In the world I live in, taking something without paying is stealing.  If you think it's not, then I think bigger issues are going on.

That really needs to be edited to state any and all Stardock sites. Not that i am disagreeing with your or ID's point, in fact i think Luckmann is a tool if he thinks we buy that BS, but it should pertain to all users on SD sites.

Is it no more SD's point of view if i read that from GC2.com?

Just making the distinction for ya.

LuckyMann, your example does not matter in this point, is the site you are on located within Sweeden? No. It is in the US and as such the topic of copyrighted software and the laws surrounding it would be those uphelp in the US, no where else.

ID said,

Here being whatever SD site your reading this on, which no matter what that is, is located within the US, and as such bound by that country's laws. Not Sweeden.

So in fact ID was not lying at all.

Back on topic and to respond to the question in the OP. Since i paid $451AU for Vista Ultimate 64 less than 12 months ago, MS bloody well make W7 cheaper than it's predecessor's, i'm not shelling out another couple hundred bucks for what is a Vista facelift.

With Vista's well documneted troubles, i only think it would be prudent that MS offer discounted copies of W7 to its Vista customers.

If not, then i will stick with VU64 untill the following OS appears....in what...18  months time???

 

IMHO, paying more for software than for the computer it runs on is a bad idea.

. . . and Vista Ultimate practically costs that much.

Frankly, $50 is where I start being very careful about what I buy, and $100 is about the cutoff of "not worth it, no matter what it does." IMHO. I managed to get Vista at a greatly reduced price through a special offer.

It may also depend on my income - with a full time job, I'd be willing to pay more, I'm sure, but right now I'm not in such a position.

Neilo....OK...I'll edit...

I'm just saying.....You seemed to make it very official sounding...would'nt want there to be any faults in the wording...

Why is it always "copyright infringement is theft"??  Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.  Why relate one wrong to another wrong instead of making people realize both are wrong.  IMO, it just makes the agruement sound like propaganda.  Not that I have any illegal/immoral software.

 

Anyway, back on point.  I'm thinking $100-150 for a full version of w7.  The cost for vista was ridiculous.  I can't believe M$ expected everyone to spend that kind of money for something they already had "but better"

wow! i'm impressed. somebody actually got jafo to edit one of his posts. that rarely happens. LOL

 

anywho, i'll be willing to spend a couple hundred bucks for an oem copy of win7. heck, i've spent more than that on a case, psu, vid card, cpu, motherboard, or memory before. i'd say 200 for the most important component of the computer is worth it. if i was a student at IU or still taking classes at IUK, i could get it for 10 bucks like it was for XP when it was relased. heck, i still have that edu copy of XP in my catalog of software. it's never used but i still have it.

Because most people wouldn't notice a copyright if it jumped up and bit off a testicle....and 'infringement'....what....something had a fringe applied?

Half the time you can't even get anyone to agree that theft is theft, anyway....

Indeed. $200 is a boutique price for a commodity product. It might make sense to super-saturated PC users like a dev, and maybe even a hardcore gamer, but it is ludicrous for the general market. Especially when it really can end up being around half the cost of a new box.

And, yes, I still think they should at least *consider* some price cuts if they seriously want to help lift both retail PC sales and enterprise upgrade deals. They have a very large store of cash, theoretically collected to help the company weather a few hard years. (If these ain't rainy economic days, I don't want to be here when the sky finally opens.)

Just think about the free media coverage alone--a price cut story would doubtless win far greater 'mind share' than any of those creepy media campaigns they've run in the past few years (none of which were cheap). Link it to some spin on the EU trying for another anti-competition penalty when IE is losing share to other browsers, and you might have a few folks who tend to dislike Microsoft feeling a bit sympathetic.

Of course, but again I'd like to stress that I've never advocated piracy (and I'll probably never do). This doesn't necessarily mean that I argue against piracy either, I just enjoy a healthy argument and what I opposed was the simplicity of or absolutist nature of "Seriously, where in the world can you honestly say 'I STOLE THIS LEGALLY'?" - subsequently arguing that no-one would seriously say that, because to them, it's either not stealing, or it's not about legality, but morality.

Also, it's a bit hard to argue a philosophical point if none of the participants can be the devils advocate. Not that I do, in this case.

Marxists could easily make the claim that the current system is corrupt, thus we are not subject to it's laws, making it unreprehensible to reclaim the collective's materials.

Pirates could make a similar argument that you cannot copyright or profiteer from human thoughts. Wheter or not either is applicable in a free market enviroment would ultimately be irrelevant in such a case, since many political activists act out of the perception that they should always act as if acting out from their own social or economical model, even if it's not finished.

I say it's insane to act like that, but that's beside the point.

I find the thought of "intuitively placed" options to be horrific...

 

If you can't find settings for stuff in XP, you're either retarded or don't give a shit.  In either case, you shouldn't be messing with them.  Hiding them where a moron with no clue would look just isn't fair to those of us that should be allowed near them.

I think they'd do well at around $200.  I do like the multi pc discount concept.  I just hope that they do away with the different levels of the OS.  Ultimate should be the Only...with possible exception to Home vs. Business. 

I'll keep my XP machine for as long as parts are available. Just like I did for 95.

"Retarded" and "moron" are a bit strong, don't you think?  Not all PC users are power users.  In fact, the majority of PC users are just average users with a basic knowledge, so Microsoft is protecting them from themselves by hiding power setting and tweaks that could crash their systems.  Makes sense as it cuts down error reports/responses, and thus support resources on issues that needn't have arisen.

Besides, any power user worth his/her salt should be able to find hidden settings with little or no trouble, so why is it even an issue?

Im using Windows Beta 7 Right now, I think the price should be around $150 per license with + $75 for 1 extra license + $125 for 2 more, and + $150 for a total of 4 licenses.

 

So:

1 - $150 / $200

2 - $225 / $275

3 - $275 / $325

4 - $300 / $350

 

Or something like that.

 

I DONT agree that Windows 7 Should be 64-bit only, for one reason my pc is JUST BARELY too old, Dell XPS Gen 3 (Gen 5 IS 64 compatible), is NOT 64 compatible but with windows 7 still packs a performance punch.

 

(I would LOVE to upgrade tho but cant afford to)

 

What Windows 7 Has to offer:

 

Windows 7 has a much improved response time.

MUCH faster startups and shutdowns.

Restored the XP like Defragmenter (I say like but its similar but improved)

Simple Problem Support.

Easy Network setup systems.

Better 'milti-window' management.

All-around better CPU performance.

UNLIMITED Ready Boost capacity (As in it can use 99% of the space of ONE flash drive for ready boost, atm im using 15GB of my Flash Voyager)

 

These are just some of the features

 

(WINDOWS BETA 7 IS OPEN UNTIL 1 - 26 - 2009)

Because the poor can't pay more than the rich and corporates...

True a corporation provides jobs by purchasing their workers services..but their owners get much profit than what they pay....

The fact that MS is not going to read this thread makes my point countless... What I said was just my opinion which I assume is quite different from yours. Sorry, I cant change it my brain wont allow me...

Though I set the price a bit higher for corporations but MS too sells its products cheaper in poor nations...