Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
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.
«13456710

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 197
    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!
  • Reply 2 of 197
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 197
    neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    Why don't you write about the "disgruntled" Leopard users who also have to pay a fee for a "maintenance release"?
  • Reply 4 of 197
    wallywally Posts: 211member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    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.
  • Reply 5 of 197
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    save rhis spot for later
  • Reply 6 of 197
    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
  • Reply 7 of 197
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    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!)
  • Reply 8 of 197
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    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
  • Reply 9 of 197
    dagamer34dagamer34 Posts: 494member
    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.
  • Reply 10 of 197
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    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.
  • Reply 11 of 197
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member
    Apple should just integrate Snow Leopard with their updates and just send it out. Why charge people for it?
  • Reply 12 of 197
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    (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?
  • Reply 13 of 197
    eyelesseyeless Posts: 28member
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 197
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    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.
  • Reply 15 of 197
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 197
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    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.
  • Reply 17 of 197
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    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.
  • Reply 18 of 197
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    $29 Snow Leopard is going to make MS a laughingstock.
  • Reply 19 of 197
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post


    $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.
  • Reply 20 of 197
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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 View Post


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.