Windows 7 Family Pack & Anytime Upgrade Pricing Announced

27

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

mesiah

I'm by no means an MS fan boy, but to anyone who complains that $100-$200 is too much for an OS, I think you need a little perspective. Have you ever purchased any software other than titles for entertainment? The adobe creative suite can run up to $2500, MS visual studio can run anywhere from $800 to $10,000. Compared to the price of most software other than games, $150 really isn't that much. But if you want to compare it to a game, most people pay $50-$60 for a game they are going to play for a month tops and then never touch again. So, 2-3 games youll play for a few months, or one OS that will last you for years. Bitch all you want about other things, but I really dont think the pricing for windows is out of line.

avatar

ghot

Windows 7 to Vista....silly people!   Bench Windows 7 against XP and see where that gets ya.....dure Win 7 is better than the "brken leg, that is vista....but XP still lays the smak down on Windows 7 .....sure it MAY boot faster....w/o all the start up rpograms that most people run.....load Win 7 down with 5-10 start up apps and it'll even lose in that respect.  I ran and benched Win 7 against XP and folks....Win XP smacks Win 7....AND takes it's lunch money.

All this pricing BS is just to allow MS to say:  "look at our awesome first day rollout".  Fortunately, after setting all the apps on Win 7...it'll be another dog.By the time Win 7 is a year or twom old...I think you will find...it's still gets tanked by XP, in both benchmarks and efficiency.  As for me ....on a 4 year (nothing but backups copy of XP....it still taks Win 7...

But don't let ME talk you out of Win 7...time will do that, as it did with Vista.  Sure it spanks Windows Vista, but that's like saying, jesso Owens can spanka 1 legged man in the 100yd dash....sinve the alpha release....I can count on zero hands the benchmarks that compare Win 7 to XP....why do you think that is?

Lastly, by the time that the price discounts offered by M$ add up to the one time cost of XP...you will rue the day that you TOO fell for the hype.

 

Take an OS, and edit out all the efficiency, and what you have left is a post-XP Microsoft operating system :)

avatar

MleB

Fascinating, but all these prices are for upgrading over top of an existing OS - providing its not XP.

 For all those users of XP (and, most especially, those owning one of the millions of netbooks that have been released in the past 21 months - or will be before October 22nd) that'll mean a full OS purchase - and that price will be even harder to justify than the upgrade on such devices.

For netbook users, unless one is simply a fan of the latest and greatest, the Win7 (aka Vista SP3 or WinME 2009) full OS costing well over half as much as some netbooks (and with the inevitable new OS bugs) will not be attractive to those who find they have a device that already works. Microsoft is hardly encouraging these users to migrate anytime soon with this upgrade path.

avatar

robotsneedhugs2

Is the Family Pack for upgrading only?

avatar

Stinky Fartface

Ok, those of you comparing OSX should know that, despite all you have heard: Windows is a much deeper product that OSX. The point, and additional functionality, may be lost to most users, but Windows actually has a lot of stuff it can do out of the box that OSX doesn't provide at all. Much of this is specialized functionality that most users will never be aware of.

 Now, that being said, I am still entirely in support of a single version of the OS. I don't consider the 'lesser' versions crippled per se, but I still don't agree that the OS should be tiered. My reasoning is that, the extra features are going to be used by a select group of individuals and ignored by the rest. So what is the point? Just package it all together and charge a single price. Your profits are not going to significantly change, and those who don't need the features aren't going to use them anyway. Why make it needlessly complex?

 Now, to the lunkhead comparing Win7 to the Snow Leopard release of OSX: Snow Leopard is a minor, decimal point, upgrade to an OLD operating system. Essentially it's OSX SP6. Microsoft releases their service packs for free to licensed users; they don't charge for them. Windows 7 is a NEW operating system (technically anyway). It is NOT (arguably) Vista SP4. Therefore, users need to pony up to upgrade.

avatar

Tekzel

"Your profits are not going to significantly change, and those who don't need the features aren't going to use them anyway."

This is the main problem with some folks posts in here, they make wild assumptions without any evidence to support their claim.  Upon what do you base this?  Have you performed an indepth study of the financial impact of selling every version of Win7 at various price points?  Surely you aren't suggesting they should sell Ultimate for the price of Starter, are you?

Personally, I like the tierd pricing.  I need Home Premium only.  Sure, there are a couple of features of Pro I would like to have, but I am not willing to pay the premium for them.  I think the price for HP and Pro are fine as they are.  I also think anyone who ponies up for 7 Ultimate is insane, but it is their money.

So, why do you think tierd versions is wrong?  Everyone who rails against it conveniently fails to explain why.  My guess: You want the features in the higher version, but only want to pay for the lower version.  That is not a valid reason.

 

avatar

Fiercedeity

"My guess: You want the features in the higher version, but only want to pay for the lower version.  That is not a valid reason."

 

 That is most certainly a valid reason.

avatar

TheDaemon

Ridiculous... Snow Leopard is going to retail for $29.

avatar

keithfreitag

a god damn Service Pack you fanboy!  Our SP's are FREE, you get suckered into paying $30 for a .1 upgrade.  Who the rediculous one now?

avatar

fullur

It's a FreeBSD distribution. Sure the UI is Apple-built, but they did not put in the real work. They did exactly what supposedly makes M$ so evil, they stole good ideas from other developers. Further, as the above post mentioned, Snow Leopard is an incremental version update to the previous version.

Granted, the same could be said about Windows 7. It is to Windows Vista what SP2 was to XP, except it costs a lot of money for the consumer.

avatar

Tekzel

I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with your your last few lines.  Comparing Windows 7 to Vista as  XP SP2 to XP, is just plain ridiculous.  Almost every new version of Windows has been an incremental enhancement, with a few notable exceptions (3.x -> NT for instance).  Are you going to say every other version of windows was a service pack?  Upon what do you base your opinion that Windows 7 is just a Vista service pack?  Since when do they totally revamp the UI in a service pack?  Add a large number of NEW core features (Libraries, for instance)?  Yea, never. :)

avatar

MeTo

Was libraries supposed to be in Vista? I thought they could'nt get it to work right in time for launch so they postponed it.

avatar

Tekzel

I don't remember hearing about that as a potential component in Vista, but I can't say for sure, but I don't THINK so.  The only thing I can think of offhand was WinFS.

avatar

jrocknyc

we pay $80 more for the OS, you pay $800 more for the hardware. Who's ridiculous? :p

avatar

maniacm0nk3y

I thought this would be nice, even though I am a part of the family, not the parent. But not even allowing Professional? Just Home Premium? It's like Vista Basic...7 Premium is the same, 7 Proffesinal is the sweet spot, and Ultimate is if you want to go all out.

avatar

Tekzel

Don't get caught up in the hype, Home Premium is the sweet spot and in no way like "Vista Basic", which didn't support aero, etc.  Most people don't need most of the additional features in Pro.  If you do, fine go buy it.  But the Family Pack will be perfect for 99% of the home users out there.

avatar

damicatz

The "Family Pack" is useless to me because I have to be able to join domains (for both work and the fact that I run one at home).

There is not enough new in Windows 7 to otherwise justify the ridiculous prices (retail; upgrade and OEM both come with too many (illegal) restrictions).  

How is it that Apple sells the retail versions of their operating systems (the full version; there aren't different editions that are more crippled than the others) for $100 whereas Microsoft forces you to pay hundreds of dollars just to get a version that's not deliberatly crippled?  Hell, you can get a *5* user family pack of Mac OS X 10.5 for $125 and it isn't some crippled version like Windows 7 Home Premium, it's the full thing with all of the features.

Having dealt with Microsoft at both home and at work, their software pricing is ridiculous across the board.

I'll pass on Windows 7.

avatar

pcguy94

Hey i've tried the RC of windows 7 and it is very good.  if you want to try it for yourself go to microsoft's website. WINDOWS 7 IS NOT CRIPPLED!

avatar

Asterixx

Nunc est bibendum!

IMO every copy of Mac OS is crippled. If it won't run the software I want it to run it's crippled. There are millions of gamers and businesspeople who would agree with me, I'm sure...

avatar

Tekzel

This should be interesting: What exactly is crippled about Windows 7 Home Premium?

My guess:  That it doesn't include every possible feature, for the Home Premium price.  So, you think there should be only one version?  Everyone should have to pay for domain support, etc, when they don't need it?  Or should there be only one version, with every feature, for the starter edition price?  Waiting eagerly for the answer to this one.

avatar

comptech08

I am all for one version. It doesn't cost Microsoft more to develop different flavors. They create the ultimate one for say and then strip components out to make the other flavors. I say make one edition and leave it at a basic or probably better yet, at a home premium type install and then if the user wants some features then they should know how to turn them on and use them and vice versa, disable them to be optimized for a low end computer or netbook.

The software pricing from Microsoft is ridiculous. Its robbery. The higher prices in no way counter balance piracy it just encourages it.

avatar

Tekzel

Actually, it does cost them more to develop the additional FEATURES that are part of the different flavors.  So in effect, it does cost them more to develop the additional flavors.

That is, quite honestly, immaterial in my opinion.  Even if all x versions cost exactly the same to develop, it is their product to price how they want.  As a consumer, you have the option to buy it, or not buy it.  Of course, there is the additional option of talking trash about it on the internet, but you have to make sure your argument holds water.  In this case, I don't think it does.

I agree they are off their rocker with some of their products though, for instance Microsoft Office.  They would have to price it at $50.00 for me to even consider buying it, though its unlikely I would even at that price.  OpenOffice costs $0 and it does everything I need, plus a lot more, in a smaller package.  But, their client OSes, I am ok with the pricing.  I can't really talk much about their server offering as I haven't had a reason to buy one.

avatar

n0ctis

 Mr. Kerr, it stands in stark contrast, not "start contrast." Thank you.

________________________________________________________________
.: vires et honos :.

avatar

erolsipar

Almost every copy will support 32 Bit & 64 Bit.

avatar

Cache

Is the family pack available in x64?  Or only x32?

avatar

Justin.Kerr

All retail copies of Windows 7 come with both disks in one box. Make sure to check out our Windows 7 Upgrade Guide for all the details.

avatar

comptech08

I thought that both 32-bit and 64-bit will be on the same dvd this go around?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.