Vista Pricing

[Scott_Arm]

Has there been any talk of the pricing for Windows Vista recently?

I read some numbers from some news over the summer that listed Canadian prices at $499 CAD for the Ultimate edition, which scares me. I can't remember what the Home Premium edition was, but it was almost $300, I think. Being Canadian, those prices scare me.

I was hoping to upgrade to Vista when it came out, and buy a new PC 6 months or a year after retail Vista release. That Vista price tag seriously cuts into the amount of money I'd be able to spend on getting a new PC. Is it just me, or should an operating system not be so expensive? I know there will be some crappy basic home edition, but being a gamer and a hobbyist programmer and someone that wants a secure and stable system, I'm not sure I'd want to do without the bells and whistles.

There is the option of buying a PC bundle, but I prefer to build my own tailored systems.

I also read that OEM editions will not be available for purchase as they have been for previous Windows versions, so you're forced to buy the brightly packaged retail edition with manual etc, unless you buy a Dell or some crap.

 

[Malo]

Canadian Anticipated Estimated Retail Pricing* for Windows Vista:
Windows Vista Ultimate: Upgrade: $299*; Retail: $499*
Windows Vista Home Premium: Upgrade: $199*; Full Retail: $299*
Windows Vista Home Basic: Upgrade: $129*; Full Retail: $259*
Windows Vista Business: Upgrade: $249*; Full Retail: $379*

As far as I've heard there won't be OEM versions as readily available as previously.

Regarding pricing, from what I've seen of US pricing, it's not much different than Windows XP pricing when it was first released either. It's about on par. And I'm really not too worried about paying $250 for an OS, it's the software core of your computer and much cheaper than many applications which do a lot less and haven't been developed for 5+ years.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Canadian Anticipated Estimated Retail Pricing* for Windows Vista:
Windows Vista Ultimate: Upgrade: $299*; Retail: $499*
Windows Vista Home Premium: Upgrade: $199*; Full Retail: $299*
Windows Vista Home Basic: Upgrade: $129*; Full Retail: $259*
Windows Vista Business: Upgrade: $249*; Full Retail: $379*

As far as I've heard there won't be OEM versions as readily available as previously.

Regarding pricing, from what I've seen of US pricing, it's not much different than Windows XP pricing when it was first released either. It's about on par. And I'm really not too worried about paying $250 for an OS, it's the software core of your computer and much cheaper than many applications which do a lot less and haven't been developed for 5+ years.

I'm more worried about the price of the ultimate edition. As long as the home editions aren't somehow crippled editions, I'll get one of those.

 

[MPI]

And I'm really not too worried about paying $250 for an OS, it's the software core of your computer and much cheaper than many applications which do a lot less and haven't been developed for 5+ years.

And yet there are those that are free...

$250 is f'n highway robbery. BTW, I really think OS:s should be open standards, like OpenGL/ISO/ITU-T for instance. It's basically just a bunch of system call answers, ffs. All the bling is just fluff, sell that for 500 bux if you want to.

 

[Malo]

I'm more worried about the price of the ultimate edition. As long as the home editions aren't somehow crippled editions, I'll get one of those.

imo you'd be mad to get a home edition. Check this page for feature list and see what you would be willing to part with.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

 

[sexualrug]

the thing that really annoyed me is that they took out the remote desktop stuff from some of the editions.

The business one would be the one that I would buy if I had to buy one, thank god for academic/school contracts! (we can buy almost all MS software for 5 bucks)

 

[ANova]

Regarding pricing, from what I've seen of US pricing, it's not much different than Windows XP pricing when it was first released either. It's about on par. And I'm really not too worried about paying $250 for an OS, it's the software core of your computer and much cheaper than many applications which do a lot less and haven't been developed for 5+ years.

Not much different? XP was $200 for the full Home Edition and $300 for Pro, Vista varies from $80 for the pathetically crippled Starter Edition to $500 for "Ultimate." How exactly is a $200 increase on par? Not to mention all the added limitations in the EULA. For the price of Home Premium you could get XP Pro only the latter does not have some features that XP does. Instead you get the extra security that you don't really need and the foo foo UI.

 

[Scott_Arm]

imo you'd be mad to get a home edition. Check this page for feature list and see what you would be willing to part with.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

I'd like to know what the "advanced" business backup features are, as well as the business networking features. The lack of remote desktop in the home editions is crap. I'm not really worried about the drive encryption. Are those the only features that will be missing? I'm guessing there will be more small features that aren't listed.

 

[Malo]

I think I'm confusing myself. I thought you had meant the Home Basic, forgot that Premium is called Home Premium. So yes you would want Home Premium edition, just not Home Basic Apologies for the confusion.

Regarding the business editions, just fyi. Backup features is shadow copies of the file structure. Business networking is active directory domain connectivity.

 

[Skrying]

Not much different? XP was $200 for the full Home Edition and $300 for Pro, Vista varies from $80 for the pathetically crippled Starter Edition to $500 for "Ultimate." How exactly is a $200 increase on par? Not to mention all the added limitations in the EULA. For the price of Home Premium you could get XP Pro only the latter does not have some features that XP does. Instead you get the extra security that you don't really need and the foo foo UI.

And Home Premium falls RIGHT inbetween the prices of Home Edition and Pro Edition for XP. What was your point again? They added about $25 on average to the cost. Not much of a surprise if you ask me, hell wouldnt that amount fall in line with inflation probably between the time when XP was released and when Vista will be.

 

[ANova]

What kind of beer goggles are you wearing skrying? Home Premium IS THE SAME PRICE as XP Pro. It does not fall inbetween anything, in fact XP's prices are dropping now that Vista is out so you can get XP Pro for around $50 less. Like I said, there are features that XP Pro has that Home Premium does not. It's quite simple really, the top price has increased from $300 to $500, that's a $200 increase, not $25. If you're looking at upgrades then XP Pro goes for around $140 compared to Home Premium's $200 and Ultimate's $280.

I thought XP's pricing was excessive especially since they limited it to one license per machine, Vista's is ridiculous along with the extra activation and transfer limitations.

 

[Albuquerque]

What kind of beer goggles are you wearing skrying? Home Premium IS THE SAME PRICE as XP Pro. It does not fall inbetween anything, in fact XP's prices are dropping now that Vista is out so you can get XP Pro for around $50 less. Like I said, there are features that XP Pro has that Home Premium does not. It's quite simple really, the top price has increased from $300 to $500, that's a $200 increase, not $25. If you're looking at upgrades then XP Pro goes for around $140 compared to Home Premium's $200 and Ultimate's $280.

I thought XP's pricing was excessive especially since they limited it to one license per machine, Vista's is ridiculous along with the extra activation and transfer limitations.

Something just came to me... Perhaps not an "original" thought, but a thought nonethelesss...

If you have something against paying money to use the software, then don't use the software.

Wow. That was easy.

I will be purchasing a copy of Vista, just like I purchased a copy of XP before it, just like I purchased a copy of 2000 Pro before it, just like I purchased previous copies of NT 4 workstation, 98, 95, Win3.11 for workgroups and even MSDOS 5.

You know why? Because I know I'm going to use it. What good are the likely thousand or more dollars worth of games on my computer if I don't have an operating system to run them? I'm sure I could get a free OS, and then my game selection would be about this big: <holds index and thumb about 1/4" apart>

I play PC games. The majority of games (by far) come on a Windows platform. And as much as I want to convince myself that I need the "Ultimate of Ultimates" because I *need* shadow volume copy and I *need* domain authentication and I *need* remote desktop and I *need* a bunch of other nonsense, the reality is -- I don't. A dollar says that one or two of those items can be re-activated later when someone gets a chance to fiddle with it. And if they don't? I can backup using alternative software. I can remote control via VNC. And my gaming machine has no need to actually be part of a domain.

Options.... It's what makes free market actually work.

 

[chavvdarrr]

no Remote Desktop ?!
So what, who forbids using VNC ?

 

[expletive]

I thought XP's pricing was excessive especially since they limited it to one license per machine, Vista's is ridiculous along with the extra activation and transfer limitations.

I believe they softened on the transfer stuff:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx

 

[ANova]

If you have something against paying money to use the software, then don't use the software..

Apparently the point went right over your head. I have no problem paying to use anything, what I have a problem with is fair use dying for increased profit and my ability to do what I have been doing suddenly becoming "illegal." Companies are supposed to tailor their products around what the consumer wants, not the other way around, that's called a monopoly. So excuse me for being a consumer whos looking out for his own best interests instead of the corporation's.

 

[Albuquerque]

Apparently the point went right over your head. I have no problem paying to use anything, what I have a problem with is fair use dying for increased profit and my ability to do what I have been doing suddenly becoming "illegal." Companies are supposed to tailor their products around what the consumer wants, not the other way around, that's called a monopoly. So excuse me for being a consumer whos looking out for his own best interests instead of the corporation's.

What the hell are you talking about?

It used to be that there were no speed limits; now it's illegal to go past a certain speed. It used to be that you could smoke pot, now it too is illegal. It used to be legal to move your software from machine to machine, now a very large (read: not only Microsoft) number of developers are making that illegal too. Guess what? Things change, and you crying about something you used to do now being illegal is, at most, nonsensical. This is nothing to do with fair use; the law has been for a very long time that you only use this piece of software on ONE machine.

A lot of us (including myself) have become accustomed to moving our OS from one hardware platorm to another. Now you can't just auto-magically do that... Guess what? It's a pisser, but that's the way it is. You don't like it? Don't buy it. It has zero to do with fair use, it has everything to do with keeping people from installing it a zillion times on various machines. You know the phrase "a bad apple spoils the bunch?" We have all those wonderful people who chose to pirate the last several versions of Microsoft's OS'es to thank for this. You want to bitch and complain? Bitch to those people who couldn't be bothered to buy a legitemate copy.

Companies are supposed to make money; publically traded companies are supposed to make enough money to keep their stock looking good. They accomplish this task by providing services or products that someone will buy. Microsoft is doing exactly what they're supposed to, in terms of what a big business is supposed to be doing. They've been doing it for a VERY long time, as evidenced by the billions of dollars they make annually and the value of their stock.

And nothing that they're doing is "monopolistic". Nothing stops you from going to *nix or Mac. And if you want games? Go buy a console.

 

[Skrying]

What kind of beer goggles are you wearing skrying? Home Premium IS THE SAME PRICE as XP Pro. It does not fall inbetween anything, in fact XP's prices are dropping now that Vista is out so you can get XP Pro for around $50 less. Like I said, there are features that XP Pro has that Home Premium does not. It's quite simple really, the top price has increased from $300 to $500, that's a $200 increase, not $25. If you're looking at upgrades then XP Pro goes for around $140 compared to Home Premium's $200 and Ultimate's $280.

I thought XP's pricing was excessive especially since they limited it to one license per machine, Vista's is ridiculous along with the extra activation and transfer limitations.

And Home Premium has features that XP Pro DOES NOT. You're arguement is pointless. Home Premium, as in MADE FOR HOME USE features everything a person wanting to build a media center and home entertainment focused computer would want. It features all the functions of XP Media Center Edition, something that XP Pro does not. Many would consider that to easy make up the cost.

Anyway, Home Premium is only $239 USD.

 

[ANova]

It has zero to do with fair use, it has everything to do with keeping people from installing it a zillion times on various machines. You know the phrase "a bad apple spoils the bunch?" We have all those wonderful people who chose to pirate the last several versions of Microsoft's OS'es to thank for this. You want to bitch and complain? Bitch to those people who couldn't be bothered to buy a legitemate copy.

Pirates make up a very small portion of the overall Windows userbase, to claim they are entirely responsible for the concept of licenses, activation, etc. or that M$ is somehow struggling as a result is laughable; where do you think the billions came from Einstein, the sky? Just because there are some people downloading and using the software does not automatically mean they would or could buy it if it were not possible to download nor does it mean M$ is losing a ton of money, it means possible revenue and nothing more. It has everything to do with fair use, uses that Microsoft is taking away at will simply so that they can sell more "licenses." This stuff doesn't deter pirates in the least, nothing M$ has or will concoct in the future will stop piracy, they know very well; instead they blaim piracy for implementing these "anti-piracy features" to lock in the general public to new pay models and thus increase profit.

Companies are supposed to make money; publically traded companies are supposed to make enough money to keep their stock looking good. They accomplish this task by providing services or products that someone will buy. Microsoft is doing exactly what they're supposed to, in terms of what a big business is supposed to be doing. They've been doing it for a VERY long time, as evidenced by the billions of dollars they make annually and the value of their stock.

And nothing that they're doing is "monopolistic". Nothing stops you from going to *nix or Mac. And if you want games? Go buy a console.

Exactly why should I give a shit what companies are supposed to do; Newsflash, M$ is not your friend and yes they are in it to make money, as a consumer I simply don't care, what I do care about is paying more while my options disappear so that the company can make more. Reality check, 99% of software is only available for windows and M$ basically controls gaming, consoles are not the same and OSX requires buying a new and expensive system; ergo, they have a monopoly. Sure I can switch to nix, if I want to do only basic things or write my own software.

Corporate ass kissing must be related to Stockholm syndrome.

 

[pcchen]

Pirates make up a very small portion of the overall Windows userbase, to claim they are entirely responsible for the concept of licenses, activation, etc. or that M$ is somehow struggling as a result is laughable; where do you think the billions came from Einstein, the sky?

This is a fallacy. It's very possible that they make a lot of money while at the same time the majority of their users do not buy legal copies. It's just that they could make a lot more money if these people all buy legal copies.

If you think software pirating problem is small, then you are the naive one. I work for a small software company, yet many of the support e-mails are from pirated users (they don't know that their softwares are pirated though).

 

[ANova]

Which is why I said possible revenue; piracy studies or claims are always under the assumption that all of those people would buy it. The only numbers we have about piracy are Microsoft's claims that WGA reported 20% as being invalid, forgive me for taking that with a grain of salt. Like I said, all this stuff doesn't deter piracy at all either.

I realize it's completely objective to argue what's fair and when something becomes excessive but that applies the other way around as well.