Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP - Page 4

you guys keep making it sound like this is a minor upgrade. This is an entirely new operating system. It isn't a vista fix or a patch or a service pack, and if anyone ever gets confused and thinks that it is, it's only because people like you are spreading misinformation about the subject.

Or how about the many people that buy a new machine because theres has gotten so slow, yet a reinstall of the OS and/or cleaning up of installed apps running in the background will resolve their issues?

Yep, that's a major problem, and there's definitely ways to keep things clean. When people tell me their system is so slow, it takes me maybe an hour at best and it's running much faster. There's free software out there that will optimize and defrag the registry and clean temporary files, but there's also automatic hdd defrag software I recommend to everyone called Diskeeper. I bought this, installed it about 4 years ago with an install of XP, and the system runs as snappy as it did from day one.

That's one thing I think MS needs to focus on ya know? Some kind of intelligent system maintenance. Something people can understand. You can already schedule things like disk cleanup and defrag, but it's not as good as third party software. For instance, Diskeeper has automatic defragmentation that works all the time, but only works based on how active the machine is to begin with. It sees which files are being used the most, then moves them to the front of a disc for faster access. The MS defragger just doesn't give a shit about which files are being used most, and running it in the background means your machine slows down.

Warmed-over Vista. Microsoft says so.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9117399

"[Windows 7], it's Windows Vista, a lot better," said Ballmer during a 45-minute question-and-answer session hosted by a pair of Gartner Inc. analysts at the research firm's annual Symposium ITxpo in Orlando today. The interview was later posted as a webcast on the Gartner site.

Ballmer was responding to a question from Gartner's Neil MacDonald, who asked how Microsoft would walk the line between doing too much with Windows 7 -- thus risking the kind of compatibility problems that plagued Vista early in its career -- and too little, which might give customers an excuse to pass on the upgrade.

"Windows Vista is good; Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance," Ballmer said. "Look, I'm not encouraging anybody to wait, I'd go ahead and deploy it right away. We didn't have to go in an incompatible direction to make big strides forward."

So much for "spreading misinformation", when those who are accused of doing it are simply repeating MS' official position.

Jesus. Way to AGAIN post misinformation (by only showing a portion of what he said.) Later in that same interview he claimed it was a major release, not a minor release (as everyone is making it sound here.)

First you guys call Ballmer an idiot, and talk about how everything he says is moronic, then you turn around and quote him as the last word on a subject like this.

If Ballmer wants to say something idiotic in order to sell more copies of Vista now, so be it, but he contradicts himself in that same interview. You know, the part you left out?

Ballmer also took exception to the idea that Windows 7 will be a minor release or a spit polish on Vista. "It's a real release," he said, "because it's a lot more work than a minor release. It turns out you can [do] more than just a minor release in what is essentially a two-and-a-half-year period of time. There's no reason to do just 'a minor release' in two and a half years."


...Mike Nash, vice president of Windows product management, said "Windows 7" was the product's official name, he called the operating system "evolutionary" but still a "significant" advancement. "It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation," Nash said then.

Ballmer also took exception to the idea that Windows 7 will be a minor release or a spit polish on Vista. "It's a real release," he said, "because it's a lot more work than a minor release. It turns out you can [do] more than just a minor release in what is essentially a two-and-a-half-year period of time. There's no reason to do just 'a minor release' in two and a half years."

He admitted it was essentially a glorified service pack, and when people wondered why MS would do such a thing he quickly plays it down. That's obvious.

Ballmy was right the FIRST time (the rest is just back-pedaling and damage-control.) MS' spin machine has always been lousy and tansparent. Seems it wasn't able to fool too many people this time around.

You really can't get away from "Windows is Vista." That's about as direct and honest as someone can get right off the bat.

In fact, in numerous interviews you'll find Bill Gates and Ballmer trying to distance themselves from Vista and/or admitting to the uncomfortable realities. Not even MS can love its own operating systems.

Want more laughs?!

Okay... Did your hear the joke about Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer created an intelligently thought out operating system that works flawlessly?

No?!

Neither did they!

(insert drum/cymbal rip here now)

Well, someone like you obviously would view it the way you want. I don't even pay much attention to what he says there. Think about it, on one hand, he's gotta make it sound like they haven't gone too far ahead because of backward compatibility, but on the other hand he's gotta justify releasing windows 7 as a new operating system. Why would you listen to anyone in that position?

Your member name speaks volumes.

Do you really think that's appropriate, in ANY forum?

Why? I think what is funny is snow leopard costs anything at all... Microsoft doesn't charge for service packs why should apple? Windows 7 is a new OS... Snow leopard is SP....

Well, we'll only pay attention to MS very selectively, then.

MS has a history of unknowingly (and often unintentionally) admitting to truths they would not otherwise like to reveal.

This is just another example.

The kind of archtectural changes SL brings can't be included in a service pack.

Windows 7 is not a new OS. It's Vista. MS said it's Vista.

SL, however, certainly is a new OS. Major under-the-hood changes (which are publicly admitted to) are kind of your first clue.

Windows 7 upgrade pricing from Vista is a ridiculous. This is just freakin insane for a upgrade. It's not even a retail copy to install where I please! No, simply an upgrade... for over $200! I don't get it. I would have jumped at anything lower than a Benjamin. Add to this the fact that you are basically getting a marginally better organized UI and some new wallpapers. There just isn't that much of an improvement from Vista to warrant this kind of cash-grab. Insane. Or is it? Is it just another plot to get you buy hardware to get the OS for "free". Deals with the manufacturers? Course not...

No the point is that Microsoft can't get it's act together to get it's OS out the door.

Let's see, we are at OS X (10.5) almost 10.6 or six releases, close to 7, and wasn't one of those earlier releases free?

Anyway, MS never released it's feature rich Longhorn. Instead Vista was put out there instead.

If MS had done the same as Apple and did a smaller version of the Longhorn OS and then released another 5 updates that offered improved stability and a few new features and did so at the pricing it is charging as stated in the article, then MS customers would have paid more.

I've recently switched from PC to MAC and would never go back. I know some people choose PCs over MACs because of price, but...why would you want to own a PC? Why would you want to install windows 7? I honestly cannot believe what I was missing before I bought my MAC. Also, why would you install windows 7 using boot camp??
The only reason I'd have a PC is if I needed it for work...

Agree. There is no any reason to easily abandon Vista today - after SP2 (actually after SP1) it works as it should from the beginning. Hardware and software compatibility wise, both Vista and 7 will be on the same level.

Out of 4 Vista PCs (and 4 XP PCs), I'm planning to upgrade only one Vista box to 7 - mostly out of curiosity. Vista license from that machine will upgrade one of XP boxes - other XPs are too old and weak for anything above XP, anyway.

I, for one, am happy 7 is based on Vista core. Completely new core would likely cause new avalanche of compatibility and drivers stability issues. That aside, Vista is decent core, stable and reliable, if a bit bloated with background processes and services, and not much advanced (as it could be) in GUI compared to XP.

So for me, taking good reliable core and redoing background processes and services, and making it more pleasurable to use from end user point of view is the way to go.

How much work is really done? No idea. To retreat to everyone's favourite car analogies, plain factory Subaru Impreza and Rally breed STI are based on the same core, but very much different cars. I'm hoping 7 will be related to Vista in the same way.

After all, Snow Leopard is still OSX... not OSXI...

Well, I must agree on Quadra on this one - imGayForSteveJobs is, err, a bit corky name

Im pretty sure its Seahawk Fan under a new name after he was sent to Coventry. If not, the timing is uncanny.

Are we to discriminate against the gays now? Maybe he really is infatuated with Steve Jobs. He's free to do so.

Let me help.

Work related, as you mentioned - obviously.

Lower hardware price, much of it not available on Mac. There is no Quad Core option for Mac - short of Mac Pro.

Software not available on Mac (might be work related for some people).

Games

Easy hardware upgrade path. If you purchase your machine carefully, adding things to PC box is simple. Adding things to consumer Macs is, well.

sorry, but that's baloney.

yes, from a user's perspective, Win 7 is a major release because the UI has been revised so much - the front end (in many ways copying OS X as usual). we'll hear a lot about that.

but under the hood it's Vista v.2. that's why MS itself numbers it 6.1 after Vista's 6.0. an "entirely new operating system" would jump instead a full integer to ... er, 7.x (whereas XP of course was 5.x). sure, some related chunks of the OS are being overhauled - especially XP legacy stuff. just like Snow Leopard is overhauling the current version of Quicktime 7.x which dates back to 2005.

but "entirely new," that's nonsense.

which is part of the MS insult, this tacky little numbering game of Windows 7 when the "7" actually means 6.1.

look at it this way. Vista was the beta. now after 2.5 years MS finally is getting the finished version of "NT 6" out the door. how impressive!

if they were charging $29 for Win 7 for all the users who already paid cash before to buy/upgrade Vista, that would be a fair deal comparable to Snow Leopard's $29 price. but MS ain't doing that ... instead it's the Microsoft Tax.

think that phony shopper on the MS TV ads realizes she will have to shell out more bucks to upgrade? ooops, they left that part out ...

There are a couple you missed out…

• Better selection of HW choices to meet specific needs at any price point.

• Much lower entry prices for those simply needing a machine or basic web/email/IM.

PS: The easy HW upgrade path argument is lessening each year as notebooks get more and more popular.

Nothing to do with discrimination. Name ImHornyForMeganFox would be as inappropriate. While I'm open minded (and, err, more than mildly interested in personal qualities of one Megan Fox, both constitutional and mental), names with sexual (p)references are hardly appropriate for forums opened to minors.

This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.

Cheers. I did mention cheaper hardware, much of it not at all available for Macs - which kind of covers your lines, but yours are more obvious and easier to follow.

i'd like to have some benchmarks to back me up on this one, just so someone doesn't jump and say I'm talking bs, but my core2duo macbook pro with 2gb of ram is 1000 times faster than my core2quad pc running windows vista, with 4gb of ram

what's the point of having a core2quad if you have windows vista?

You are paying WAY more for WAY less from MS. Only in the Bizzaro world is that remotely close to even.

Sure the prices are relatively similar but look at ALL of the changes from 10.0 to 10.7. It is not even remotely similar to the changes from XP to 7. Besides OS X upgrades used to be $99 and 10.1 was also $29.99, I believe.

Ooops, double post

Sarbannes-Oxley perhaps? Apple clearly intends to make very little money from Leopard to Snow Leopard upgrades. However, the definition of an OS has very little to do with the marketing features we generally see. It's 99% under the hood and most of the Snow Leopard changes are under the hood, so it's real value delivered to the core product. Plus the Exchange support is a significant value-add for those that need to use it, which would otherwise require an expensive piece of (junk) to provide the same. Apple may feel obligated to charge a justifiable fee.

I play games, am addicted to Steam, and I am a techwh0re.

There I said it...

Switchers.

Most of us have to use Windows at work.

For all the debates between Windows and Mac, there is a third option:

Linux

This option is more feasible because PC makers such as Dell and HP are beginning to sell desktops with Linux pre-loaded. There are even dedicated vendors like System76 that sell them. This is in addition to the beige-box dealers who will sell you a naked PC, or who will let you build it yourself.

What's more, this option will be completely free of the adware that many Windows PC's come with.

With so much of the computing experience driven by the web (Google, Facebook, etc), the choice of operating system becomes less and less relevant for users with trivial needs that don't go beyond surfing, reading email, and working with simple documents and music.

So for the ultra-cheap basic computer user, Linux PCs should be considered an option since it can't be that hard to just click the globe with the orange fox around it.

Microsoft knows this and is getting nervous because they're currently been squeezed out of the high-end PC market by Apple and are threatened at the low end by Linux.

For the record, I'm a happy Mac user, but I have used Linux in the past on a dual-boot for several years.

I've got my parents using Ubuntu. Been worry free and maintenance free so far.

No way in hell I'd let them near Windows.

Come Christmas, however, I'll likely be getting them a Mac.

But yes, for simple tasks and casual surfing and light office-related work, I'd definitely choose Linux in the absence of OS X.

I'm sorry, but I had to register to respond to this post. For someone who talks about Windows a lot, you seem not know how much about it. Since Vista, retail Windows disc have come with BOTH 32 bit and 64 bit on them. Keys are not tied to either 32 bit or 64 bit.

On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.


MS has been years late. At least one year late for every release going back to the early 1990's.

While Apple also had problems in the mid '90's with the failure of Copelend, they straightened themselves out.


How do you get that?

Vista took five years to release. and don't forget that it was a terribly botched attempt at Longhorn that precipitated VISTA in the first place. Vista is considered by the PC industry to be no more that XP in reworked fashion, rather than the new OS MS promised that Longhorn would be. So there were five years of birth for a product that pretty much already existed. Vista was no more that what Apple comes out with every two years.

Win 7 in turn is considered to be a minor revision of Vista. Yet, it took over seven years for the two to be developed.

You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.


The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.

They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.

Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.


Leopard wasn't an incompetent release. While some people have had problems here and there, the vast majority haven't. Its mostly the techie people who write in on sites like this that have mentioned problems. There's nothing like all the problems so many have had with Vista 64 OR 32.

That's why MS was prompted to come out with a minor release in the form of Windows 7 and drop the name Vista as quickly as possible in such a short time (for them).

If you've been following the PC press as I do, then you would have seen all the speculation about MS releasing Win 7 for free to all Vista owners.

At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).

Except it's not. Vista has been accepted as being Server 2003, after they botched Longhorn, which would have been a major advance. As they found they had to drop all the major features, they decided to drop the entire thing, and give some snazzy interface changes to 2003, along with the annoying security features, and call it Vista.

The entire PC industry is calling Win 7 a minor upgrade to Vista, so don't pretend it's not.

Except that you seem to know so little about MS's OS's that you are the one spreading the misinformation. XP was Win 2000 (which was NT 5, except it was over two years late so they renamed it Win 2000, hoping people would forget) with jazzed up multimedia extensions and a newer GUI. Vista was a warmed over Server 2003 because of the failure of Longhorn, with more jazzed up features, and a 64 bit version, and Win 7 is a warmed over version of Vista, with a somewhat simplified security system and a few other features according to MS, though they don't quite state it in that way for obvious reasons.

Of COURSE he's got to call it a major release. If he didn't, there would be no way they could charge for it. It would just be another service pack. MS MUST charge for Windows upgrades. They live by Windows upgrades and Office upgrades. That's 90% of their profits, and 60% of their sales.

Can you imagine if Ballmer, after telling the press that Win 7 was a warmed over Vista, as he basically did, then said it was a minor upgrade? How could they then charge for it?

Already, the PC press has been asking for it to be a free release for all Vista owners. It would devastate their sales and profits, and their stock would drop to $10.

The very fact that the press pushed him on this shows the feelings out there. Can you imagine how he felt having to tell them that this was a "real" release? Do you understand what that meant, that he HAD to state that?

The problem is that you DID feel that you had to quote it. Why are you backtracking now? Doesn't the CEO of MS's words mean anything to you when they're shown to be hollow?

Are you going to stand up for them or not?

Either Win 7 is just more Vista with minor changes, or it's as you earlier said, a new OS. Which is it?

MS thinks it's Vista.