What Price Point Should Microsoft Set for Windows 7?

Published on January 22, 2009 By Island Dog In Personal Computing

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 19)

271

Primal Zed

on Jul 04, 2009

Starkers:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/64-bit-support

Look on the right side. "This feature comes with all editions of Windows 7." All copies of Windows 7 come in both 32- and 64-bit. In fact, you can currently contact Microsoft and, with a valid 32-bit Vista product key, order a 64-bit Vista install disc for free (might have to pay shipping, or it might be available for download, I haven't done it myself before).

272

Daiwa

on Jul 04, 2009

Primal said it better.

273

ThePhantasma

on Jul 04, 2009

WOW, whatta thread. Some dig this out.

But i have spoken (too much, lol)... well, that is another thread....

I suggest that MS will pay us, if they want that we use their "OS".

274

kona0197

on Jul 04, 2009

After all the damage MS has done in the software world I think I would agree.

275

Primal Zed

on Jul 04, 2009

If you don't like it, don't buy it. You don't get cool points for bashing on them on the internet. You don't get a check in the mail from Apple.

I've only ever had XP trouble before the first Service Pack, never had Vista trouble, though I admit Vista was very poor at launch because of lack of third party support and got plenty of things wrong. I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, I just get tired of all the "hate microsoft" bandwagon.

276

Nesrie

on Jul 04, 2009

Primal Zed

reply 25

If you don't like it, don't buy it. You don't get cool points for bashing on them on the internet. You don't get a check in the mail from Apple.

I've only ever had XP trouble before the first Service Pack, never had Vista trouble, though I admit Vista was very poor at launch because of lack of third party support and got plenty of things wrong. I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, I just get tired of all the "hate microsoft" bandwagon.

Using Microsoft products does not necessarily make you a fan of Microsoft; therefore, there is nothing wrong with complaining about a product that you actually use. I actually think you are in a better position to constructively criticize products/services you use than those who don't. Still you can certainly complain about a product that you don't use and are familiar with, but there is something wrong with assuming that if someone doesn't like Microsoft that makes them a fan of Apple however.

277

kona0197

on Jul 04, 2009

Really funny that he thinks I use a Apple machine when this rig is running Linux...

278

starkers

on Jul 04, 2009

Orright, then, if you're coming... bring your own mint sauce and... er, condoms.

Erm... Condoms because of all the beautiful sheep herding women I hope... Otherwise... Umm... Well...

LOL Dunno about beautiful sheep herding women... but I've heard on the grapevine that lipstick and lingerie helps to make those jumbucks look a little more homely out there in the great expanse of the outback.

Look on the right side. "This feature comes with all editions of Windows 7." All copies of Windows 7 come in both 32- and 64-bit.

Well that is certainly good news... guess I missed that, probably because we had to select either 32 or 64 bit when downloading the betas and RC.

Well it seems, then, MS has learned its lesson, since it made Vista Home Premium 32 bit only, thus forcing users who wanted to run 64 bit (particularly here in Australia) to go to extreme lengths to find a copy.

In fact, you can currently contact Microsoft and, with a valid 32-bit Vista product key, order a 64-bit Vista install disc for free (might have to pay shipping, or it might be available for download

I looked into that when I wanted to switch over to x64, but because I have an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate they said that I was ineligible for that deal. Sadly, the OEM is not both 32 and 64 bit. While the quick guide pamplet suggests that it has both versions, my copy clearly states on the disc that it contains 32 bit only, otherwise I would have reinstalled selecting 64 bit.

279

kona0197

on Jul 04, 2009

Hey guys if all your apps are 32 bit and the OS has to run in a special mode to run a 32 bit mode than why by a 64 bit OS?

Useless...

280

Primal Zed

on Jul 04, 2009

Nesrie

reply 1

Really funny that he thinks I use a Apple machine when this rig is running Linux...[/quote]

Only reason I refered to Apple is because there is no real entity to get checks from that represents Linux (unless you count IBM).

Nesrie - the thing is most complaining about Microsoft is not constructive, but rather useless remarks like "I suggest that MS will pay us, if they want that we use their "OS"." abound whenever I see a conversation about Windows 7. And the notion that a consumer is "owed" Windows 7 for free because he did not like the Vista he paid for is absurd.

Again, not saying that I'm a Microsoft fanboy, and I have been known to use Ubuntu (mainly on my laptop, and when I have programming work to do on my desktop). But like I said in my previous post, I have never had any bad experience with Windows, and once I am comfortable that the release version is stable, I will be upgrading to Windows 7. (Granted, I just got an oem Vista with a free upgrade voucher for my new computer. Though if it weren't for the voucher, I simply would have used Linux until Windows 7.)

[quote who="kona0197"] Hey guys if all your apps are 32 bit and the OS has to run in a special mode to run a 32 bit mode than why by a 64 bit OS?

Useless...

A special mode for 32 bit programs? All my programs work fine in 64 bit. Do applications even differ at all for each version? I thought it was mainly drivers that had to be coded differently. Are you confusing this with the "XP mode"?

(pshaw, my quote tags are fine, I don't know what's up with the way the post looks)

281

starkers

on Jul 04, 2009

*
* Member No.590,340
* Karma+7

July 4, 2009 21:03:24

Hey guys if all your apps are 32 bit and the OS has to run in a special mode to run a 32 bit mode than why by a 64 bit OS?

Running a 64 bit OS has the advantage of being able to access more RAM when multi-tasking, thus preventing freeze-ups and making it more stable. Also, 64 bit OSes make better use of compatible CPU's, thus enabling better processing power during multi-tasking and/or when using resource intensive apps: ie, video or graphice rendering/editing, etc.

However, while it is true today that most apps are 32 bit, software developers are coming around to 64 bit and more will become available... meaning that having a 64 bit OS is being prepared for the future of computing. Besides, if running a 64 bit OS provides greater system stability/performance, even when running 32 bit apps, surely that has to be a good thing, right?

So no, a 64 bit OS is not useless!

282

kona0197

on Jul 04, 2009

And yet my original argument remains. Why does Windows need more RAM to run? Because it's bloated.

Apple uses memory differently. So does Linux. Therefore we probably don't need gobs of memory to use the OS.

283

Primal Zed

on Jul 04, 2009

kona0197

reply 7

And yet my original argument remains. Why does Windows need more RAM to run? Because it's bloated.

Apple uses memory differently. So does Linux. Therefore we probably don't need gobs of memory to use the OS.

No one will disagree with Vista being very resource heavy even when idle. Reportedly (according to multiple reviews) Windows 7 alleviates a lot of that.

284

kona0197

on Jul 04, 2009

One would only hope. So why do you need more than 4 GB of memory for Windows 7? And if you do not why then go with 64 bit?

285

ThePhantasma

on Jul 05, 2009

I can not give Karma even to kona0197.

Oh man, i now many stories ...not fiction ones. But the point?

Most people DID NOT install Windows 7 Home Premium RC, but the "Ultimate".

Just FYI, with Ultimate you see, how all drivers go through, within seconds....

and if you do not have ultimate, expect neverending qestions... etc.

This is even stated on their website, how driver support is lowered e.g. with home premium...

....and if you don't have Vista... there is a WAU (Windows Anytime Upgrade).

Why? to get your money.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!