Windows 7 to me is going to be expensive!

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by waloshin, Apr 26, 2009.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    Not, saying that these are 100% legit until Windows 7 comes out and we know, but I find these prices expensive. You?

    * Windows 7 Starter - $199.95
    * Windows 7 Home Premium - $259.95
    * Windows 7 Professional - $299.95
    * Windows 7 Ultimate- $319.95
    * Windows 7 Enterprise - unknown yet
     
  2. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
  3. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #3
    Probably, but with Mac osx you buy one os , that has all the features not 5 different versions. With the lower ones being crippled.
     
  4. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    Don't forget about the upgrade price, which is cheaper, and the system builder versions.
     
  5. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Yes... and Microsoft's business plan is different. You can't really compare the two except in total price of both OS'.
     
  6. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #6
    I really hope and believe they will do a great upgrade price for those of us that muddled through the " Vista experience "
     
  7. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    Why wouldn't they? They always have.
     
  8. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #8
  9. bobfitz14 macrumors 65816

    bobfitz14

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #9
    isn't the full and only version of OS X like $130? and the starter version of Windows 7 is going to be $200 (give or take), that is a little priceyyyyy.
     
  10. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    Yes, but most people buying Win7 will only need the upgrade, not the full version.
     
  11. bertpalmer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    #11
    Yes it is more expensive than OSX traditionally. Although I thought they were only going to release one version of 7?...
     
  12. dvince2 macrumors 6502

    dvince2

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    No no... In fact I thought they had another version as well( one for netbooks). Going now to search for a link.
     
  13. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #13
    And none of the Mac OS X versions have enterprise-ready features as the business editions of Windows have them, and the consumer versions of Windows have more consumer and home network friendly features than OS X (Media Center anyone?).

    Furthermore, Microsoft is not using an almost subscription-like business model as Apple -- meaning that a Windows release is much longer supported than an OS X release. You will still receive security updates for Windows XP in 2014 - that's guaranteed. Now go and ask Apple for security updates for Cheetah and Puma, which came out around the time when Windows XP was released. In the Apple world, the operating system is hardly supported long enough to meet the life cycle of the hardware (which, as every book keeper will tell you, usually is five years).

    I know the argument that nobody is forced to buy every update that Apple is selling. But that only works if you never buy additional new hardware (like new iPod which requires a new version of iTunes which only runs on certain operating system versions) or any new software -- the approach of not buying a new operating system version only works when you freeze your system configuration. That is not uncommon in business environments, but Apple is not in the business market.

    Anyway. I expect to buy the Systembuilder Ultimate Edition of 64-Bit Windows 7 for around 160 Euros - which is around what Vista Ultimate Systembuilder nowadays costs. Vista Ultimate Systembuilder was priced at around 220/230 Euros when it was released and then the prices dropped very quickly, but I don't expect this for Windows 7. I find this price very acceptable and well worth it.

    The biggest problem will be... Apple. I don't expect any 64-Bit Windows 7 compatible Boot Camp drivers from them before next year, and then they will probably only ship them for the newest Mac Pros. I don't care for the 32-Bit drivers at all, but chances are that those might be available sooner.
     
  14. michael.lauden macrumors 68020

    michael.lauden

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #14
    if it's so expensive... here's a thought.

    don't buy it - there are many other windows alternatives that will most likely be better
     
  15. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #15
    The thing you have to remember is that the price for OS X is technically an upgrade price because you are only licensed to install it on a Mac (which had OS X on originally)
     
  16. McShizzel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    I think I remember (although I could be wrong, me memory ain't so good no more) when Vista launched in Canada the full install ultimate edition was being sold for $400 to $550.

    I haven't tried the beta of Windows 7 but from what I hear it's what Vista was suppose to be.
     
  17. rwilliams macrumors 68040

    rwilliams

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    #17
    I've never understood why Microsoft has to sell Windows in so many different versions. Either give the people the full version right out of the box, or add a feature that will allow more advanced users to unlock/enable advanced features. There's no need to sell crippled versions of an OS.

    I hope those prices are not the final ones, but in any event, Windows 7 will be the first version of Windows that I will buy off the shelf. Probably the Professional version. I am quite impressed with Microsoft's work on this OS. It runs beautifully on my MacBook via Boot Camp.
     
  18. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #18
    First time I heard the words Microsoft, impressed, and OS in the same sentence since Vista. Anyway, I think Microsoft should really have three versions. One for Pros, one for business/enterprise, and one for home/beginner. That is basically what the 5 versions are but separated a bit more. Beginner (Starter), Home (Home Premium), Pros (Professional), People who want it all (Ultimate) and Business Sector (Enterprise).

    Just bundle 3 versions. Home, Professional, and Enterprise. That's the version scheme of XP and it worked tremendously well (XP is still used heavily and I mean heavily in the Business Sector).


    Quote from Steve Jobs, "When hell freezes over."
     
  19. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #19
    These prices don't matter, most Windows users who want Windows 7 will be buying the upgrade versions and the rest will just get Windows 7 pre-installed on their new PC.

    Full retail boxed copies are most likely the lowest selling version of the OS. Mac users probably buy more than PC owning counterparts.
     
  20. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
  21. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #21
    Which is crazy!
     
  22. Matek macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #22
    First of all, saying lower versions are "crippled" isn't really fair. They simply don't have certain features some users may not need and aren't willing to pay for. It's a good example of choice vs. simplicity. Apple chooses to make everything simple - you have a very small choice of computer models, you only have one version of OS, only one keyboard, one mouse, one type of monitor, one type of wireless router, etc. The advantage of this is the easiness of the whole experience. You know that everything you buy will simply work out of the box, you don't have to worry about compatibility and you can easily decide what to buy. The only problem is you have to accept what they give you. It's either Apple's way or the highway and if you dislike something (the way an interface works, laptop screen resolution, whatever) - tough luck, take it or leave it.

    Other computer companies offer you much more choice - there are hundreds of different models of laptops, a bunch of versions of OSes, but the problem is you need some basic computer knowledge to process it all, which can be confusing for beginners. That's why Apple is "user friendly". But there are plenty of people who know what they want and for them, choice is good. You can buy EXACTLY what you want, configure it the way you want it to work and most importantly - you know you're paying for just the stuff you need.

    Like someone already said, this isn't really a fair comparison. People who buy OS X already bought some kind of Apple's computer (and consequently paid for OS X already), so not only is this just an upgrade price, but Apple is also exactly aware it's going into the hands of people who already bought their stuff and a low price will convince them to stay with them and buy more of their hardware. Because Apple is primarily a hardware company. Microsoft on the other hand can't sell their OS for a lower price and count on long turn profits, because the OS is their source of income.

    Windows 7 uses the same driver model as Vista, so drivers are compatible, which means that we won't have to wait for Apple to make everything from scratch again.

    That's an unfair thing to say. Just because Vista needs a lot of hardware resources, it doesn't mean it doesn't have some very useful features. Windows 7 is simply focused on performance.

    By that reasoning, since Apple said Snow Leopard will be mostly just polishing and performance improvements, you could say Leopard is crap and Snow Leopard is what Leopard was "supposed to be":rolleyes:.

    Guess what -- they are including that feature. You will be able to add features to your version, which means you can buy a cheaper edition and if you decide you need advanced features later, you will be able to upgrade to that edition.

    Once more: Guess what -- that's what they're going to do. Some of the mentioned versions will only be used in very specific environments, regular customers will have exactly three choices to pick from and they're pretty much the same as the ones you mentioned. More info.
     
  23. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #23
    hmm i am kind of confused by this. i think that it is a fair comparison on THE OPERATING SYSTEM ONLY.

    the scenario you described isnt really comparable either imo.

    vista can be quite expensive, even the base model is more expensive then OSX - we all know that windows 7 will be expensive.

    care to explain more??

    vista doesnt need a lot of resources. it needs LOADS. i think thats fair.

    but.. osx leopard isnt crap...it doesnt use lots of resources, it doesnt have stability issues, its nothing like vista. you keep saying that everybody is making crap comparions, but you fail to realise that you just made a bad/null/void one too.
     
  24. o2xygen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #24
    But vista IS crap, and it IS slow and it IS resource hungry. Windows 7 is taking everything good about Vista and making it better, faster and less resource hungry. In other words, its going to work how Vista was supposedly going to work.

    **** comparison imo
     
  25. Matek macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #25
    Let's say Toyota made a really nice set of tires that only worked on Toyotas. People would say "Wow, these tires are awsome, they make the car drive really well" and they would be forced to buy the Toyota, because they can't put the tires on their Mercedes. If Toyota made a new model of the tires, it would be very reasonable for them to sell them at a very cheap price - they know that the only people who will buy them are the people who already own their car. They're making a huge profit from the car, the tires are just a small fraction of the cost and they don't really worry if they sell well, they simply use them to get people to buy their cars. If they are satisfied with the price of the tires, they will probably get another Toyota after the current one dies.

    Michelin, on the other hand, has to make profits purely from selling tires. It would be unfair to compare the price of their tires to Toyota's. Their tires work on all cars and have to be sold at a real price, while the Toyota's are an inseparable part of the Toyota car package and their price is irrelevant, since the profits are gained from the whole package.

    That clear enough? :p

    How often have you used Vista? Because from my experience, the hardware needs are quite comparable to Leopard. If we compare memory, which is one of the main resources an OS can "hog" - 1GB of RAM is recommended for usual work, 2GB if you want to be comfortable. If you have an updated installation of Vista on a regular modern laptop, let's say a MacBook, it will run very nicely.

    Oh, so Leopard is both very fast and very stable. Why is it then that Apple is addressing stability and performance with Snow Leopard? That would be very foolish from them, they should instead work on new features if what you say is true. IMHO Leopard was simply slower than Tiger (like Vista is slower than XP) while bringing in some new features and Snow Leopard is going to be a combination of both (just like Windows 7).
     

Share This Page