PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista Pricing Leaked


Blue Velvet
Aug 29, 2006, 02:26 AM
Apologies if someone has already posted this but just spotted this in Google News. Please note that many of the prices quoted are either in Canadian or Australian dollars.


PRICING details for Microsoft's forthcoming Vista Windows release are starting to leak out, with both Microsoft's Canadian operation and online retailer Amazon publishing prices online.

Amazon.com is listing pre-order copies of Windows Vista Ultimate for $US399 ($524), saying the product would be released on January 30, 2007.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's Canadian operation has inadvertently leaked prices for the forthcoming Windows Vista release.

According to posts on tech forum site Neowin.net, the Canadian website listed Windows Vista Ultimate for $C499 ($590). The Home Platinum edition was priced at $C299 and the Home Premium Upgrade version at $C199.

The Canadian website currently lists Windows XP Professional for a retail price of $C499. Microsoft Australia lists the same product for $479.

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20291440%5E15321%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html



If these reports turn out to have any basis in reality, please let's not hear any more complaining about how expensive OSX is.



Edit: More links...
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34770

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ms_vista_canada/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6110267.html

gauchogolfer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:52 AM
If these reports turn out to have any basis in reality, please let's not hear any more complaining about how expensive OSX is.



My $129 dollar investment in Leopard is going to look like even more of a steal ... :D

Blue Velvet
Aug 29, 2006, 02:58 AM
My $129 dollar investment in Leopard is going to look like even more of a steal ... :D


Especially for those who think that they're going to get Aero for peanuts.



The super duper Vista Ultimate which has Media Center tools along with the Aero 3D GUI and extra security technology will cost a whopping $449.


I'm well aware that the majority of people are going to get Vista when they buy new machines next year or so, but which of these versions are they going to get?

Lollypop
Aug 29, 2006, 03:10 AM
I'm well aware that the majority of people are going to get Vista when they buy new machines next year or so, but which of these versions are they going to get?

Very likely home platinum, possibly professional if they are buying a expensive high end machine.

MS has spread their lineup to thin, $500 for the ultimate every 5-10 years, I would rather got the apple route, $130 for the entire thing every few years and at least I feel continues advances than one big bang.

SpaceMagic
Aug 29, 2006, 03:23 AM
Microsoft surely want to go for the easy-to-use appeal, but with just so many upgrade options, people are going to be confused from the onset. I really should apply for a Microsoft marketing position, I could take the company places (although it'd compete with the superior OS, i could make a lot of money in the mean time :p)

Chundles
Aug 29, 2006, 03:25 AM
Yep, more than twice as much as OSX ($199) costs. And that's for XP... :eek:

Actually, at $579 Vista Ultimate is ~3x more expensive than OSX. That's just crazy.

MacRumors
Aug 29, 2006, 08:31 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yesterday, Microsoft inadvertently released the pricing of its upcoming OS called Vista on their Canadian website. The prices were picked up by the NeoWin blog (http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34770) and are also neatly layed out at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#Editions).

Vista Home Premium will retail for $239, with upgrades available for $159. Additional licenses will be available for discounts as well. Vista Home Premium edition has evolved from XP Professional, Media Center, and Tablet product lines, and probably is also the edition which can most closely be compared to Mac OS X.

Many comparisons have been made between Vista and Mac OS X, and with many expecting Apple to continue its pricing tradition of $129 for Leopard (Mac OS 10.5), further comparisons can be made on price as well.

All prices in USD

Littleodie914
Aug 29, 2006, 08:37 AM
Dang that's expensive. :eek:

DaveTheGrey
Aug 29, 2006, 08:38 AM
who cares how much crap is?

Keebler
Aug 29, 2006, 08:38 AM
Dang that's expensive. :eek:

yup..expensive for something that is lagging way behind what we already have and what we have...costs lower :)

my God windoze sucks.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 29, 2006, 08:39 AM
Very likely home platinum, possibly professional if they are buying a expensive high end machine.

MS has spread their lineup to thin, $500 for the ultimate every 5-10 years, I would rather got the apple route, $130 for the entire thing every few years and at least I feel continues advances than one big bang.

You mean Home Premium? :confused:

thejadedmonkey
Aug 29, 2006, 08:40 AM
I sure hope my college gives out free upgrades like they did with XP Pro, because $239 is a LOT to spend on an OS!:eek:

(and no, after the DLhell from doing an upgrade from 98 to XP, I would never go the upgrade route again)

atari1356
Aug 29, 2006, 08:42 AM
bodes well for Linux and OS X...

I wonder what MS is doing in Vista to prevent piracy? At that price I'm sure a lot of people will be tempted to pirate it.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 29, 2006, 08:44 AM
At that price, I hope Apple considers preinstalling Vista on its machines.

240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 08:44 AM
Seems cheap to me. I'll be there to get my copy day one. I think it's going to be a leap over XP.

paddy
Aug 29, 2006, 08:47 AM
Ha, what a waste of money.

autrefois
Aug 29, 2006, 08:47 AM
According to the Wikipedia article, a Home Basic upgrade is only $99.95, which is cheaper than the standard $129 for OS X releases. Then again, education customers can often get Mac OS for around $70 in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if there will be education discounts for Vista or how much they will be. With so many versions and price points for Vista and an unknown price tag for Leopard, it's very complicated to make comparisons...

Now one of the big questions is, who can get a Home Basic upgrade and how much are Home Basic users missing out on if they get that as opposed to Aero, etc.? No one knows for sure all the details at this point and we won't know for sure until official announcements are made. Although I would take OS X over Windows any day, we have to be cautious I think before saying Mac's upgrades are cheaper than Windows'. It looks like in many cases they will be, but not necessarily in all cases.

HecubusPro
Aug 29, 2006, 08:50 AM
who cares how much crap is?

Is that a general use of the term "crap?" As in "all that crap?" Or is it specific to Windows as crap?" As in, "Vista is a singular pile of crap, left on my lawn by the next door neighbor's dog." :D

Sorry, I just woke up.:o

amols
Aug 29, 2006, 08:50 AM
Now only if Apple comes out with $99 for Leopard...:)

Chundles
Aug 29, 2006, 08:50 AM
According to the Wikipedia article, a Home Basic upgrade is only $99.95, which is cheaper than the standard $129 for OS X releases. Then again, education customers can often get Mac OS for around $70 in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if there will be education discounts for Vista or how much they will be. With so many versions and price points for Vista and an unknown price tag for Leopard, it's very complicated to make comparisons...

Now one of the big questions is, who can get a Home Basic upgrade and how much are Home Basic users missing out on if they get that as opposed to Aero, etc.? No one knows for sure all the details at this point and we won't know for sure until official announcements are made. Although I would take OS X over Windows any day, we have to be cautious I think before saying Mac's upgrades are cheaper than Windows'. It looks like in many cases they will be, but not necessarily in all cases.

Yeah, but Home Basic is crap.

deepy
Aug 29, 2006, 08:50 AM
I got a free copy of XP Pro from my university with MSDA-AA licence. Hopefully they'll be doing the same with Vista so I can have a macbook with tiger and vista dual booting - sounds fun.

AidenShaw
Aug 29, 2006, 08:51 AM
(and no, after the DLhell from doing an upgrade from 98 to XP, I would never go the upgrade route again)
Note that the Windows 98 -> Windows XP "upgrade" was roughly the same as upgrading from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10.1. XP was a completely different codebase and layout from Win9x.

An XP -> Vista upgrade is an upgrade from one version of NT to the next version of NT. Microsoft has a much better track record at NT upgrades.

(The system that I'm on now started life in 1997 as a Windows NT 4 SP3 system. It's been upgraded to NT4 SPs, Win2K beta, Win2K RCs, Win2K SPs, WinXP betas, WinXP RCs, WinXP SPs, and soon I'll put the Vista RC on it... Never re-installed, never re-formatted.)

iHotu
Aug 29, 2006, 08:55 AM
Those prices seem inline with the current cost of XP Pro.

$299 list, $250 amazon, $135 newegg oem

Would like to see Apple offer it installed for $99

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 08:55 AM
How so?
Yeah, but Home Basic is crap.

Demoman
Aug 29, 2006, 08:57 AM
According to the Wikipedia article, a Home Basic upgrade is only $99.95, which is cheaper than the standard $129 for OS X releases. Then again, education customers can often get Mac OS for around $70 in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if there will be education discounts for Vista or how much they will be. With so many versions and price points for Vista and an unknown price tag for Leopard, it's very complicated to make comparisons...

Now one of the big questions is, who can get a Home Basic upgrade and how much are Home Basic users missing out on if they get that as opposed to Aero, etc.? No one knows for sure all the details at this point and we won't know for sure until official announcements are made. Although I would take OS X over Windows any day, we have to be cautious I think before saying Mac's upgrades are cheaper than Windows'. It looks like in many cases they will be, but not necessarily in all cases.

You are mixing apples and oranges here sport. Vista BASIC does not have any comparison in the Apple world. You have to compare the Premium version of Vista.

autrefois
Aug 29, 2006, 08:57 AM
Yeah, but Home Basic is crap.

A lot of users don't mind if they get crap, as long as it's cheap crap. I can't count the number of times I've heard recently people saying that all they want from their computer is to be able to surf the web, check email, and do a Word document.

It goes back to the basic Mac vs. PC debate. People have often said you can get cheaper PCs than Macs, which has long been the case. They may be crappy PCs, but they're cheaper than the low-end (but less crappy) Mac consumer models.

It looks like Apple is determined to show Macs are competitively priced, and in some cases cheaper than comparable PCs. That is very good news. But in terms of the OS, if you can get one version of Vista for $99 and Leopard for $129, the less knowledge/less fussy user is only going to see the price tag unfortunately.

whatever
Aug 29, 2006, 08:57 AM
At that price, I hope Apple considers preinstalling Vista on its machines.

240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...

Why the **** would Apple ever pre-install Windows on a Mac.

If they went that route then they might as well just cancel all develop on OS X, because they would need that money to pay Microsoft.

I honestly feel that Boot Camp is one of the worst things that Apple could ever do, but they had to appease the little kids. But just wait until the first virus hits your Windows partition and screws up the boot sector of your drive and you're unable to start either OS.

God, some people!

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:01 AM
First, you need a lesson on how to have a conversation. Second, Apple is a hardware company. If allowing people to install Windows on their computers will allow them to sell more, then so be it. My company has started letting us purchase Mac now, since it can run some of our Windows only programs. I think bootcamp was a great move. You still have to buy a Mac to use it, so what's the problem.
Why the **** would Apple ever pre-install Windows on a Mac.

If they went that route then they might as well just cancel all develop on OS X, because they would need that money to pay Microsoft.

I honestly feel that Boot Camp is one of the worst things that Apple could ever do, but they had to appease the little kids. But just wait until the first virus hits your Windows partition and screws up the boot sector of your drive and you're unable to start either OS.

God, some people!
A lot of resellers are already preinstalling XP on Intel Macs.

merge
Aug 29, 2006, 09:02 AM
Why the **** would Apple ever pre-install Windows on a Mac.

If they went that route then they might as well just cancel all develop on OS X, because they would need that money to pay Microsoft.

I honestly feel that Boot Camp is one of the worst things that Apple could ever do, but they had to appease the little kids. But just wait until the first virus hits your Windows partition and screws up the boot sector of your drive and you're unable to start either OS.

God, some people!

Your windows installation will not hurt your OSX installation.
They don't see eeach other, and windows is on a seperate partition.

Stop calling people a moron if you don't know what you are talking about.

Boot camp basically eliminated the need to ever buy a PC.
It was an incredibly smart move.

prady16
Aug 29, 2006, 09:03 AM
Whoz gonna "BUY" Vista....??
I am definitely not shelling out $250 odd dollars for WINDOWS VISTA!

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:05 AM
Well since Windows has about 95% of the market, which don't include the bootcamp users, I thinking a lot of people will be.
Whoz gonna "BUY" Vista....??
I am definitely not shelling out $250 odd dollars for WINDOWS VISTA!

HecubusPro
Aug 29, 2006, 09:09 AM
Whoz gonna "BUY" Vista....??
I am definitely not shelling out $250 odd dollars for WINDOWS VISTA!

I am probably going to need Vista on my MBP. I certainly don't want to pay that ammount of money for it, but I'll probably have to deal with it.

I'll actually know what I'll need and what I don't need once I get the MBP. Maybe I'll be lucky and the need for Vista will be eradicated as time goes by.

amols
Aug 29, 2006, 09:10 AM
Well since Windows has about 95% of the market, which don't include the bootcamp users, I thinking a lot of people will be.

Yeah...I'm already dowloading latest version of Limewire and BitTorrent only for that..:D

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:11 AM
Haha, I wouldn't dare. I use mine for work, and getting a company in trouble for using hacked OSs is a no no.
Yeah...I'm already dowloading latest version of Limewire and BitTorrent only for that..:D

hofer
Aug 29, 2006, 09:12 AM
The pricing was taken off a Canadian website. Are these Canadian Dollar prices? If so, expect the US Dollar prices to be somewhat lower.

acslater017
Aug 29, 2006, 09:13 AM
this may be a dumb question, but what is the difference between all those versions? I mean, between "Upgrade" and "Regular Price"? What's considered an upgrade

DaveTheGrey
Aug 29, 2006, 09:13 AM
A lot of users don't mind if they get crap, as long as it's cheap crap.

very true.
an old german proverb says:
who buys cheap, buys twice...

Evangelion
Aug 29, 2006, 09:16 AM
very true.
an old german proverb says:
who buys cheap, buys twice...

An old Finnish proverb says: "Poor people can't afford cheap things"

milo
Aug 29, 2006, 09:18 AM
A lot of resellers are already preinstalling XP on Intel Macs.

Who?

Evangelion
Aug 29, 2006, 09:18 AM
this may be a dumb question, but what is the difference between all those versions? I mean, between "Upgrade" and "Regular Price"? What's considered an upgrade

Upgrade is an upgrade from XP to Vista. Regural Price is a clean installation of Vista.

ReanimationLP
Aug 29, 2006, 09:20 AM
Ouch.

400 smackers for Ultimate? :mad:

My wallet hurts.

On another note, upgrading from XP to Vista is nice and smooth.

ZoomZoomZoom
Aug 29, 2006, 09:20 AM
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.

Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.

Vista looks to be a big jump from WinXP too, and seems a lot more mac-like. Complain all you want, but more competition puts Cupertino into a sweat and drives Apple into innovating even more. Support for Direct X 10 is going to be felt in about 1-2 years when people start getting DX10 graphics cards and more games take advantage of it.

toughboy
Aug 29, 2006, 09:22 AM
At that price, I hope Apple considers preinstalling Vista on its machines.

240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...

I'd rather download it from torrent for free.. who'd give crap all that money?!

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:23 AM
Comp USA, the reseller in my city. I've heard about others, but these two I know are doing it, for a small fee and the price of XP.
Who?

Evangelion
Aug 29, 2006, 09:23 AM
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.

Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.

But you are not required to upgrade OS X all the time. Hmmmm, maybe some people should start to look at Linux by now. With Ubuntu folks could get two upgrades every year, and they are 100% free :).

baleensavage
Aug 29, 2006, 09:24 AM
A lot of users don't mind if they get crap, as long as it's cheap crap. I can't count the number of times I've heard recently people saying that all they want from their computer is to be able to surf the web, check email, and do a Word document.
Unfortunately, these people may say that they only use their computer for that. Of course when they see their friends using digital cameras and printing photos, they all of a sudden decide that they can do that on their computer, and next thing you know they have a copy of Photoshop running that they "copied" from a friend and they are complaining because their computer is too slow.

This is why I think that Apple has it right with one, full-featured version of their software. The pricing tiers are just an excuse for Microsoft to charge $400 a computer for businesses, while ripping off the consumer who doesn't know any better by selling a sub-standard product.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:25 AM
That's the main reason I'm upgrading. I know it will last atleast 4-5 years.
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.

Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.

Vista looks to be a big jump from WinXP too, and seems a lot more mac-like. Complain all you want, but more competition puts Cupertino into a sweat and drives Apple into innovating even more. Support for Direct X 10 is going to be felt in about 1-2 years when people start getting DX10 graphics cards and more games take advantage of it.

baleensavage
Aug 29, 2006, 09:27 AM
Who?
www.macmall.com for starters.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:29 AM
That's one heck of a site u have. I'll read more at home. Good job.
www.macmall.com for starters.

iMikeT
Aug 29, 2006, 09:31 AM
I don't know if I should give this a postive or negative. Either way, I hate Microsoft.

toughboy
Aug 29, 2006, 09:32 AM
Well since Windows has about 95% of the market, which don't include the bootcamp users, I thinking a lot of people will be.

All of the people I know (except the ones who got their windoze bundled) did not "BUY" their windows, but still use it on their PCs.. ;)

zero2dash
Aug 29, 2006, 09:34 AM
$239 for a bloated DRM infested OS is outrageous.
I've tried several Vista betas and IMHO it's a pile of crap. It's arguably the largest (unecessary) resource hog of an OS that I've ever seen.

I see more visual effects in OSX and it's 10000000x easier on a computer. For crying out loud, OSX runs on G3s. 6+ year old computers. On the other side of the coin I guarantee you that you won't see Vista running on a Pentium 3...ever.

Microsoft is dropping the ball with Vista big time. 6 skus (3 for home users, 3 for businesses), ridiculous hardware requirements, and this pricing is the icing on the cake.

I'll stick with the 1-2 combo of XP and Win2k for my Windows computing; thanks for offering though, Redmond. Try again.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 09:34 AM
Yeah I know people who hacked Tiger and hacked Vista too, but most people will buy the OS. You don't make billions if no one is buying your product.
All of the people I know (except the ones who got their windoze bundled) did not "BUY" their windows, but still use it on their PCs.. ;)

Run on a G3? How well. I use to have problems with the speed of Panther on my G4 iMac.
$239 for a bloated DRM infested OS is outrageous.
I've tried several Vista betas and IMHO it's a pile of crap. It's arguably the largest (unecessary) resource hog of an OS that I've ever seen.

I see more visual effects in OSX and it's 10000000x easier on a computer. For crying out loud, OSX runs on G3s. 6+ year old computers. On the other side of the coin I guarantee you that you won't see Vista running on a Pentium 3...ever.

Microsoft is dropping the ball with Vista big time. 6 skus (3 for home users, 3 for businesses), ridiculous hardware requirements, and this pricing is the icing on the cake.

I'll stick with the 1-2 combo of XP and Win2k for my Windows computing; thanks for offering though, Redmond. Try again.

ZoomZoomZoom
Aug 29, 2006, 09:38 AM
But you are not required to upgrade OS X all the time. Hmmmm, maybe some people should start to look at Linux by now. With Ubuntu folks could get two upgrades every year, and they are 100% free :).

That's true. If you skip a OS X release, you're still fine. Skip Vista and you'll probably be a decade behind at some point. But it's almost a given to purchase OS upgrades whenever given (as long as some major features are given) because your entire working environment is in the OS. Anyways, I think it's just important to view a Vista purchase as being the equivalent of at least two OS X releases, so saying that Vista is $239 and OS X is $129 - and thus, that Vista is more expensive - is not completely true.

I'm afraid to touch Linux :( I don't even know what it looks like, how it works, or what runs on it.

combatcolin
Aug 29, 2006, 09:39 AM
Building a new PC soon Well i hope for my money Microsoft give me a nice big shiney box for Vista with lots of pointless manuels that give it that expensive heavy feel.

After years of "naughty" versions of Windows feels weird to be looking forward to paying for the latest version.

amols
Aug 29, 2006, 09:41 AM
Ouch.

400 smackers for Ultimate? :mad:

My wallet hurts.

With few added bucks and student's discount, you can buy a Mini with Leopard and iLife preinstalled in that amount, or iPod Video, or Xbox 360, or ..............I love my Mac ;)

iMikeT
Aug 29, 2006, 09:44 AM
Whoz gonna "BUY" Vista....??
I am definitely not shelling out $250 odd dollars for WINDOWS VISTA!



Don't forget the additional $1000 that you will have to shell out for hardware that is capable of running Windoze Vista.

drewyboy
Aug 29, 2006, 09:48 AM
Come on guys, all of you saying the Vista is for $99, remember... that is the "upgrade" not the full install. where as osx is a complete full install. plus vista is suppose to be coming in 6 different version, i read something about that at here (http://www.theinquirer.net).

toughboy
Aug 29, 2006, 09:51 AM
Yeah I know people who hacked Tiger and hacked Vista too, but most people will buy the OS. You don't make billions if no one is buying your product.

People wont bundle Vista with their products if MS will price the resellers with the same price points. Then, who'll buy Vista if not bundle buyers?

amols
Aug 29, 2006, 09:52 AM
Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.

You can easily upgrade OS X from 10.1 straight to 10.5 (atleast 10.4), and if you can't, do a clean install because it's a same damn disk. Can you upgrade Win98 to Vista?

Vista looks to be a big jump from WinXP too, and seems a lot more mac-like.

People said the same thing about XP, but all it did was to take 2000/NT code back then, add few drivers and paint it ugly blue.

bigandy
Aug 29, 2006, 09:55 AM
Run on a G3? How well. I use to have problems with the speed of Panther on my G4 iMac.

Tiger seems to run better than Panther on the G3 iMacs I have at home.

One is a 400mhz G3 with 320mb RAM and it runs fine with Tiger.

But, I have noticed Tiger runs crud™ on one of my friends 800mhz G4 iMacs.

How odd. :rolleyes:


The cost of Vista is very comparible to XP (especially at launch). But it is too much for a new verison of Windows. Especially since every reason to upgrade has been stripped out and slated to arrive in a "service pack" sometime later "this decade".

longofest
Aug 29, 2006, 09:55 AM
Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_16/002-8029411-1096001?ie=UTF8&keywords=Vista&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AVista%2Ci%3Asoftware&page=1) has Vista available for Preorder at the above-mentioned prices

twoodcc
Aug 29, 2006, 10:14 AM
wow.....as if microsoft needs the money....of well, i'm not buying it

aegisdesign
Aug 29, 2006, 10:16 AM
Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.


Wow, not getting updates to your OS for half a decade is now an advantage is it?

And Windows users accuse Mac owners of being delusional!

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:17 AM
I'm a bit on the bubble on this. It's cool that you can get the OS that you really need, but on the other side, this **** is going to confuse the hell out of non tech savvy people.
Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_16/002-8029411-1096001?ie=UTF8&keywords=Vista&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AVista%2Ci%3Asoftware&page=1) has Vista available for Preorder at the above-mentioned prices

They do updates, they are just free. No need for a full release for small add ons.:rolleyes:
Wow, not getting updates to your OS for half a decade is now an advantage is it?

And Windows users accuse Mac owners of being delusional!

dizastor
Aug 29, 2006, 10:19 AM
At that price, I hope Apple considers preinstalling Vista on its machines.

240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...

I don't really understand your logic. If Apple preinstalls Vista, they'll simply pass the cost on to you. Pre-installed does not equal free.

BornAgainMac
Aug 29, 2006, 10:24 AM
The prices reflect the 5 Billion dollars in R&D each year by Microsoft.

thejadedmonkey
Aug 29, 2006, 10:31 AM
Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_16/002-8029411-1096001?ie=UTF8&keywords=Vista&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AVista%2Ci%3Asoftware&page=1) has Vista available for Preorder at the above-mentioned prices
There's only 13 versions to choose from!:eek:

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 10:36 AM
You don't make billions if no one is buying your product.

What if they don't have any choice but to buy your product? All of the Windows OEMs are instant customers for Vista, whether they like it or not. This is how the system works for Microsoft.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:37 AM
Sounds like a good system. A person can buy a dummy pc if they want, a linux box, or a Mac.
What if they don't have any choice but to buy your product? All of the Windows OEMs are instant customers for Vista, whether they like it or not. This is how the system works for Microsoft.

ZoomZoomZoom
Aug 29, 2006, 10:38 AM
Wow, not getting updates to your OS for half a decade is now an advantage is it?

And Windows users accuse Mac owners of being delusional!

There are updates, just free. Also, it's nice to be able to have to fiddle with the OS only once every half a decade. Updates don't matter that much, since if you're a mac user and using windows for gaming(and not job work), the windows interface doesn't matter at all. You'd be getting Vista in anticipation of a future laptop with a DX10 graphics card.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 10:40 AM
Those prices are just crazy... Who the %&## will pay $250-$400 for a Win OS??? Especially since you know you will need additional anti-virus/spyware...
If this is true, M$ just shot themselves in the foot. There are viable OS alternatives today that are both better and cheaper.
This could be the fat lady's que for her her swan song.

milo
Aug 29, 2006, 10:45 AM
They do updates, they are just free. No need for a full release for small add ons.:rolleyes:

So nothing but small add ons for half a decade? That's still pretty sad.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:46 AM
I would pay 250. For somethings, Windows is the only viable OS. Like the commercial says, Macs are good for fun stuff, but PCs are for working.
Those prices are just crazy... Who the %&## will pay $250-$400 for a Win OS??? Especially since you know you will need additional anti-virus/spyware...
If this is true, M$ just shot themselves in the foot. There are viable OS alternatives today that are both better and cheaper.
This could be the fat lady's que for her her swan song.
What are the other viable alternatives? OSX and ????????

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 10:46 AM
Sounds like a good system. A person can buy a dummy pc if they want, a linux box, or a Mac.

You missed my point. Microsoft makes many of its billions by selling directly to OEMs, who have no choice but to buy the latest Windows OS from Microsoft. This insures that every one of Microsoft's OS releases is an automatic "success." They sell billions worth, no matter how undesirable it may be in reality.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:47 AM
Worked fine for XP.
So nothing but small add ons for half a decade? That's still pretty sad.

hd78
Aug 29, 2006, 10:48 AM
hey, they have to find a way to recover all of under-productive years of the os's development. :D

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:51 AM
Ok, I see your point. But when does the consumer stand up and say "I DON'T WANT WINDOWS ON MY COMPUTER" and force the Dells to load something else besides Windows. If the OS was so undesirable, the consumer would have been up in arms. Dell sells computers with Linux preloaded, but I don't see Linux making any dent in anyones armor.
You missed my point. Microsoft makes many of its billions by selling directly to OEMs, who have no choice but to buy the latest Windows OS from Microsoft. This insures that every one of Microsoft's OS releases is a automatic "success." They sell billions worth, no matter how undesirable it may be in reality.

I'm going to stop, dont want be called a troll, just making convo.

milo
Aug 29, 2006, 10:51 AM
Worked fine for XP.

Well, it happened for XP. Whether people were happy being stuck with it for that long is a whole other debate.

someguy
Aug 29, 2006, 10:53 AM
Like the commercial says, Macs are good for fun stuff, but PCs are for working.
Well, if they said it in a commercial...! :rolleyes:

adonai
Aug 29, 2006, 10:54 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yesterday, Microsoft inadvertantly released the pricing of its upcoming OS called Vista on their Canadian website. The prices were picked up by the NeoWin blog (http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34770) and are also neatly layed out at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#Editions).

Vista Home Premium will retail for $239, with upgrades available for $159. Additional licenses will be available for discounts as well. Vista Home Premium edition has evolved from XP Professional, Media Center, and Tablet product lines, and probably is also the edition which can most closely be compared to Mac OS X.

Many comparisons have been made between Vista and Mac OS X, and with many expecting Apple to continue its pricing tradition of $129 for Leopard (Mac OS 10.5), further comparisons can be made on price as well.

All prices in USD

Not disputing the veracity of the article, but Neowin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neowin) isn't a blog. It's a tech site, founded in 2000, and forum with over 150,000 members and 6+ million posts. There are also many of us, including staff members, who have switched to Apple.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 10:59 AM
Yeah, only take that portion of my statement and :rolleyes: to it.:rolleyes:
Well, if they said it in a commercial...! :rolleyes:

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 11:00 AM
I would pay 250. For somethings, Windows is the only viable OS. Like the commercial says, Macs are good for fun stuff, but PCs are for working.

What are the other viable alternatives? OSX and ????????
LINUX? Besides I use my Mac for my reasearch since I cant afford having M$ screwing me one more time. If you need 100% stability and security (as some professionals do) you go with with the safest system out there... and that my friend is NOT Win XP.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 11:04 AM
Ok, I see your point. But when does the consumer stand up and say "I DON'T WANT WINDOWS ON MY COMPUTER" and force the Dells to load something else besides Windows. If the OS was so undesirable, the consumer would have been up in arms. Dell sells computers with Linux preloaded, but I don't see Linux making any dent in anyones armor.

I'd sooner wait for hell to freeze over.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 11:08 AM
Yeah, only take that portion of my statement and :rolleyes: to it.:rolleyes:

You've got to admit, you kind of deserve that response, if you going to cite a commercial to back up your argument.

Blue Velvet
Aug 29, 2006, 11:13 AM
Like the commercial says, Macs are good for fun stuff, but PCs are for working.

I shall (briefly) ponder the wisdom of your words when I'm putting in a 10-hour day tomorrow on the Mac.

teme
Aug 29, 2006, 11:15 AM
I think the prices of Windows and OSX are quite the same. You can buy a new version of OSX more frequently for a lower price per each version, or buy a new version of Windows once and pay more for it but receive free updates/service packs for years. The yearly costs are quite the same.

someguy
Aug 29, 2006, 11:17 AM
Yeah, only take that portion of my statement and :rolleyes: to it.:rolleyes:
I had a response all typed up and decided your original statement says more than I ever could to support my side of the argument.

matthew24
Aug 29, 2006, 11:18 AM
Happily Vista 2.0 will only be 129$ :D

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 11:22 AM
Come on guys, all of you saying the Vista is for $99, remember... that is the "upgrade" not the full install. where as osx is a complete full install. plus vista is suppose to be coming in 6 different version, i read something about that at here (http://www.theinquirer.net).

That is also a misleading statement.

Apple doesn't offer upgrades to OS X. Windows does! Most people don't need a complete new install. Most people already have XP.

The only time a full version is needed is when a new computer is purchased and then the price for Vista is completely different because of the OEM pricing by the vendor.

Also just because you have the upgrade version doesn't mean you can't do a clean full install. In most cases Windows in the past only required that a previous version be present or that a legal original install cd was present. It performs the check and then does a full install.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 11:26 AM
I think the prices of Windows and OSX are quite the same. You can buy a new version of OSX more frequently for a lower price per each version, or buy a new version of Windows once and pay more for it but receive free updates/service packs for years. The yearly costs are quite the same.

Service packs aren't really upgrades, they are mainly bug fixes, security updates and minor feature amendments -- and even they come only infrequently (two service packs for XP in five years). Apple provides the same thing for free, and more regularly. Each of the decimal upgrades to OSX have been far more significant than either of the XP service packs.

I don't understand why anyone would want to turn Microsoft's plodding into a virtue. It's as though giving your customers less value for more money is a good thing.

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 11:29 AM
I shall (briefly) ponder the wisdom of your words when I'm putting in a 10-hour day tomorrow on the Mac.

OS X vs. Windows for work argument depends on your work.

Many industries do not have a versions of their software or database apps that run on OS X. Unfortunately, I happen to work for one of them. My industry has thousands of software packages, none of which run on OS X. I am not alone. In fact I would bet that >80% of businesses today run some software which will not run in OS X.

Being able to run Vista on a Mac is a lifesaver for me.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 11:30 AM
The only time a full version is needed is when a new computer is purchased and then the price for Vista is completely different because of the OEM pricing by the vendor.

Not so much "different" as hidden from the ultimate consumer.

I think you're also forgetting that the current version of OSX is included with every Mac.

50548
Aug 29, 2006, 11:31 AM
It's really amazing to see here people justifying the price of Windows Vista, when not even corporations think about migrating to the "new" OS in 2-years time...Vista is just a rehashed NT, and no company will need it in the short term.

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 11:37 AM
It's really amazing to see here people justifying the price of Windows Vista, when not even corporations think about migrating to the "new" OS in 2-years time...Vista is just a rehashed NT, and no company will need it in the short term.

Corporations have many more factors to consider prior to updating than the general consumer. Price is only one of the many factors. In many cases the sticker price of the OS itself is the least restrictive factor when considering upgrading for a corporation.

Clive At Five
Aug 29, 2006, 11:41 AM
Yeah, but Home Basic is crap.

How so?

As I've heard from those who've actually used Vista, Aero is the only reason to install it (thus far at least). Home Basic does not include Aero.

Assuming my Windows-using companions are correct, Home Basic thusly has nothing to offer. Hence, it is crap.

Q.E.D.

-Clive

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 11:41 AM
Not so much "different" as hidden from the ultimate consumer.

I think you're also forgetting that the current version of OSX is included with every Mac.

Well it is hidden and it is different. I guarantee you that Dell doesn't pay the same price you do when they purchase a resale license for Vista from MS.

Also OSX is included with every Mac but it is the same situation. Apple has to mark up the hardware by some increment for the cost of the OS. I have no idea what Apple's internal pricing is for OS X but it has some value.

plinden
Aug 29, 2006, 11:43 AM
Microsoft surely want to go for the easy-to-use appeal, but with just so many upgrade options, people are going to be confused from the onset.
I think you're right about that - it even gave me a headache trying to decide between XP Home and XP Pro when I was considering bootcamping my PC, and I'm an experienced user who's used every version of Windows except for 98, Me and MCE.

In the end I decided to wait for VMWare and get an image from work ... I only need Windows for to check my code on it and don't need it to be really fast.

Half Glass
Aug 29, 2006, 11:48 AM
I don't think I've seen anyone else mention it but Amazon lists a release date:

"This item will be released on January 30, 2007. Pre-order now. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com."

Now, I KNOW that date is likely to get changed, but interesting anyway.

Second, has anyone else here used the public beta? I haven't seen any comments on it in the first 3 pages, but let me tell you...it sucks! I had to take it off my PC that I am using until my MacPro arrives and went back to XP.

From my experience, Vista Beta is full of bugs and issues. Yes, I know it is still a Beta, but if it is slated for a Jan 30 release, they have a lot of work to do.

I still don't know why the average person would change from XP to Vista--it doesn't look that different and doesn't offer much more to the average websurfer/emailer.

Just my $0.02. I'm glad I made the switch back to Mac after a 10 year absence.

--HG

=========================================
MacPro 2.66 BTO en route, should be here Thursday!

Evangelion
Aug 29, 2006, 12:00 PM
Dell sells computers with Linux preloaded, but I don't see Linux making any dent in anyones armor.

i think that that used to be the case, but no longer. back when w2k and xp was released, linux wasn't ?ready?. for experts, yes, but not normal folks. over the last two years that changed dramatically.. and over the last few years i have seen linux pop up in oddest places, like in an internet -terminals in hotels. previously they ran windows.

looking at features, windows is way behind linux, vista included. and looking at apps, windows doesn't offer anything that linux doesn't, for free. well, maybe games.

ryanx27
Aug 29, 2006, 12:01 PM
I wonder what MS is doing in Vista to prevent piracy? At that price I'm sure a lot of people will be tempted to pirate it.

The same thing they've been doing for years --- suing anyone they can catch

ryanx27
Aug 29, 2006, 12:02 PM
So which Vista version would be the equivalent of XP Pro??:confused:

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 12:09 PM
Well it is hidden and it is different. I guarantee you that Dell doesn't pay the same price you do when they purchase a resale license for Vista from MS.

Also OSX is included with every Mac but it is the same situation. Apple has to mark up the hardware by some increment for the cost of the OS. I have no idea what Apple's internal pricing is for OS X but it has some value.

It has value, but Apple doesn't buy OSX from itself. The point being, you get OSX when you buy a Mac, just as you get Windows when you buy an OEM PC. Some people seem to be finding a virtue in the latter but not the former, and a problem the fact that Apple has managed to significantly improve the OS five time in same span of years when Microsoft has managed it only once.

thewhitehart
Aug 29, 2006, 12:32 PM
Wow, all of these vista versions, which one do I pick? I think I'm going to end up going with the Windows Really Good Edition™ (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php).

(Yes, I know it's been posted before, but I had to do it.)

Eraserhead
Aug 29, 2006, 12:32 PM
As I've heard from those who've actually used Vista, Aero is the only reason to install it (thus far at least). Home Basic does not include Aero.

Assuming my Windows-using companions are correct, Home Basic thusly has nothing to offer. Hence, it is crap.

Q.E.D.

-Clive

But doesn't home basic include Direct X 10? which is the only reason I can see that I would want to buy a copy of Windows. To be perfectly honest Aero Glass looks like a POS, I would rather run the windows classic theme, it's much more attractive.

Wow, all of these vista versions, which one do I pick? I think I'm going to end up going with the Windows Really Good Edition™ (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php).

LOL that one's hilarious!

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 01:04 PM
That's the image Apple is trying to put out there.
You've got to admit, you kind of deserve that response, if you going to cite a commercial to back up your argument.

And you and people like you represent how much of the population?
I shall (briefly) ponder the wisdom of your words when I'm putting in a 10-hour day tomorrow on the Mac.

Kudos to you. I could care less.
I had a response all typed up and decided your original statement says more than I ever could to support my side of the argument.

I'm pretty sure it was recent when Dell announced they would preload Linux on some of their computers.
i think that that used to be the case, but no longer. back when w2k and xp was released, linux wasn't ?ready?. for experts, yes, but not normal folks. over the last two years that changed dramatically.. and over the last few years i have seen linux pop up in oddest places, like in an internet -terminals in hotels. previously they ran windows.

looking at features, windows is way behind linux, vista included. and looking at apps, windows doesn't offer anything that linux doesn't, for free. well, maybe games.
For all the features that Linux may have, it doesn't have the software support to be a major player right now. There are some nice programs, that I use everyday on my Linux box, but not nearly enough to replace my XP box at work.

Well I think the phrase significantly improved is a opinion.
It has value, but Apple doesn't buy OSX from itself. The point being, you get OSX when you buy a Mac, just as you get Windows when you buy an OEM PC. Some people seem to be finding a virtue in the latter but not the former, and a problem the fact that Apple has managed to significantly improve the OS five time in same span of years when Microsoft has managed it only once.

Evangelion
Aug 29, 2006, 01:16 PM
For all the features that Linux may have, it doesn't have the software support to be a major player right now. There are some nice programs, that I use everyday on my Linux box, but not nearly enough to replace my XP box at work.

you could say the same for os x ;). seriously, on some areas linux propably has the best apps there is. same goes for os x. it depends on what you do with the machine.

jaxstate
Aug 29, 2006, 01:20 PM
I agree. Linux has the best server software out there. MS use to use their server software. But when you combine the sums of the parts, those numbers start to get very very small.
you could say the same for os x ;). seriously, on some areas linux propably has the best apps there is. same goes for os x. it depends on what you do with the machine.

morespce54
Aug 29, 2006, 01:20 PM
I think you're also forgetting that the current version of OSX is included with every Mac.

I agree but it's still not a "retail" version of OS X...

OdduWon
Aug 29, 2006, 01:42 PM
Wow, all of these vista versions, which one do I pick? I think I'm going to end up going with the Windows Really Good Edition™ (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php).

(Yes, I know it's been posted before, but I had to do it.)
wow! someone finally took all the fun of clicking and blue screens and put it into a fun little game. now all we need is the vista beta 2.1.1.2.3.4 version and we can have fun with the 3d blue screen of doom.:D

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 01:59 PM
I agree but it's still not a "retail" version of OS X...

And neither is the version of Windows you get with a PC. Restore only. But again, this is not the point.

zero2dash
Aug 29, 2006, 02:06 PM
It's really amazing to see here people justifying the price of Windows Vista, when not even corporations think about migrating to the "new" OS in 2-years time...Vista is just a rehashed NT, and no company will need it in the short term.

Agreed wholeheartedly; I worked for FedEx Kinkos for 5 years. On a corporate level - they stay at least 1 version behind on all their software. We were still running Windows 95b when I started there in 2000 (long after Windows 2000 had already been released). I'm surprised our monitors didn't have blue screen burn in; my god Win95 is the utterest of garbage in an OS. I'd rather run OS2/Warp or something. Anyhow, it wasn't until roughly 2003 that they finally upgraded to Windows 2000 Professional on all their computers (and updated the Macs to 10.2 (Jaguar?) from OS 9). I no longer work for that (now) horrendous company, but I'm sure they'll upgrade to XP Pro within the next 2 years and wait for all the BS to surface from Vista before even bothering with it.

Most corporations are this way, so (again) I absolutely agree with you. For at least the first year of its existence - no companies will be running Vista, only home users.

Second, has anyone else here used the public beta? I haven't seen any comments on it in the first 3 pages, but let me tell you...it sucks! I had to take it off my PC that I am using until my MacPro arrives and went back to XP.

From my experience, Vista Beta is full of bugs and issues. Yes, I know it is still a Beta, but if it is slated for a Jan 30 release, they have a lot of work to do.

I mentioned it on page 3. I've used several betas and they all suck. Bugs and crashes that come from using a beta OS aside - the system requirements are absurd. At this point I can't tell if the beta sucks because of bugs or because I no longer have bleeding edge hardware. Mind you though, none of my computers have ever pitched a fit at running *nix, Windows 2k or XP, or even OSX86.

I still don't know why the average person would change from XP to Vista--it doesn't look that different and doesn't offer much more to the average websurfer/emailer.

The major change is UAP, User Account Protection, which is basically a ripped off version of (Administrator) Authentication with a User access account that *nix and OSX have had for years now.

IMO Vista will undoubtedly add more Genuine Advantage, DRM, and Activation BS that I'll steer clear of that mess and keep running the old versions of Windows that already work trouble-free for me. When they stop supporting Win2k (after the 7-year (or whatever it is) product 'cycle'), I'll keep running it because IMO it's the best version of Windows that has ever (and most likely *will ever*) be released.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 02:10 PM
That's the image Apple is trying to put out there.

That the Mac is for fun and PC is for working? I don't think so. I'd rate that as nothing more than an opinion, and a rather prejudicial opinion at that.

Count me as another part of "the population" who uses a Mac for business. All of it. In fact, my Windows box is relegated strictly to games. What you don't seem to recognize is that not everyone in business is a cubicle-dweller beholden to an IT department. We non cubicle-dwellers get to decide for ourselves what technology we use to run our businesses.

Blue Velvet
Aug 29, 2006, 02:11 PM
And you and people like you represent how much of the population?

What's that got to do with your absurd and paper-thin point? That Macs weren't for work? I represent no-one except myself and never claimed to...

Besides, since when did a majority choice signify anything of value? More people drink Coke instead of Champagne. More drive Fords than BMWs. More like 50 Cent than Mozart...

When billion-dollar publishing and media concerns depend on their Macs, in my view that trumps anybody at home playing Solitaire on their Windows boxes.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 02:14 PM
Well I think the phrase significantly improved is a opinion.

Whether OSX been improved "significantly" or not (I notice you fail to offer an opinion of your own), any improvement is better than none, which is precisely how much improvement Windows users have been granted by Microsoft over the last five years. Again, we're being led to be believe that this is somehow a superior state of affairs. I don't know who buys this argument, but I sure as hell don't.

moose.boy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:35 PM
Your windows installation will not hurt your OSX installation.
They don't see eeach other, and windows is on a seperate partition.

Stop calling people a moron if you don't know what you are talking about.

Boot camp basically eliminated the need to ever buy a PC.
It was an incredibly smart move.

Windows may not be able to read or write to the mac partition, but it will still be there. There is nothing stopping a _really_ malicious virus from messing around with the partition table to bring the whole thing crashing down.

IIRC It was because of the problem with viruses corrupting boot records that microsoft cludged their disk partitioning software FDISK to include the /MBR switch to allow it to wipe previously inaccessible boot records.

However, for those people who just need windows for one or two programs, and who have the awareness to patch and lock it down correctly, then bootcamp is a good idea.

GFLPraxis
Aug 29, 2006, 03:01 PM
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.


Are you joking? The basic $200 one lacks DVD burning, XBox 360 connectivity, media center, the whole new GUI, and searching! Each one has disadvantages, purposely crippled by Microsoft- only the $300 business edition has encryption and backup, remote desktop and multi-processor support (that's right, you need the business for multiple processors- since the lower end models can use multiple cores and are multithreaded, this means Microsoft DELIBERATELY disabled the functionality in the other models), only the $240 Premium edition has DVD burning, slideshows, media center, etc...

They're trying to force you into buying the Ultimate edition.

Frankly, you shouldn't have to spend $400 to get what Apple includes in the BASIC OS.

whatever
Aug 29, 2006, 03:03 PM
First, you need a lesson on how to have a conversation. Second, Apple is a hardware company. If allowing people to install Windows on their computers will allow them to sell more, then so be it. My company has started letting us purchase Mac now, since it can run some of our Windows only programs. I think bootcamp was a great move. You still have to buy a Mac to use it, so what's the problem.

A lot of resellers are already preinstalling XP on Intel Macs.
Resellers who are pre-installing XP on Intel Macs are charging for XP or they're willing to take a loss, because they are paying for it.

Apple does allow people to install Windows on their computer, it's just that people need to buy it, seperately.

I've been running Windows applications on Apple computers for over 15 years. So except for those gamers that need Direct X support, there really aren't any Windows apps that don't work on an Apple computer.

Calling Apple a hardware company is like calling McDonalds a hamburger stand.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2006, 03:18 PM
Calling Apple a hardware company is like calling McDonalds a hamburger stand.

And that would be an insult to all of the other hamburger stands!

Incidentally, Apple dealers aren't selling Macs with XP "pre-installed," they are doing it as an after-market add-on. To pre-install, they'd have to be Microsoft OEMs. I don't think we want Apple to become one of those.

Thanatoast
Aug 29, 2006, 03:56 PM
Pardon me for not reading all six pages, but can anyone describe (generally) the 47 different versions of Windows upcoming?

Will Basic only play minesweeper? What does it *not* do that Ultimate-Double-Secret-Robot-Super-Monkey-Force-Go! edition does?

bigandy
Aug 29, 2006, 03:57 PM
Will Basic only play minesweeper?
That and crash, yes. ;)

zero2dash
Aug 29, 2006, 04:11 PM
Pardon me for not reading all six pages, but can anyone describe (generally) the 47 different versions of Windows upcoming?

Will Basic only play minesweeper? What does it *not* do that Ultimate-Double-Secret-Robot-Super-Monkey-Force-Go! edition does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Editions_and_pricing
Editions and pricing

On February 26, 2006, Microsoft announced that Windows Vista will ship in six editions.[40] All versions will be available in both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x86-64) architectures, except Windows Vista Starter which will only be available for 32-bit architectures. A partial table of the features planned for each edition is also available at Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows[41].

Windows Vista Starter
Much like the Windows XP Starter Edition, this edition will be limited to emerging markets, mainly to offer a legal alternative to using unauthorized copies. It will be severely limited, for example only allowing a user to launch at most three applications with a user interface at once, will not accept incoming network connections, and physical memory is limited to 2 GB.[42] Additionally, only Celeron and Pentium III processors from Intel, and AMD's Duron, Sempron and Geode processors are supported.

Windows Vista Home Basic
Similar to Windows XP Home Edition, Home Basic is intended for budget users not requiring advanced media support for home use. The Windows Aero theme with translucent effects will not be included with this edition. Home Basic will support up to 8 GB of physical memory.

Windows Vista Home Premium
Containing all features from Home Basic, this edition will additionally support more advanced features aimed for the home market segment, such as HDTV support and DVD authoring. Extra games, mobile and tablet computer support, file system encryption, and a photo management application are also included. This edition is comparable to Windows XP Media Center Edition and Tablet PC Edition. Home Premium will support up to 16 GB of physical memory.

Windows Vista Business
Comparable to Windows XP Professional, and aimed at the business market. Does not include the Media Center features of Home Premium, but does include the IIS web server, fax support, offline files, dual physical processor support, Remote Desktop, ad-hoc P2P collaboration capabilities, and support for 128 GB of memory. Product activation is not present in this edition.

Windows Vista Enterprise
This edition is aimed at the enterprise segment of the market, and is a superset of the Business edition. Additional features include a single-session version of Virtual PC, multilingual user interface support, BitLocker Drive Encryption, and UNIX application support. This edition will not be available through retail or OEM channels, but through Microsoft Software Assurance.[43]

Windows Vista Ultimate
This edition combines all the features of Home Premium and Enterprise editions, and additionally comes with podcast creation support, a game performance tweaker (WinSAT), DVD ripping capabilities, and special online services for downloadable media, as well as additional customer service options. The Ultimate edition is aimed to be the most impressive edition of Vista, aimed at high-end PC users, gamers, multimedia professionals, and PC enthusiasts.

"Home Basic N" and "Business N" editions of Windows Vista will additionally be available in the European Union. These editions will ship without Windows Media Player, as required by sanctions brought against Microsoft for violating anti-trust laws.[44]

The three retail editions (Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate) of Windows Vista will ship on the same DVD. The features of the Home Premium and Ultimate editions may be "unlocked" at any time by purchasing a one-time upgrade license through a Control Panel tool called Windows Anytime Upgrade. The Business edition will also be upgradable to Ultimate. Such licenses will be sold by Microsoft's partners and OEMs, but not directly by Microsoft.

On August 28, 2006, Microsoft Canada accidentally revealed the planned retail prices for Vista on their website, these were retracted within hours.[45] However, on the same day, Amazon.com started taking pre-orders for retail editions of Windows Vista, with a projected release date of January 30, 2007, and pricing as follows.
Regular Price Additional License Upgrade Price Additional License
Ultimate $399.00 $359.00 $259.00 $233.00
Business $299.00 $269.00 $199.95 $179.00
Home Premium $239.00 $215.00 $159.00 $143.00
Home Basic $199.00 $179.00 $99.95 $89.95

I'm sure Ultimate will be the one that gets pirated first. :D

Multimedia
Aug 29, 2006, 05:00 PM
Perfect • Not Only Is Vista Frickin' Buggy Inferior • It Cost $110 More Too :eek:

Leopard will eat Vista for breakfast. :)

D-rock
Aug 29, 2006, 05:57 PM
And you and people like you represent how much of the population?

I'm curious as to what exactly you're trying to say? There is plenty of "work" that can be, and is, done on a Mac.

The next time you're watching TV, listening to music, reading a magazine, etc etc etc, you had better remember that there are those of us who have to "work" to get those things to consumers like you, and out of that workforce, Mac users represent a sizeable chunk.

EDIT- or were you just being sarcastic when you said macs were for "play"? :confused:

Demoman
Aug 29, 2006, 06:45 PM
I don't know what people are fussing about. If these price points are true, Windows Vista is pretty cheap.

Remember, if you buy Vista, it'll most likely last at least 4-5 years before the next paid upgrade, unlike with OS X where if you want the latest and greatest, you're looking at an upgrade almost every year.

Vista looks to be a big jump from WinXP too, and seems a lot more mac-like. Complain all you want, but more competition puts Cupertino into a sweat and drives Apple into innovating even more. Support for Direct X 10 is going to be felt in about 1-2 years when people start getting DX10 graphics cards and more games take advantage of it.

At least with Apple you DO get the 'greatest'. Not so with Brand X I am afraid. How long has it taken MS to get a new OS out? Years! And if MS could charge for their Service Packs, by calling them something new, they would. But, their product is so full of bad code they cannot do it. Also, your view that MS's innovation "..puts Cupertino into a sweat and drives Apple into innovating even more." is a laugh. It might stop some of the bleeding in Redmond. Vista better be a success. Otherwise, the market share is going to shrink even further.

Demoman
Aug 29, 2006, 07:25 PM
I think the prices of Windows and OSX are quite the same. You can buy a new version of OSX more frequently for a lower price per each version, or buy a new version of Windows once and pay more for it but receive free updates/service packs for years. The yearly costs are quite the same.

The difference is Apple is actually providing leading edge desktop OS's. MS is fixing problems, or making minor improvements under duress. For example, my company was using Windows 2000, finally free of many of the real time consuming IT support nightmares due to using NT 4.0. I actually thought 2K was fairly decent. Then XP came out. We did a couple test installs. Yuk!

Systems resource usage went way up. We could not effectively run anything with less than 1GB, and that was not a common configuration back then. We had many HP PIII 550/600 Pavilions. Their performance was noticeably impacted by XP. What was worse, I did not really notice any obvious feature improvements. Then the XP SP1 horror stories began to filter in. Bottom line, we did not do any migration to XP until SP2 came out, and only did it with new computer purchases.

The timeframe for this short dissertation is approximately 6 years. I have not actually upgraded a single OS. MS has not offered an OS upgrade that was compelling enough to invest in. On the other hand, I cannot wait to buy the latest offering from Apple. The price for their innovation is cheap and I always think it was money well spent. Both MS and Apple do R&D, but it is somewhat different.

Apple - Research & Development
MS - Receive & Deposit

kcmac
Aug 29, 2006, 08:19 PM
I'm more productive working on a Windows machine, as there are less distractions.

What are you talking about? I work on a PC most of the day at work and it is very distracting. Dialog boxes, pinging noises, etc. Outlook will freeze my computer with a hidden dialog box asking me if I want to archive my files. My mac never does this to me.

You don't use a Mac at all if ever.

ipedro
Aug 29, 2006, 09:43 PM
For $500 you can buy a MacMini preinstalled with OSX Leopard which will probably (likely) come with virtualization without the need for a Windows partition.

Windows Vista looks more and more like it will totally lose the war against Leopard.

2007 is going to be the year when OSX gains huge momentum over Windows and begins to regain its throne as the most popular OS.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 2006, 11:22 PM
I really do think many consumers are really going to be confused with Vista's pricing system and suckered into buying a more expensive product.

Evangelion
Aug 30, 2006, 02:36 AM
Perfect • Not Only Is Vista Frickin' Buggy Inferior • It Cost $110 More Too :eek:

Leopard will eat Vista for breakfast. :)

But then again, you could run it on dirt-cheap generic PC, whereas Leopard needs a Mac.

simie
Aug 30, 2006, 03:28 AM
Here is some more details

News Source: www.longhornblogs.com

Microsoft.com Canada has released pricing for Windows Vista. Windows Vista Ultimate is listed at $499 Canadian which translates into $450.36 in USD. Home Premium is listed at $299 or $269.86 USD, Vista Ultimate Upgrade is priced at $299 or $269.86 USD, while Home Premium Upgrade is $199 or $179.60 USD.. Amazon.com has all prices online for pre-order. They've also listed a launch date, which apparently is January 30th, 2007.

Edition Regular Price Additional License Upgrade Price Additional License
Ultimate $399.00 $359.00 $259.00 $233.00
Business $299.00 $269.00 $199.95 $179.00
Home Premium $239.00 $215.00 $159.00 $143.00
Home Basic $199.00 $179.00 $99.95 $89.95

Anyone know the UK pricing?

nplima
Aug 30, 2006, 05:15 AM
Edition Regular Price Additional License Upgrade Price Additional License
Ultimate $399.00 $359.00 $259.00 $233.00
Business $299.00 $269.00 $199.95 $179.00
Home Premium $239.00 $215.00 $159.00 $143.00
Home Basic $199.00 $179.00 $99.95 $89.95

Anyone know the UK pricing?

well, duh... replace the US$ with £
isn't that the way it's usually done ? ;)

Way back on this thread ZoomZoomZoom said:
Skip Vista and you'll probably be a decade behind at some point.

And this would be the single point that consumers should think about when upgrading Windows versions: exactly what is Vista adding to XP?
From what I can see there's the promise of security that MS has been renewing ever since 1995, there's the Aero theme and there's DRM.

As for the new look on MS Windows, I can't see it as a reason to upgrade. Right now I have a Ubuntu box configured with XGL-Compiz, all the transparency bits, windows wobbling and all that... on a Celeron with a GeForce MX440 card. My Powerbook has nice windows and the Exposé effects run smoothly on its hardware from 2003 thank you very much.

Regarding DRM, I'll pass. Really. I'm not is the US, so why should I be getting an OS that has been built according to the requirements of the MPAA/RIAA? I'd rather get Ubuntu Linux and then add media plugins that suit what I need to do, and choose them correctly under the context of portuguese law.

So, I ask again, what am I geeting with a new box of Windows? the same security improvements MS has been promising for the last 10 years, or security features sold as extras by MS to try and get some revenue from fixing the problems their own software design couldn't prevent in the first place?

ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 2006, 08:08 AM
Here is some more details

News Source: www.longhornblogs.com

Microsoft.com Canada has released pricing for Windows Vista. Windows Vista Ultimate is listed at $499 Canadian which translates into $450.36 in USD. Home Premium is listed at $299 or $269.86 USD, Vista Ultimate Upgrade is priced at $299 or $269.86 USD, while Home Premium Upgrade is $199 or $179.60 USD.. Amazon.com has all prices online for pre-order. They've also listed a launch date, which apparently is January 30th, 2007.

Edition Regular Price Additional License Upgrade Price Additional License
Ultimate $399.00 $359.00 $259.00 $233.00
Business $299.00 $269.00 $199.95 $179.00
Home Premium $239.00 $215.00 $159.00 $143.00
Home Basic $199.00 $179.00 $99.95 $89.95

Anyone know the UK pricing?

I find that a little pricey for just playing Solitare and running Disk Defrag on ;)

mrgreen4242
Aug 30, 2006, 08:50 AM
As I've heard from those who've actually used Vista, Aero is the only reason to install it (thus far at least). Home Basic does not include Aero.

Assuming my Windows-using companions are correct, Home Basic thusly has nothing to offer. Hence, it is crap.

Q.E.D.

-Clive
AH, see what you take for a reason not get it I take for just the very reason I want it... The ONLY thing I would Windows for are gaming and running one DB app that doesn't have an OSX version (yet - the next revision, which should be out before Vista, they claim will, woowoo).

So, for the most part I just want to boot into Windows to play a game or two. Which means that I want the leanest, least resource using Windows installation I can get. And the cheapest. As long as Vista Home Basic supports DX10 and all these "Vista exclusive" games that are being announced it will suffice for 75% of the Mac/Boot Camp crowd... and only cost $100. Probably snag it for $70 if you wait a bit and get an OEM copy from Newegg.

Vista+BootCamp = Wintendo.

Booya!

dapodaca
Aug 30, 2006, 09:04 AM
I'm sure Ultimate will be the one that gets pirated first. :D

Yes, some evil genius hacker will introduce something like Windows Vista Ultimate Cracked Edition(tm) complete with secret malware backdoor for use in wielding mighty botnets or other sins of the Internets seedy side! :D :eek:

mrgreen4242
Aug 30, 2006, 09:35 AM
Shrug, I kind of agree with the other poster - I'm more productive working on a Windows machine, as there are less distractions. When it comes to digital media, however, Apple's the way to go.

I'm also to the point of getting a MacBook for my next computer so I can bring it to work... I am SO much more efficient on my Mac than on my work PC. It's mostly due to expose, spotlight, and the dashboard.

I work with about 4 or 5 applications all day everyday, and with expose I can switch between them quicker and more accurately, allowing me to get a better work flow going. Spotlight should be obvious; I deal with roughly 200-250 database reports regularly, but I can never find the one I want. Same for emails (during my busy time of year it's about 20 a day I have to respond to, I'm down to 5 or so now, though). Dashboard is purely for slacking off - but I can do it faster and 'waste' less time checking my email, the top stories on digg, etc.

If there was a slick docking station for the MacBook I'd have one (and two docks) for it already... I suppose the PITA connecting OS X to our domain server is also stopping me. And the fact that (I don't think) our database frontend has an OS X version ready just yet.

HecubusPro
Aug 30, 2006, 09:44 AM
I'm also to the point of getting a MacBook for my next computer so I can bring it to work... I am SO much more efficient on my Mac than on my work PC. It's mostly due to expose, spotlight, and the dashboard.

I've already two computers on my desk at work, both of which are XP boxes, and I'd still rather bring my (as soon as C2D ships) MBP to work on that. Though I don't know if I'd actually want to hook it into the network at work. It's a pretty shady one.

Of course, not having had an macintel before, I have a question about parallels. How easy is it really to switch between the two systems? Is it a PITA or is it pretty easy? For me, it's easy to move from computer to computer to work with very little productivity lost. How much time does it take to switch between OS's when using Parallels?

Thanks.

AidenShaw
Aug 30, 2006, 09:57 AM
How much time does it take to switch between OS's when using Parallels?
You're switching to an open window running Windows. It's instant.

It's really about the same as a Remote Desktop Connection window - the Parallels copy of Windows is running completely inside an OSX window. The Windows taskbar is at the bottom of the window, etc.

Ubuntu
Aug 30, 2006, 05:50 PM
You'd think that considering Windows being famous for security problems, Microsoft would provide the 'extra good security' for free, or a lower price...

Of course, rumours!

amin
Aug 30, 2006, 06:55 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but will throw in my two cents on the original topic. I think it's fair for MS to charge considerably more for an OS that represents a few years of work than Apple charges for their yearly OS. I prefer Apple's, and I buy each new Apple OS as it comes out, but I still think it's not fair to compare cost straight away. Microsoft's multi-level charging does seem a bit extreme though.

slinger1968
Aug 30, 2006, 10:36 PM
Back on topic...

I don't know why people are going on and on about the $400 price for Windows Vista Ultimate version. That's a retail price, just like the $300 retail price for windows XP. Only an idiot would buy a retail version of windows when you can get the same full install (not an upgrade) oem version for a fraction of that price.

A retail version of Windows XP professional SP2 is $300 at compUSA and the OEM of XP pro SP2 is $130 at my local PC parts store.

Retail pricing isn't even worth discussing unless Microsoft decides to end oem sales of windows.

MikeTheC
Aug 30, 2006, 10:50 PM
Back on topic...

I don't know why people are going on and on about the $400 price for Windows Vista Ultimate version. That's a retail price, just like the $300 retail price for windows XP. Only an idiot would buy a retail version of windows when you can get the same full install (not an upgrade) oem version for a fraction of that price.

A retail version of Windows XP professional SP2 is $300 at compUSA and the OEM of XP pro SP2 is $130 at my local PC parts store.

Retail pricing isn't even worth discussing unless Microsoft decides to end oem sales of windows.

Of course, that also assumes that the average person walking into a major retailer would or could know that little bit of info.

Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista. I'm not a gamer, I neither develop in or have a need to use apps built in VB or MSAccess. I no longer work for Sony supporting PCs running Windows, and so frankly I have no need for anything other than a Mac.

And frankly if I ever decided to get into gaming (not impossible, but highly doubtful) I'd probably just get a gaming console and hook it up to my LCD panel.

slinger1968
Aug 30, 2006, 11:43 PM
Of course, that also assumes that the average person walking into a major retailer would or could know that little bit of info.The average consumer certainly could know about oem versions of windows if they did any research at all, it's pretty much common knowledge in the PC world.

Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista.That's fine, I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch to windows. No need to get defensive.

I just wanted people on here with little to no windows background to understand that the $400 retail price isn't what you will pay for the software when you buy it included with a system or on it's own oem.

CrazyEngineer
Aug 31, 2006, 04:30 AM
Pardon me if this post is a spam :) . Will Vista be released & shipped all over the world on 30th of Jan, 2007?

generik
Aug 31, 2006, 06:00 AM
I don't know if I should give this a postive or negative. Either way, I hate Microsoft.

It is good news, at 400 buckeroos people will go "Wa!!" and look at the price tag of a Mac Mini, figuring Macs are not so expensive after all.

dwd3885
Aug 31, 2006, 08:20 AM
it's not all that expensive considering Apple has release three OS upgrades since XP came out at least. If you add those together it is more expensive than Vista. That's how you have to look at it

notjustjay
Aug 31, 2006, 09:56 AM
it's not all that expensive considering Apple has release three OS upgrades since XP came out at least. If you add those together it is more expensive than Vista. That's how you have to look at it

But (as has probably been said already) you don't HAVE to buy every upgrade.

I paid for an OS upgrade once, from Jaguar to Panther. I'm still debating whether to buy Tiger. I might just skip the Tiger generation and go directly to Leopard.

Rower_CPU
Aug 31, 2006, 11:26 AM
DRM discussion has been moved into a separate thread. Let's keep this on topic.

Thanks :)

combatcolin
Aug 31, 2006, 01:29 PM
You know, i used to dispise Microsoft, now..well i still sort of put up with them.

slinger1968
Aug 31, 2006, 03:29 PM
It is good news, at 400 buckeroos people will go "Wa!!" and look at the price tag of a Mac Mini, figuring Macs are not so expensive after all.How is it good news?

General consumers aren't going to buy a $400 retail version of windows Vista. They will wait to get the new OS untill they purchase a new machine and Vista will be included (or an available upgrade) at an oem price level.

This retail pricing of Vista is about the same as the retail price of XP. But who cares, the vast majority of people don't buy windows retail.

Snowy_River
Sep 1, 2006, 12:35 AM
it's not all that expensive considering Apple has release three OS upgrades since XP came out at least. If you add those together it is more expensive than Vista. That's how you have to look at it

This is a very hollow argument. For this to be valid, you have to only consider five year old computers. Consider any computer that is about two years old, and you have computers that, on the one hand, shipped with Windows XP and, on the other hand, shipped with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Now, we have the release of Leopard and Vista! Mac users pay... $129! Windows users pay... $399! Which is cheaper?

Okay, maybe you'll insist on considering computers up to three years old. Now we have Macs having shipped with Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, and Windows machines having shipped with Windows XP. So, now we've reached today (or a few months from now, as the case may be), and Mac users who chose to upgrade each time will get up to Leopard for $129+$129=$258! And Windows users who want to try to keep up buy Vista for $399! But, then there are the Mac users who weren't that impressed with Tiger, so they waited for Leopard. They only pay $129!

I could go on, but I won't. Yes, you can present the argument that 4 x $129 = $516 is greater than Vista costing $399, but it is a very tenuous argument, as I've shown above. Realistically, Leopard is primarily aimed at computers that have been built within the past few years. Therefore, the cost of upgrades only hits one or at most two of the upgrade cycles, and is significantly less than the cost of Vista.

slinger1968
Sep 1, 2006, 03:51 AM
Mac users pay... $129! Windows users pay... $399! Which is cheaper?Your little scenario is completely unrealistic. I know you want to throw that big $399 number around to try and prove your point, but please stop, it's pointless.

Someone upgrading from XP to Vista will either buy the upgrade version of Vista or if they are smart they will buy the full version oem. Your reasonable max amount to upgrade to Vista Ultimate is $259.00 and that's the MSRP (it wont stay $259). Plus you are assuming everyone is going to upgrade to ultimate, I know you don't want to mention that many people will uprgrade to home basic which is cheaper than OSX.

An oem full install of Vista ultimate will be under $200 based on the retail to oem pricing of all of Microsoft's OS's since win95. I expect an oem of Vista Ultimate will be about $180 at Newegg within 6 months to a year of it's release.

Retail box sales of windows is a tiny tiny fraction of the total sales of windows. It just makes those that continue to bring it up look silly because you don't understand the PC market. I've used PCs for over 20 years and have never known anyone who's purchased a full retail version of windows. I've used apple comps for over 25 years now too.

People need to stop with the "OMG windows is $400" talk. It's just silly.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2006, 10:19 AM
People need to stop with the "OMG windows is $400" talk. It's just silly.

It doesn't seem silly to me at all. What is the point of upgrading to Vista Home Basic? It's a substantially crippled version of the OS, and doesn't seem to offer much if anything over XP, and certainly nothing compelling. To get something closer to OSX's out-of-the box functionality, they'll need to spend far more. It's true that retail box upgrades are a small fraction of Windows sales, but this only goes to show how wary Windows users are of upgrading, and that the vast majority will only buy into the newest version of Windows when it comes pre-installed on a new PC -- IOW, when they have no other choice.

One of the many ironies here is that we're forever hearing about how Apple shafts their customers with high prices, but when Microsoft does it in an even more naked and obvious way, people fall all over themselves to excuse it. Now that's silly!

slinger1968
Sep 1, 2006, 04:17 PM
It doesn't seem silly to me at all. What is the point of upgrading...It certainly is silly. People UPGRADING to Vista, as you just said, aren't going to buy the full retail $399 box. That's stupid. They are going to buy the Upgrade or oem.

It's true that retail box upgrades are a small fraction of Windows sales, but this only goes to show how wary Windows users are of upgrading, and that the vast majority will only buy into the newest version of Windows when it comes pre-installed on a new PC -- IOW, when they have no other choice.

One of the many ironies here is that we're forever hearing about how Apple shafts their customers with high prices, but when Microsoft does it in an even more naked and obvious way, people fall all over themselves to excuse it. Now that's silly!I think M$FT completely sucks as a company. They are a necessary evil that I can deal with (just like many other corporations) and if they piss me off too much I will stop purchasing their products like I've done with other companies.

The problem with so many Mac appologists is that they are incapable of having an honest debate. You and snowy could rightly argue against the $259 upgrade price of Vista Ultimate or the ~$180 OEM price of Vista ultimate but you don't. You and others like you would rather be disingenous and go on and on about the $399 retail box version that very few will buy.

If people are upgrading from XP to Vista they will buy the software at the upgrade price or the oem price.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2006, 05:16 PM
It certainly is silly. People UPGRADING to Vista, as you just said, aren't going to buy the full retail $399 box. That's stupid. They are going to buy the Upgrade or oem.

I think M$FT completely sucks as a company. They are a necessary evil that I can deal with (just like many other corporations) and if they piss me off too much I will stop purchasing their products like I've done with other companies.

The problem with so many Mac appologists is that they are incapable of having an honest debate. You and snowy could rightly argue against the $259 upgrade price of Vista Ultimate or the ~$180 OEM price of Vista ultimate but you don't. You and others like you would rather be disingenous and go on and on about the $399 retail box version that very few will buy.

If people are upgrading from XP to Vista they will buy the software at the upgrade price or the oem price.You apparently didn't notice, but I did not even mention a $399 retail price, let alone "spout off" about it. If you go back and read what I wrote, you might note that I talked only about the value of the $99 basic Vista upgrade, and that a Windows XP user would have to spend considerably more to get not only (1) some of the more important features Microsoft is advertising for Vista that distinguish it from XP, and (2) features comparable to those that come with every install of OSX.

If you care to respond to those points, then by all means, please feel free.

slinger1968
Sep 1, 2006, 05:40 PM
You apparently didn't notice, but I did not even mention a $399 retail price, let alone "spout off" about it.Sure you did. Go back and read your response to the portion of my post that you quoted.

You directly/exclusively quoted...People need to stop with the "OMG windows is $400" talk. It's just silly.and responded / spouted off with...It doesn't seem silly to me at all.Your direct quote and response to that portion of my post certainly is a mention of the $399 retail price. You directly refered to the $399 retail price and commented on it.

Refering to the $399 retail price of Vista Ultimate when we were obviously discussing "upgrading" from XP to Vista is either ignorant or disingenuous. I'll let you decide which of the two best describes you.

Have fun with that

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2006, 05:46 PM
The flip side of my closing comment: if you don't wish to respond to what I wrote, then please do not respond.

slinger1968
Sep 1, 2006, 06:17 PM
Remember that you quoted and responded to my post on a discussion about the cost of UPGRADING from XP to Vista. The $399 price is not an upgrade price. Mentioning or refering to the $399 retail box edition is either ignorant or disingenuous in a discussion on UPGRADING from XP to Vista.

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 1, 2006, 06:33 PM
Retail price for Vista Blows, my next system will be a Mac. Windows is like a generic copy of OS9 Made in China, Im sure Vista will be the same.

slinger1968
Sep 1, 2006, 06:47 PM
Retail price for Vista Blows, my next system will be a Mac.I couldn't agree more

My next system will a Mac Pro or whatever the towers are called next spring/summer but I'll still buy windows to go with OSX. I just wont be paying anything close to $400 even if I do decide to go with Vista Ultimate. ;)

weg
Sep 2, 2006, 04:14 AM
My $129 dollar investment in Leopard is going to look like even more of a steal ... :D

Considering that Windows XP was released in 2001, Windows Vista correpsonds to Jaguar+Panther+Tiger, which is 3*129=387, which is much closer to the price of Windows Vista ;-)

EDIT: And btw., as some other users noted, the $129 for Mac OS X is the price for an update..

Chundles
Sep 2, 2006, 04:19 AM
EDIT: And btw., as some other users noted, the $129 for Mac OS X is the price for an update..

Well, yes and no. I can do a full install on a Mac with a boxed copy of OSX because the license is in the hardware. You can't do a blank-HDD install of an update version of Windows.

slinger1968
Sep 2, 2006, 07:36 PM
You can't do a blank-HDD install of an update version of Windows.You can do a clean install from an XP upgrade disc, it just involves a little work around disc swapping.

clevin
Sep 2, 2006, 11:25 PM
This is a very hollow argument. For this to be valid, you have to only consider five year old computers. Consider any computer that is about two years old, and you have computers that, on the one hand, shipped with Windows XP and, on the other hand, shipped with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Now, we have the release of Leopard and Vista! Mac users pay... $129! Windows users pay... $399! Which is cheaper?

lol, please be honest, in next 5 years, you will need only update windows once (XP->Vista), and you will need to update OSX at least 3 times. Apple is ripping people off on this, there is no question about it, all these ".1" incremental update should not have a price more than $60 at all.

MacinDoc
Sep 2, 2006, 11:30 PM
lol, please be honest, in next 5 years, you will need only update windows once (XP->Vista), and you will need to update OSX at least 3 times. Apple is ripping people off on this, there is no question about it, all these ".1" incremental update should not have a price more than $60 at all.
Or you could just update from OS X 10.1 to 10.5, for $129. That would be equivalent to updating from XP to Vista, because you would have gone 5 years without a significant upgrade. If you don't think the incremental features of a .1 update are worth the price, then don't buy it...

And if you really want a bargain, buy a family pack to use on up to 5 Macs in your home. Only $199. Try that with Vista!

And those who say that this is just an upgrade price are incorrect. This is the full retail price for a complete boxed install set.

slinger1968
Sep 3, 2006, 05:08 PM
And those who say that this is just an upgrade price are incorrect. This is the full retail price for a complete boxed install set.All Mac OS packages sold on their own are upgrade kits.

Under the EULA you can only run Mac OS's on Mac Hardware and all Mac computers come with the OS. So what you are buying is an upgrade.

Under the EULA you cannot buy and install a Mac OS for a computer that didn't already come with the Mac OS.

ALL Mac OS's sold on their own are upgrades.

pizzach
Sep 3, 2006, 05:31 PM
OMG!!! $400 !?!?!?!?!?!?!

Now that I am done doing that. The only thing I don't like about people saying you can wait the OS out is that I don't think Apple makes security fixes to those OSes one the newer one comes out. Am I wrong?

contoursvt
Sep 3, 2006, 07:24 PM
I'm sure you can do a clean install on the same disk from 2000 to vista (since 2000 was release a bit before 10.1, I't would be fair to not even bother bringing win98 in the scene or we'll have to drag OS 8.5 in the talks) :)

You can easily upgrade OS X from 10.1 straight to 10.5 (atleast 10.4), and if you can't, do a clean install because it's a same damn disk. Can you upgrade Win98 to Vista?



People said the same thing about XP, but all it did was to take 2000/NT code back then, add few drivers and paint it ugly blue.

MacinDoc
Sep 3, 2006, 08:16 PM
All Mac OS packages sold on their own are upgrade kits.

Under the EULA you can only run Mac OS's on Mac Hardware and all Mac computers come with the OS. So what you are buying is an upgrade.

Under the EULA you cannot buy and install a Mac OS for a computer that didn't already come with the Mac OS.

ALL Mac OS's sold on their own are upgrades.
In other words, you can only run OS X on a Mac, because all Macs ship with it.
But you can buy OS X 10.4 and install it on any Mac sold in the last 5 years. You don't need 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3 installed in order to install 10.4, and I imagine 10.5 will be the same.

slinger1968
Sep 4, 2006, 03:53 AM
In other words, you can only run OS X on a Mac, because all Macs ship with it.No, You can run OS X on non Macs but not legally under the EULA because currently Apple only sells OS X as an OEM with it's hardware or as an upgrade for systems that already come with a Mac OS.
But you can buy OS X 10.4 and install it on any Mac sold in the last 5 years. You don't need 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3 installed in order to install 10.4, and I imagine 10.5 will be the same.So what. You can buy an upgrade package of winXP and install it on any computer well over 5 years old that had win98 installed on it. You didn't need to install WinMe, Win NT, or Win2000.

You are legally only allowed to install the stand alone OS X 10.4 software on systems that originally came with the Mac OS. It's an upgrade.

MacinDoc
Sep 4, 2006, 09:20 AM
No, You can run OS X on non Macs but not legally under the EULA because currently Apple only sells OS X as an OEM with it's hardware or as an upgrade for systems that already come with a Mac OS.
So what. You can buy an upgrade package of winXP and install it on any computer well over 5 years old that had win98 installed on it. You didn't need to install WinMe, Win NT, or Win2000.

You are legally only allowed to install the stand alone OS X 10.4 software on systems that originally came with the Mac OS. It's an upgrade.
Yes, the point is that Apple is trying to prevent people from running OS X on non-Mac computers. End of story.

slinger1968
Sep 4, 2006, 06:48 PM
Yes, the point is that Apple is trying to prevent people from running OS X on non-Mac computers. End of story.No, this is incorrect.

Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.

Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.

pink-pony115
Sep 4, 2006, 08:23 PM
For the people who thinks that Vista is too expensive:

Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.

Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.

What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:

MacinDoc
Sep 4, 2006, 10:42 PM
No, this is incorrect.

Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.

Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.
You're missing the point. If you have a Mac that meets the hardware requirements, you can purchase any version of OS X, there is no other software prerequisite. The fact that it is an "upgrade" is irrelevant, because you don't already to have any other software, other that what the computer originally shipped with.

For the people who thinks that Vista is too expensive:

Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.

Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.

What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:
Think again...

Robert Weston (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3) and Yuval Kossovsky (ComputerWorld) (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&source=NLT_MAC&nlid=62) both found the Mac Pro to be hundreds of dollars less than an equivalent Dell...

matttrick
Sep 4, 2006, 10:46 PM
dumbest

argument

ever

you guys are arguing over nickels and dimes when it really comes down to preference. people who like os x buy it. people who like windows buy it. they dont sit and think about the cost difference between the two for the most part.

i thought die hard mac os freaks loved it for its functionality and stability, not its price advantage? and windows haters just hate windows no matter what. good for them. im a big whore and ill get the benefits of both. ;)

MacinDoc
Sep 4, 2006, 11:30 PM
dumbest

argument

ever

you guys are arguing over nickels and dimes when it really comes down to preference. people who like os x buy it. people who like windows buy it. they dont sit and think about the cost difference between the two for the most part.

i thought die hard mac os freaks loved it for its functionality and stability, not its price advantage? and windows haters just hate windows no matter what. good for them. im a big whore and ill get the benefits of both. ;)
I hate Windows because I fight with it at work every day. Windows is why I have a Mac.

But the point of this thread is the debate over whether Vista will be reasonably priced at $399 for a full install set, vs. $129 for OS X 10.5.

IJ Reilly
Sep 4, 2006, 11:50 PM
Cost aside for the moment, it's Microsoft's decision to sell such a bewildering number of versions that I find so remarkable. I think it says a lot about Microsoft that they can't seem to settle on one implementation of Windows that would suit all users equally well. Apple has seen to it that the Mac is a Mac. Windows is now like a half-dozen vaguely different things, depending. Another level of confusion, introduced deliberately.

balamw
Sep 6, 2006, 01:51 AM
Cost aside for the moment, it's Microsoft's decision to sell such a bewildering number of versions that I find so remarkable.
I agree, though this (if true) makes that less of a real issue.
The three retail editions (Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate) of Windows Vista will ship on the same DVD. The features of the Home Premium and Ultimate editions may be "unlocked" at any time by purchasing a one-time upgrade license through a Control Panel tool called Windows Anytime Upgrade. The Business edition will also be upgradable to Ultimate. Such licenses will be sold by Microsoft's partners and OEMs, but not directly by Microsoft.
This is a change from XP where there was no good way to go "pro" if you already had "Home" installed, even though they had promised such a path during the beta.

B

BWhaler
Sep 6, 2006, 02:08 AM
"Download" Price: Free

Cracking Windows Authentication: Free

Running Vista as a ghetto OS in Parallels: Priceless

a456
Sep 6, 2006, 04:16 AM
It is strange that MS don't seem to have given us a common table of comparison, I wonder why?

I have no intention of switching to Vista from Mac OS X, but just for my own amusement I would love to see a table of comparison for the five different versions of Vista, because aside from the Data Encryption all that the *ULTIMATE* version seems to have is a Photo Programme, a Movie Maker, and a Media Interface, and the upgrade version costs twice the amount of OS X, which has superior photo and movie apps. And for people without XP the price is phenomenal.

The basic doesn't even have the much flaunted "aero" interface, what does it look like then without it, and why miss off such a defining feature of your new OS from one of its versions?

I'm glad that I don't have to make the choice between the different versions and that I made the simple choice years ago to choose Mac over PC.

(BTW, do they need permission to use this name from Cadbury, in the UK aero is a type of chocolate bar with loads of air bubbles in)

kerpow
Sep 12, 2006, 05:36 AM
Interesting article on Vista. I expect MS will copy Apple and build the next OS around a Linux or FreeBSD kernel.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1868642,00.html

SBT
Sep 13, 2006, 06:23 PM
Yeh, Vista....whats good about it? lol.
Another year to wait and even then it will probably be delayed. Meanwhile Leopard comes out and Vista will copy:p

ortuno2k
Sep 14, 2006, 09:51 PM
As an ex-employee of a computer retail store, I always used to get the questions.."What's the different between XP home & Pro?" "Does XP Pro come with Word, that's why it costs more?" Etc..

Microsoft continues to ship buggy software and confuse the hell out of people.
And for those complaining that OS X was more expensive than Windows Vista over time, think again...The updates aren't as needed from one version to the next, so you may choose to skip one or two, for example from 10.3 to 10.4, and skip to 10.5. It will cost you $129.99 (or whatever the price for 10.5 is), while Windows Vista costs a lot more, and it's just another bugged version of Windows XP.

I went Mac a year ago and will NEVER buy/build another PC.