The momentum for Windows 7 continues to build, and it seems so far that Microsoft is doing a  good job at redeeming the Windows name after Vista.  Windows 7 is fast, seemingly very stable, application compatibility seems good, and the reaction from the tech community and media is far more favorable than it has been in the past couple of years.

So the technical side of Windows 7 is going pretty well, and we haven’t seen much out of marketing yet, but there have been many discussions online about how much Windows 7 will actually cost consumers.  Some have suggested it should be free, which is quite ridiculous, and others speculate it will be similar to what Windows Vista was.

One of my biggest displeasures with Windows Vista wasn’t so much on the technical side, as it was with the actual price and the lack of license bundles.  With some Vista licenses averaging out around $200, it just wasn’t economically feasible to outfit my entire house with copies of Vista, which I would have liked to have done.  I have roughly 5 PC’s in my house, so give or a take a bit, it could have easily cost over $1000 to get my home setup with Vista. 

Now I certainly don’t expect Windows 7 to be free, but I’m now wondering how Microsoft will set the pricing for new and upgrade purchases.  I really hope it reasonably priced, because going too high will have a real negative impact in my opinion.  I would like to see a simple upgrade from either Vista or XP for $99, with a 3-license family pack for $150.  I think that would be very competitive, and get even more people to upgrade.

What do you think?


Comments (Page 17)
21 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last
on Jun 29, 2009

What Price Point Should Microsoft Set for Windows 7?

free, give the people something back, especially those who you stole ideas from.

on Jun 29, 2009

free, give the people something back, especially those who you stole ideas from.

Agrred. Or give it away free because of the nightmare Vista caused when it was first released.

on Jun 29, 2009

kona0197

free, give the people something back, especially those who you stole ideas from.

Agrred. Or give it away free because of the nightmare Vista caused when it was first released.

Like that's going to happen!  And Ford is going to be giving away its next model because the tyres went flat on some previous ones.

on Jun 30, 2009

It's spelled "Tires"

on Jun 30, 2009

kona, you might spell it th YANK way but starkers is CORRECT

harpo

 

on Jun 30, 2009


Windows 7 pricing and availability announced

 

Windows 7 pricing and availability has just been announced, along with a couple nice benefits to help put you into Windows 7 at half the price. First, Windows 7 will be rolling out on new PCs starting October 22nd. But starting tomorrow if you buy a new PC from a participating retailer you'll be able to get Windows 7 for little or no cost at all. (See

www.windows.com/upgradeoffer

 
for more details)
As for pricing, the retail prices for full and upgrade versions of Windows 7 follow:

Windows 7 Home Premium (Upgrade): $119.99

Windows 7 Professional (Upgrade): $199.99

Windows 7 Ultimate (Upgrade): $219.99

Windows 7 Home Premium (Full): $199.99

Windows 7 Professional (Full): $299.99

Windows 7 Ultimate (Full): $319.99

And if you want to skirt around paying full price - pre-order! From tomorrow until July 11th in the US and Canada (July 5th for Japan) you can pre-order Windows 7 Home and Professional from the

Microsoft Store, Best Buy, or Amazon and get more than 50% off! That means Home Premium version for under $50 and Windows 7 Professional for under $100.

on Jun 30, 2009

Windows 7 pricing and availability announced

Are you always fashionably late?   That's all we've been talking about lately.

 

June 25, 2009 10:41:56

Microsoft sets Windows 7 prices: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/ptech/06/25/cnet.windows7.pricing.upgrade/index.html  Looks like if you pre-order for an upgrade only, you get a SUBSTANTIAL discount except for Ultimate.  No pre-order on that yet.

on Jun 30, 2009

kona, you might spell it th YANK way but starkers is CORRECT

 

Not according to the dictionary. My spelling is correct.

on Jun 30, 2009

kona, you might spell it th YANK way but starkers is CORRECT



Not according to the dictionary. My spelling is correct.

According to your dictionary, you are correct... but according to mine, I AM correct.

Oh, and the Oxford dictionary was based on the English language and written before yer Websters, so I'd have to say the original is more correct than the latter.

on Jun 30, 2009

What Island Dog said.  Simple and afordable for everyone concerned.

on Jun 30, 2009

This is a American website so I'm correct.

on Jun 30, 2009

kona0197
This is a American website so I'm correct.

Wait a minute.... ZubaZ posts here, so ..... EVERYONE ELSE IS CORRECT 

on Jul 01, 2009

This is a American website so I'm correct.

Um, correction!  This is a website based in America that goes worldwide... meaning that in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other countries, you are incorrect. 

You are correct in only one country... and the majority rules.

What's more, where did that bloke who wrote Websters get off changing the English language without prior consent from His and/or Her Majesty???  It's a bleedin' travesty!  First off it was tea in the harbour, then it was dropping the U so you's could deliberately misinterpret His Majesty's letter of protest on the matter and profess your innocence. 

Nope, it just weren't civilised... chucking ol' George's Tetleys in the harbour like that.

Wait a minute.... ZubaZ posts here, so ..... EVERYONE ELSE IS CORRECT

And so is Zubaz.... well when his Zubish dictionary is published/goes on sale he will be.

on Jul 01, 2009

We don't need permission. We fought a war over that. You Brits think you invented every thing including proper english. Perhaps. But we Americans perfected it.

on Jul 01, 2009

We don't need permission. We fought a war over that

What!  A war over tea and dictionary rights?  Not good!  At least it could have been about independence from a doddery king with an unsound mind. 

You Brits think you invented every thing including proper english

Um, yeah, the Brits DID invent proper English... being it IS THEIR language/native tongue, to read, write and spell as they see fit. Like if they want to spell 'smelt' instead of 'smelled', that's their perogative  Actually, 'smelled' refers to something that stank, so the correct way to spell the act of having smelt it is smelleded... the extra ed being added to indicate the act of having nasally ingested something that smelled.

But we Americans perfected it.

No you didn't!   You had English on loan 'til you could invent your own language... but obviously you didn't, opting to butcher ours instead.

 

21 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last