal.
If you know it´ll last more than 2-3 years, lol ;) JK, I want it too Wolfgang, but I made the mistake 2 years ago of buying Vista Ultimate and it pees me off having to spend so much again ;)
Well, As long as Vista works as well as it does (at least for me), I see no reason to replace Vista with W7 either. There is nothing in it that I would want or need - in fact some of the Vista facilities that I love have been scrapped. But the day I need to buy a new PC (which hopefully will not be for a while), I guess I'll have to put up with it. But that being said, I think for someone who needs a new OS, it is a good deal - unless you want to put up with Linux (yukky).
Well, As long as XP works as well as it does (at least for me), I see no reason to replace XP with W7 either. There is nothing in it that I would want or need - in fact some of the XP facilities that I love have been scrapped................
In many ways you make a good point on the price. Software such as Photoshop actually cost more than Win7. I think we have to look at the particular product though.
To have every feature available for Windows 7 (Ultimate) there is an expected cost $319.
To have every feature available for OS X (Leopard) the price is $129. [ A difference of $190 ]
To have every feature available Ubuntu (Jaunty Jackalope) the price is $0. [ A difference of $319 ]
Each operating system has it purpose, its positives, and its negatives, but they are all operating systems, therefore comparisons must be made.
Windows is simply more familiar. It has DirectX support, which helps it in the gaming community. Does this makes Windows "better." The answer depends on what criteria one uses.
My point is simply, compared to other software, Windows is a good price, but compared to other Operating Systems, not so much. I feel that one needs to compare "red apples to green apples" instead of "apples to oranges" because while they are both fruits, they are not the same type of fruit.
I would also like to bring up, that the price of Microsoft Office is ridiculously expensive.
Josh, your point is valid - on the surface. But my conclusion from it is that if you don't want to pay that price, buy something else or stick with what you have. In my past career I have been involved a lot with software pricing. It is a relatively simple numbers game. An OS X that is subsidized by a steep hardware price is a different matter - why do you think they "bundle" it. I remember times in the 60's and early 70's when software was completely free (subsidized by the hardware). And Linux that is being developed by "volunteers" and supported by donations does not campare either.
Another aspect of Windows pricing is the fact that the majority of the operating systems are OEM versions. And the OEMs pay somewhere between $50 to $100. Of course, they then have to provide the support, but that probably does not account for the difference.
In my days, each line of operating system code cost about $1000 over it's lifetime. Multiply this with the 60 million lines of code in W7 and you get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
BTW: I find Office dead cheap too. I paid $130 for the Home and Student edition which now sells for $100. And that comprises 8 programs. I would pay that much for PowerPoint or Word alone.
The train has already left the station.
One will use the software and hardware they can afford just as with everything else in life.
NO need thinking about Windows 7 if one has to worry about the price.
Am sure the "Starving Masses" around the world will appreciate the pretty icons and one click features of the new O/S.
At a certain point you have to upgrade. Microsoft is only supporting XP until 2010, While thats still a ways off it's something that will need to be adressed. Whether or not you upgrade to vista or 7 doesn't matter. However windows 7 is cleaner, faster, and more stable. I've heard people say they consider this the best operating system microsoft has ever put out. BTW who the hell buys full retail version? Buy oem and the price drops to something far more reasonable. People who have been using windows since 3.1, like me are happy to see something like windows 7 com out as it's been a long time coming. I for one, say buy it, get used to it, and you'll never go back!
Those prices may or may not be accurate. But that's really irrelevant to me.
I agree with eeeeeeeeek . . . most of us are not going to buy the retail version . . . rather we'll get it OEM when we buy a new machine.
I usually go kicking and screaming to the next Windows OS. I remember I thought W3.1 was great, and went to 95 with much agony. Same to 98 and then to XP. After about six months, I'm a solid user pleased with the OS. XP seems fine to me . . . it does everything I want.
But I really didn't want to go to VISTA, mostly because of the trade journal reviews. Though I expect if I had to then that six month threshold would have pertained and now I'd be firmly in VISTA's corner.
Now I've tried 7 myself (have it on the virtual machine), and since I like it, the transition from XP may not be that agonizing. Looks like I may have dodged the VISTA bullet.
As I understand it, one of the marketing tactics for 7 is to entice XP users . . . and it seems to have done that.
OTOH, I understand that 7 is not that much different from VISTA, so perhaps my bad judgement of VISTA is misplaced.
In any case, the transition from XP up, which is inevitable, will not be as painful for me.
This topic has been closed to new replies.