Windows Vista Pricing Leaked

[Snowy_River]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The flip side of my closing comment: if you don't wish to respond to what I wrote, then please do not respond.

 

[slinger1968]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[MacinDoc]

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.

Think again...

Robert Weston (Associated Press) and Yuval Kossovsky (ComputerWorld) both found the Mac Pro to be hundreds of dollars less than an equivalent Dell...

 

[matttrick]

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.