Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP

***AppleInsider*** · 06-25-2009, 07:10 PM

Microsoft tried to appease disgruntled customers on Thursday with news lower Windows 7 upgrade prices as well as a concession that lets owners of the now 8-year-old Windows XP move up to the new operating system at a lower price.

The company settled the uneasy question of how it would price its next-generation OS on Thursday by detailing the costs for the three Windows 7 editions customers are likely to see in stores.

In a bid to placate those upset by elevated Vista pricing, some versions of Windows 7 will be less expensive than Vista has been in the past. At retail, a Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 -- $40 less than it did when Vista was new -- while its stand-alone version has dropped a similar amount to $200. Buying a copy of Professional will cost the same $200 (upgrade) or $300 (full) as it has in the past, but Windows 7 Ultimate will cost $220 to upgrade versus the $260 for Vista Ultimate in 2007. A full copy of the new Ultimate release costs $320 versus $400 two years ago.

Moreover, those eager enough to pre-order the new OS before it ships on October 22nd can pay even less. Starting Friday, advance orders for Windows 7 Home Premium and Professional upgrades will cost just $50 and $100 each in the US and should last until July 11th or until stock runs dry. Many PC vendors, including HP, will also offer upgrades to Windows 7 for free or for a small cost on any PC sold from Friday until Windows 7 comes preloaded on the new computers.

And in a rare gesture for Microsoft, the company will allow those using the now two generations old Windows XP to use an upgrade copy rather than pay full retail. However, due to the change in architectures between Windows XP and 7, buyers will have to perform a clean install rather than the in-place upgrade Vista owners can use.

Both the smaller price tags and the XP extension have already been seen as near-mandatory concessions for the Redmond, Washington to regain acceptance. After early reports of poor compatibility and slow performance, many home users and businesses alike have often chosen to remain with the 2001 operating system rather than upgrade to Vista, even after Microsoft insisted that its Service Pack 1 update addressed many early issues. Vista pricing was slashed in early 2008 partly to underscore the point.

The Windows developer also took to an elaborate, $300 million ad campaign that both sought to put Windows back in the public consciousness and turn attention to hardware pricing versus Apple's Macs instead of promoting the operating system itself.

Whether a sincere gesture to regain customer loyalty or not, the pricing makes Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard upgrades a better deal for those considering upgrade pricing as a factor. As the update will ship for just $29 and a month earlier than Windows 7, it's expected that a larger percentage of the Mac user base will be running Snow Leopard early on than PC users will rush to install Windows 7.

imGayForSteveJobs · 06-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two?

"Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions"

If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!

MacTripper · 06-25-2009, 07:23 PM

What about everyone who bought the $399 botch job called Vista and now have to pay more to get the fixed version?

Just because Microsoft changed the name from Vista SP3 to Windows 7 doesn't justify a extra $219 to upgrade.

That's a whopping $618 for a working operating system.

God, I hope I can install Vista+Windows 7 in a VM and keep my Vista VM activated.

FSCK you Microsoft. First time in 20 something years I tried your crap and now I know why everyone hates you.

Been a happy Mac user for most of my life in the meanwhile.

neiltc13 · 06-25-2009, 07:34 PM

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Wally · 06-25-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Dude. You have got to be kidding right? Tell me you're kidding.

brucep · 06-25-2009, 07:49 PM

save rhis spot for later

majortom1981 · 06-25-2009, 07:50 PM

This is here because there are those of us who arent microsoft or apple fanboys and would put BOTH on our apple machines.

With bootcamp windows news should be here to now that it can run both os's

nagromme · 06-25-2009, 07:51 PM

I'd say the fairest product comparison would be Windows 7 Ultimate Upgrade ($220) compared to Leopard ($129).

(For those who paid $400 for Vista Ultimate... ouch!)

brucep · 06-25-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard user who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release

typo he meant user
not users

dagamer34 · 06-25-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

And in a rare gesture for Microsoft, the company will allow those using the now two generations old Windows XP to use an upgrade copy rather than pay full retail. However, due to the change in architectures between Windows XP and 7, buyers will have to perform a clean install rather than the in-place upgrade Vista owners can use.

It's not a rare gesture. It's always been this way, and the same thing happened with Windows Vista. If you had XP installed, you could directly upgrade to Vista, otherwise if you had Windows Me/2000 required you to wipe your system. Anything before Windows Me required a retail version to install, period.

MacTripper · 06-25-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Snow Leopard upgrade/"maintenance release" is priced well for a improvement of a otherwise perfectly working Leopard.

The problem is Windows 7 upgrade is 10x the price of the Snow Leopard upgrade and it fixes something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

I know this is the wrong site to bitch, but Microsoft should be giving Windows 7 away for free for Vista users as way not to have to support two operating systems at once.

Just integrate it with Microsoft update and send it out.

Done.

Of course if Microsoft had a brain they would just license OS X and go back to making Office.

cycomiko · 06-25-2009, 08:01 PM

Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it?

MacTripper · 06-25-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagromme

(For those who paid $400 for Vista Ultimate... ouch!)

Yep, just look at my sig...

fscking Redmond bastards...

I update Vista more than I use it anyway. Just keeping my options open because Apple is taking a dangerous direction with glossy only screens laptops.

(17" anti-glare is too big)

I like Ubuntu, might use that for a anti-glare 15" netbook in the future. Why spend $219 for Windows 7 when I can buy a netbook for that and install Ubuntu?

eyeless · 06-25-2009, 08:11 PM

Why should you pay for something that you would not want to have? I'm sorry, but I cannot see why anyone could be interested in buying yet another inferior OS product - seems like a waste of space to write about the sky-high prices of nonsense software.

MacTripper · 06-25-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cycomiko

Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it?

Sounds like a great idea to me.

They are charging little for it anyway, would save them money not having to support the three OS versions: Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Apple's soaking the iPhone people anyway, give us old Mac users a break.

lightstriker · 06-25-2009, 08:38 PM

Lowing the price of 7 at retail is just marketing since most of windows is OEM or PIRATED. The price of SL and 7 will be hidden in new hardware anyways.

Quadra 610 · 06-25-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cycomiko

Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it?

Because time+work isn't always free.

Quadra 610 · 06-25-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Yep, just look at my sig...

fscking Redmond bastards...

I update Vista more than I use it anyway. Just keeping my options open because Apple is taking a dangerous direction with glossy only screens laptops.

And . . . so is the rest of the market for some reason.

MJ Web · 06-25-2009, 08:54 PM

$29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.

Quadra 610 · 06-25-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ Web

$29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.

They have been for about 8 years now. I'm not sure that Windows 7 will really do anything to change that. Sometimes the hurt just runs too deep.

But one can always hope.

nvidia2008 · 06-25-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

And . . . so is the rest of the market [having PCs to keep their options open] for some reason.

Yup, ATI+AMD Windows Vista SP1 Ultimate 64-bit "gaming rig" here. And XP2 on Parallels on MacBook Alu 2.0ghz. When Windows 7 RC2 comes out I'd probably put it on Parallels on my MacBook. No BootCamp needed, since I have my desktop PC for all gaming matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What about everyone who bought the $399 botch job called Vista and now have to pay more to get the fixed version?

Just because Microsoft changed the name from Vista SP3 to Windows 7 doesn't justify a extra $219 to upgrade.

That's a whopping $618 for a working operating system.

God, I hope I can install Vista+Windows 7 in a VM and keep my Vista VM activated.

FSCK you Microsoft. First time in 20 something years I tried your crap and now I know why everyone hates you.

Been a happy Mac user for most of my life in the meanwhile.

LOL. First time in 20 something years. It hasn't gone very far, this Windoze thing. Actually, Win 2000 and XP2 have been the key accomplishments in the past 10 years (Windows 98 and ME was absolute garbage, as is overbloated bullshit Vista 32bit). Office 2003 was the last decent MS Office (2007 being, again, overbloated nonsense).

Windows 7 may return to the "glory days" of XP2 (LOL) but we'll see with the drivers and whether 64 bit will ever take off. With 4GB of RAM becoming ultra-affordable, seeing PC users not moving out of XP bit or Vista 32bit, or, going Windows 7 but 32 bit (and hence seeing only 3GB of RAM) --- is going to be epic funny.

solipsism · 06-25-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

They have been for about 8 years now. I'm not sure that Windows 7 will really do anything to change that. Sometimes the hurt just runs too deep.

But one can always hope.

I don’t see this as a gamer changer. Mac OS X has always been lower priced than retail copies of the higher-end versions of Windows. I don’t think most of that makes a difference to majority of Windows users who typically buy a new PC with an OEM version of Windows pre-installed. I think the Mac adoption rate will be about the same and MS will still be making huge profits for years to come.

imGayForSteveJobs · 06-25-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

$29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.

lol. What does that even mean? You macboys are out of control stupid. It makes sense though, since Apples entire campaign is focused on how their user base can barely figure out how to turn on a computer.

Great laughs here keep em coming.

nvidia2008 · 06-25-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ Web

$29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.

Most Macs in 2010 running 4GB RAM while most PC users are stuck with 32bit OS's is going to make MS a laughing stock.

Will most Mac users need 4GB RAM? Actually the probably don't, given the efficiency of Snow Leopard and not running demanding apps. I don't know. Just obsessed with 4GB RAM right now.

nvidia2008 · 06-25-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imGayForSteveJobs

lol. What does that even mean? You macboys are out of control stupid. It makes sense though, since Apples entire campaign is focused on how their user base can barely figure out how to turn on a computer.

Great laughs here keep em coming.

It means you pcboys are bending over yet again by forking out even more money for even more beta testing of service packs by Microshaft.

Call me a macboy, I use a Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit PC for gaming. But for everything else, guess what! A Mac is great and suits my needs (read: yes it actually turns on, enters sleep/ hibernate mode easily, and runs multiple demanding apps without hitches, and seamlessly moves between 32bit and 64bit, and comes with all the drivers...! Wow this means I now knothing about computers OMFG)

EDIT1: Language.

EDIT2: It was a heated moment.

EDIT3: Edited the sentence so it makes sense now.

rnp1 · 06-25-2009, 09:28 PM

[QUOTE "Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!"[/QUOTE]

Seriously, some of us, because of our ((investment) programs are forced to use Windows. (and I mean forced!) Anyway, as a Mac user since the 128k, I always upgrade to the latest-beta or not. So I''m running W7 RC in Parallels. I like it better than XP (It's closer to Apple System 7 than XP, so they are only a decade or two away from OSX.) Apple's pricing of 10.6 definitely influenced MS marketing-since they have always tried to copy Apple since 1984.( Their copies are always more complex than the originals?)
Speaking of 1984, check out this quote from clueless MicroSoft's Brad Brooks- it is twisted, misdirecting, spun NewSpeak!
"Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, its a service pack and we don't charge for service packs." Right!!! Unlike a true revolutionary Apple upgrade, MS spins badboy Vista's upgrade and calls it Windows 7, so they can charge for it! What a world!

nvidia2008 · 06-25-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnp1

"Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!"

Seriously, some of us, because of our ((investment) programs are forced to use Windows. (and I mean forced!) Anyway, as a Mac user since the 128k, I always upgrade to the latest-beta or not. So I''m running W7 RC in Parallels. I like it better than XP (It's closer to Apple System 7 than XP, so they are only a decade or two away from OSX.) Apple's pricing of 10.6 definitely influenced MS marketing-since they have always tried to copy Apple since 1984.( Their copies are always more complex than the originals?)
Speaking of 1984, check out this quote from clueless MicroSoft's Brad Brooks- it is twisted, misdirecting, spun NewSpeak!
"Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, its a service pack and we don't charge for service packs." Right!!! Unlike a true revolutionary Apple upgrade, MS spins badboy Vista's upgrade and calls it Windows 7, so they can charge for it! What a world!

Yeah. Something about paying $29 for a Service Pack that actually does something useful (Snow Leopard), than paying over $100 for a Service Pack (Windows 7) that may or may not have any tangible benefits... Hmm, let's see, which one should I choose... Like I said, I'll run Windows 7 RC2 or RC3 in Parallels and win for me.

Like I said as well, Windows 7 may be interesting because then I might actually never, ever have to touch Vista ever in my life again.

Now, if the DX9-DX10-DX11 fiasco could be sorted out...

Adjei · 06-25-2009, 09:39 PM

If Snow Leopard is a service pack, then WTF is Windows 7?

macosxp · 06-25-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

it's expected that a larger percentage of the Mac user base will be running Snow Leopard early on than PC users will rush to install Windows 7.

Yeah, try a larger number of Mac users will be running Snow Leopard a month after the update than Windows users will be running Windows 7.

Everyone already knows that Mac users tend to upgrade much more rapidly and at a much higher rate than PC users. E.g., there are about 3x Leopard users now as there are Tiger users, and there are still amost 3x XP users as there are Vista users. And XP is WAAAAAY older than Tiger, and Leopard is newer than Vista.

MacTripper · 06-25-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

And . . . so is the rest of the market for some reason.

Because shopping is mostly a emotional experience and glossy sells well to newbies.

It's killing their repeat business though, guess they haven't figured that out yet.

**melgross** · 06-25-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagamer34

It's not a rare gesture. It's always been this way, and the same thing happened with Windows Vista. If you had XP installed, you could directly upgrade to Vista, otherwise if you had Windows Me/2000 required you to wipe your system. Anything before Windows Me required a retail version to install, period.

At first, they were saying that you couldn't upgrade from XP to Win 7, so this is a concession to all of those who never did upgrade to Vista.

I'm also wondering if some of these discounts, particularly the $50 pre-orders have anything to do with a response to 10.6's $29 upgrade pricing.

rnp1 · 06-25-2009, 09:50 PM

[QUOTE
Like I said as well, Windows 7 may be interesting because then I might actually never, ever have to touch Vista ever in my life again."

In order not to violate any patents or blatant appearance of outright theft, MS chooses to call their upgrades a Service Pack, because they have never really upgraded anything. The garbage, over-bloated code that they modified from DOS is still in that even more huge trash bag software they've been toten' around since the early days. When I have to make any simple changes using Windows, I really need an Ice Pack!
Look in the Windows system folder
>?????msdaosp.dll, sqloledb.dll, OLE DB, WAB32, ado,..... what is this crap???<

imGayForSteveJobs · 06-25-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

A Mac is great and suits my needs (read: yes it actually turns on...

This has been my biggest problem with a PC, I have yet to find one that turns on...[/quote]

EDIT; personal attack using unacceptable language.

**melgross** · 06-25-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cycomiko

Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it?

Because it took two years to do, and cost a great deal of money.

It's also a major upgrade internally, and despite the statements that Apple was concentrating on improving this under the hood, there are some big features involved.

This isn't the same as a double point update, or MS's yearly updates.

**melgross** · 06-25-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Apple's soaking the iPhone people anyway, give us old Mac users a break.

And how are they doing that?

**melgross** · 06-25-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

It means you pcboys are bending over yet again *** by forking out even more money for even more beta testing of service packs by Microshaft.

Call me a macboy, I use a Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit PC for gaming. But for everything else, guess what! A Mac is great and suits my needs (read: yes it actually turns on, enters sleep/ hibernate mode easily, and runs multiple demanding apps without hitches, and seamlessly moves between 32bit and 64bit, and comes with all the drivers...! Wow this means I now knothing about computers OMFG)

EDIT: You know better. careful with the language please.

**melgross** · 06-25-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

It's killing their repeat business though, guess they haven't figured that out yet.

Where's the evidence of that?

hillstones · 06-25-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Because there aren't any, duh!

8CoreWhore · 06-25-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltc13

Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

Why don't you write about them? They don't exist...

camroidv27 · 06-25-2009, 10:13 PM

Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.

And if you ask me, that looks VERY poorly on the Apple community from others. MS community hates Apple too... so Apple guys, "Think Different" and just ignore the pest.

That being said, raise of hands, how many of you are going to buy and install Win7 on your Macs? Seems like a lot of people I know that have Macs, ALSO buy windows to run on it. So in that regard, yes this affects you.

Lets focus on Apple okay? Can anyone tell me when FCS3 is coming out and if it will support the CUDA / GrandCentral scheme?

06-25-2009, 07:10 PM	#1
*AppleInsider* Kasper's Automated Slave Join Date: Nov 1997 Posts: 6,151	Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP Microsoft tried to appease disgruntled customers on Thursday with news lower Windows 7 upgrade prices as well as a concession that lets owners of the now 8-year-old Windows XP move up to the new operating system at a lower price. The company settled the uneasy question of how it would price its next-generation OS on Thursday by detailing the costs for the three Windows 7 editions customers are likely to see in stores. In a bid to placate those upset by elevated Vista pricing, some versions of Windows 7 will be less expensive than Vista has been in the past. At retail, a Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 -- $40 less than it did when Vista was new -- while its stand-alone version has dropped a similar amount to $200. Buying a copy of Professional will cost the same $200 (upgrade) or $300 (full) as it has in the past, but Windows 7 Ultimate will cost $220 to upgrade versus the $260 for Vista Ultimate in 2007. A full copy of the new Ultimate release costs $320 versus $400 two years ago. Moreover, those eager enough to pre-order the new OS before it ships on October 22nd can pay even less. Starting Friday, advance orders for Windows 7 Home Premium and Professional upgrades will cost just $50 and $100 each in the US and should last until July 11th or until stock runs dry. Many PC vendors, including HP, will also offer upgrades to Windows 7 for free or for a small cost on any PC sold from Friday until Windows 7 comes preloaded on the new computers. And in a rare gesture for Microsoft, the company will allow those using the now two generations old Windows XP to use an upgrade copy rather than pay full retail. However, due to the change in architectures between Windows XP and 7, buyers will have to perform a clean install rather than the in-place upgrade Vista owners can use. Both the smaller price tags and the XP extension have already been seen as near-mandatory concessions for the Redmond, Washington to regain acceptance. After early reports of poor compatibility and slow performance, many home users and businesses alike have often chosen to remain with the 2001 operating system rather than upgrade to Vista, even after Microsoft insisted that its Service Pack 1 update addressed many early issues. Vista pricing was slashed in early 2008 partly to underscore the point. The Windows developer also took to an elaborate, $300 million ad campaign that both sought to put Windows back in the public consciousness and turn attention to hardware pricing versus Apple's Macs instead of promoting the operating system itself. Whether a sincere gesture to regain customer loyalty or not, the pricing makes Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard upgrades a better deal for those considering upgrade pricing as a factor. As the update will ship for just $29 and a month earlier than Windows 7, it's expected that a larger percentage of the Mac user base will be running Snow Leopard early on than PC users will rush to install Windows 7.

06-25-2009, 07:22 PM	#2
imGayForSteveJobs Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 15	Doesn't make sense Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!

06-25-2009, 07:23 PM	#3
MacTripper Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 599	What about everyone who bought the $399 botch job called Vista and now have to pay more to get the fixed version? Just because Microsoft changed the name from Vista SP3 to Windows 7 doesn't justify a extra $219 to upgrade. That's a whopping $618 for a working operating system. God, I hope I can install Vista+Windows 7 in a VM and keep my Vista VM activated. FSCK you Microsoft. First time in 20 something years I tried your crap and now I know why everyone hates you. Been a happy Mac user for most of my life in the meanwhile. Glossy screens will errode consumers interest in computers because it makes it harder to see the screen around the reflections. People forced to use glossy screen computers for long hours will have physical problems eventually. See here

06-25-2009, 07:49 PM	#6
brucep Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: methane seas of neptune Posts: 1,477	save rhis spot for later Change your company's name. Not that big of a deal. The  Beatles .

06-25-2009, 07:50 PM	#7
majortom1981 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 83	hmm This is here because there are those of us who arent microsoft or apple fanboys and would put BOTH on our apple machines. With bootcamp windows news should be here to now that it can run both os's

06-25-2009, 07:34 PM	#4
neiltc13 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7	Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?

06-25-2009, 07:51 PM	#8
nagromme Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: No GPS signal. Posts: 1,169	I'd say the fairest product comparison would be Windows 7 Ultimate Upgrade ($220) compared to Leopard ($129). (For those who paid $400 for Vista Ultimate... ouch!) nagromme Would you like a treatment?

06-25-2009, 08:01 PM	#12
cycomiko Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 122	Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it? iMac, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Classic

06-25-2009, 08:11 PM	#14
eyeless Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 20	Why should you pay for something that you would not want to have? I'm sorry, but I cannot see why anyone could be interested in buying yet another inferior OS product - seems like a waste of space to write about the sky-high prices of nonsense software.

06-25-2009, 08:38 PM	#16
lightstriker Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 171	Lowing the price of 7 at retail is just marketing since most of windows is OEM or PIRATED. The price of SL and 7 will be hidden in new hardware anyways.

06-25-2009, 08:54 PM	#19
MJ Web Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 134	MS better sell Windows 7 for $28 or less! $29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.

06-25-2009, 09:28 PM	#26
rnp1 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland Posts: 151	[QUOTE "Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!"[/QUOTE] Seriously, some of us, because of our ((investment) programs are forced to use Windows. (and I mean forced!) Anyway, as a Mac user since the 128k, I always upgrade to the latest-beta or not. So I''m running W7 RC in Parallels. I like it better than XP (It's closer to Apple System 7 than XP, so they are only a decade or two away from OSX.) Apple's pricing of 10.6 definitely influenced MS marketing-since they have always tried to copy Apple since 1984.( Their copies are always more complex than the originals?) Speaking of 1984, check out this quote from clueless MicroSoft's Brad Brooks- it is twisted, misdirecting, spun NewSpeak! "Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, its a service pack and we don't charge for service packs." Right!!! Unlike a true revolutionary Apple upgrade, MS spins badboy Vista's upgrade and calls it Windows 7, so they can charge for it! What a world!

06-25-2009, 09:39 PM	#28
Adjei Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 733	If Snow Leopard is a service pack, then WTF is Windows 7?

06-25-2009, 09:50 PM	#32
rnp1 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland Posts: 151	[QUOTE Like I said as well, Windows 7 may be interesting because then I might actually never, ever have to touch Vista ever in my life again." In order not to violate any patents or blatant appearance of outright theft, MS chooses to call their upgrades a Service Pack, because they have never really upgraded anything. The garbage, over-bloated code that they modified from DOS is still in that even more huge trash bag software they've been toten' around since the early days. When I have to make any simple changes using Windows, I really need an Ice Pack! Look in the Windows system folder >?????msdaosp.dll, sqloledb.dll, OLE DB, WAB32, ado,..... what is this crap???< Last edited by rnp1; 06-25-2009 at 09:57 PM..

06-25-2009, 10:13 PM	#40
camroidv27 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona Posts: 329	Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating. And if you ask me, that looks VERY poorly on the Apple community from others. MS community hates Apple too... so Apple guys, "Think Different" and just ignore the pest. That being said, raise of hands, how many of you are going to buy and install Win7 on your Macs? Seems like a lot of people I know that have Macs, ALSO buy windows to run on it. So in that regard, yes this affects you. Lets focus on Apple okay? Can anyone tell me when FCS3 is coming out and if it will support the CUDA / GrandCentral scheme? openSuSe 11.2, 32 and 64 bit, for Mac and PC! "Shiny capt'n. Everything thing is A-Okay."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode