Windows Vista Pricing Leaked

[Demoman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Perfect • Not Only Is Vista Frickin' Buggy Inferior • It Cost $110 More Too

Leopard will eat Vista for breakfast.

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

 

[simie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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!

 

[mrgreen4242]

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]

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]

Simultaneous

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Pardon me if this post is a spam . Will Vista be released & shipped all over the world on 30th of Jan, 2007?

 

[generik]

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]

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]

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]

DRM discussion has been moved into a separate thread. Let's keep this on topic.

Thanks

 

[combatcolin]

You know, i used to dispise Microsoft, now..well i still sort of put up with them.

 

[slinger1968]

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.