Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

olePigeon · Jun 25, 2009, 05:41 PM

Windows 7 Home Premium - $199, $119 upgrade from Vista or XP
Windows 7 Professional - $299, $199 upgrade
Windows 7 Ultimate - $319, $219 upgrade

So you have to pay $319 for the only copy of Windows that isn't artificially crippled. $219 if you want to upgrade from the previous version that didn't include the premium content that was promised as part of the original $399 price of the OS in the first place.

Did any of you actually buy Vista Ultimate? Talk about bait and switch. I would've figured Windows 7 Ultimate would be a free upgrade for Vista Ultimate buyers since Microsoft never delivered on the premium content they promised.

Andy8 · Jun 25, 2009, 05:43 PM

It makes Snow Leopard pricing look even more delicious.

Big Mac · Jun 25, 2009, 07:28 PM

Yeah, but SL is a special case. This pricing seems pretty reasonable by M$ standards. Windows still sucks. It may suck less, but it still sucks.

shifuimam · Jun 25, 2009, 08:11 PM

Plus, given that you can buy a new computer for like $400 or so, and it'll come preinstalled with some version of Windows 7, the pricing becomes less relevant.

Plus you've got people at colleges and universities all over the place getting it dirt-cheap. My copy of Vista Ultimate was only $35.

mr. burns · Jun 26, 2009, 12:46 AM

they probably charge so much because it's pirated so much, but at the same time, the more they charge for it, the more people want to pirate it.

shifuimam · Jun 26, 2009, 08:31 AM

I'd wonder how much Windows is actually pirated anymore. It's gotten difficult to do - you can't get any updates if you're using a pirated serial.

ghporter · Jun 26, 2009, 08:48 AM

No, those prices are what MS "suggests," and they ARE paid-by businesses. But only for one or two off purchases. MS doesn't have the same sort of "charge our price or you don't sell our product" policy that Apple does, and you can find full versions of Windows for a LOT less than MSRP all the time. At least once a particular version is widely available.

Pirating still occurs, but it comes from the corporate versions that use volume-license keys (which don't seem to have the same sort of activation issues, nor the "Genuine" problems reusing consumer keys causes), not consumer versions. So you can blame it on corporate IT nerds.

olePigeon · Jun 26, 2009, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

No, those prices are what MS "suggests," and they ARE paid-by businesses. But only for one or two off purchases. MS doesn't have the same sort of "charge our price or you don't sell our product" policy that Apple does, and you can find full versions of Windows for a LOT less than MSRP all the time. At least once a particular version is widely available.

The cheaper versions of Windows are invariably OEM/System Builder copies. You forgo any help from Microsoft and the license is non-transferrable from the 1st machine it is installed on.

Not that people care.

Chuckit · Jun 26, 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I'd wonder how much Windows is actually pirated anymore. It's gotten difficult to do - you can't get any updates if you're using a pirated serial.

A quick search on The Pirate Bay suggests that 1) it's still pirated quite a lot, and 2) you can get updates if the pirated copy is properly cracked.

cgc · Jun 26, 2009, 09:36 PM

An OS is the last thing I'd want to pirate followed closely by security software. Never know what a clever hacker can do to an OS that can never be detected.

So any idea how many licenses you get for a complete install of Windows 7 Professional? I need two licenses and will not drop $598 for the two licenses I need.

ghporter · Jun 26, 2009, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by cgc

So any idea how many licenses you get for a complete install of Windows 7 Professional? I need two licenses and will not drop $598 for the two licenses I need.

First, figure out where you plan to buy these two licenses. As I stated earlier, that "$598" is an MSRP. LOTS of places will discount it, at least shortly after the hoopla over the formal release dies down. And like with every other OS, it's probably a good idea to let the early adopters find the rough spots and glitches for you, while you wait for a month or so-or maybe the first service pack...

Wiskedjak · Jun 26, 2009, 10:13 PM

Prices for Windows and MacOS can't be directly compared. Windows' shelf price is more than MacOS, but Apple charges for point releases, while Microsoft does not.

Microsoft has charged for three versions of Windows since 2001; XP (Windows 5.x), Vista (Windows 6.x) and 7 (Windows 7.x).
Apple has only released had version of MacOS since 2001 and has charged for 7 point releases of 10.x in that time.

Microsoft charges more, while Apple charges less more frequently.

Big Mac · 03:53 AM

Wikedjak, you seriously need to trade in your login to the Forums. What you just posted is a common Windows fanboy tactic, and really it should be reported as abuse because of the troll factor. You may as well have also said "Apple charges for Service Packs."

"Point releases" of OS X are substantially new milestones of the OS. When OS X was young it had a lot more room for substantial development in a relatively short time frame. Now it's much more mature, and as a result Apple has stated it will increase the amount of time between major releases. Apple charges for major releases but charges nothing for bug fixes. Just because Apple doesn't get rid of the version 10 naming scheme doesn't mean Apple works less on each major release than does Microsoft. Yes, SL is a smaller upgrade from Leopard than Leopard was from Tiger, which is why Apple is only charging $29. That doesn't mean it isn't a milestone release or that Apple's just charging for a small upgrade.

Windows 7 is basically a streamlined and fixed up version of Vista. Furthermore, Windows 7 is technically the latest version of Windows NT. Microsoft just dropped the NT going forward because it's irrelevant to consumers. (Apple could do essentially the same thing: Drop the 10 and officially call it Mac OS X Snow Leopard.) Windows 7's version number is actually version 6.1.7100. Microsoft didn't bump it up from version 6 (Vista) to version 7 for at least one reason - doing so would have broken software that demands Vista or lower. Is Windows 7 just a point release to you? Please wise up.

ghporter · Jun 28, 2009, 08:55 AM

What Wiskedjack is calling "point releases" of OS X are comparable to Microsoft's releases of Windows 95 and Windows 98. They were similar, but substantially different. And Microsoft charged for upgrades to 98 from 95. Different versions of OS X are just that, different OS versions under the product line name "OS X."

However, he does have a point about not being able to directly compare MS' pricing of Win 7 to Apple's pricing of OS X. Only Apple sells computers with OS X preinstalled, while a bazillion companies "make" computers with Windows preinstalled. (I put make in quotes because almost every "computer manufacturer" is simply a parts aggregator, assembling standard parts and hopefully providing appropriate drivers for those parts.) Microsoft makes marketing deals with manufacturers, selling the right to preinstall their OS on the manufacturers' machines. Over the counter sales of Microsoft OSs are only a small part of Windows marketing, and MS's MSRPs are seldom adhered to, especially after a new version's release hysteria has died down, while Apple enforces a fairly strict policy that does not allow "resellers" to substantially discount their OS products. These are two fundamentally different business models, so their pricing schemes cannot really be compared.

What you might want to do is consider what hardware you'd be willing to buy to GET each OS. By looking at the complete machine with the OS, you can begin to compare consumer-level pricing. Otherwise it's an apples and grapefruit comparison. Or maybe apples and socket wrenches...

Big Mac · Jun 29, 2009, 04:08 AM

Good points, Glenn.

Microsoft's preorder Windows 7 pricing makes it almost as affordable an upgrade as Snow Leopard. Microsoft deserves some credit here.

mduell · Jul 2, 2009, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Prices for Windows and MacOS can't be directly compared. Windows' shelf price is more than MacOS, but Apple charges for point releases, while Microsoft does not.

It's not just charging for for point releases, it's charging users for the ability to use APIs (OpenCL is a paid upgrade, DirectX 11 Compute is free). I can't even imagine Apple releasing something like .NET for free; every new Core* API is part of a paid release.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

So you have to pay $319 for the only copy of Windows that isn't artificially crippled.

Correct, but misleading. The appeal of the additional features of Enterprise (which are the same as Ultimate) outside the enterprise is weak, comparable to the appeal of Windows Server or OS X Server on the desktop.

Chuckit · Jul 2, 2009, 03:08 PM

Yeah, there's not a lot of uncrippling in Enterprise. The big gimps are Starter and Home.

shifuimam · Jul 2, 2009, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by cgc

An OS is the last thing I'd want to pirate followed closely by security software. Never know what a clever hacker can do to an OS that can never be detected.

This is why I don't use pirated OSes, although the same could be said for other software. I do think that OS pirating is riskier, though. Plus I can get Windows dirt cheap from the campus bookstore.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Wikedjak, you seriously need to trade in your login to the Forums. What you just posted is a common Windows fanboy tactic, and really it should be reported as abuse because of the troll factor. You may as well have also said "Apple charges for Service Packs."

It's not trolling to say that Apple releases upgrades more frequently for less money per upgrade - it's just a fact of how Apple does it compared to Microsoft's business model.

If you want a copy of the newest Windows OS, you can spend as little as $300 on a new desktop computer. It might not be the top edition, but it will still be an upgrade. On the other hand, you can either spend $129 to use Apple's newest version of OS X (on your older hardware), or you can buy a new Mac at a minimum of $600 (not to mention the crap return policy and warranty options compared to Dell, HP, and Lenovo). Now, an upgrade to Windows 7 can be had for as little as $50 because of the preordering deal Microsoft has going on.

Even if you go by MSRP on upgrade pricing (which is most realistic, since people buying OS X retail are going to be installing it on existing hardware already running OS X), Windows is cheaper in most cases - the upgrade prices for XP Home ($100), Vista Home Premium ($123), and 7 Home Premium ($120) total about $340 - nearly $200 in savings over the four OS X releases over the past years (10.2-10.5; IIRC 10.1 was a free upgrade for 10.0 licenses). If you go the top-end route, the cost ends up being about $100 more (based on MSRP; the prices are different if you buy Windows copies online).

Not to mention that with OS X, you can expect to upgrade your system every thirteen months or so. Personally, that's not a very appealing idea to me. I don't want to risk losing data, system configurations, application settings, etc. While I do realize that upgrading to a new OS X version is pretty simple, there's still a risk involved.

OS X does cost more. People are willing to pay a premium for whatever reason they have for using OS X (wanting to look cool, hating Microsoft, wanting to try something new, bad experiences with Windows in the past, etc.).

And, FWIW, mentioning Enterprise here is irrelevant - Enterprise licenses are only available to corporate licensing structures. Ultimate is the retail version of Enterprise, minus the extra localized activation stuff that comes with Enterprise. Vista Enterprise also lacks the Windows Media Center components.

NeverTriedApple · Jul 11, 2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

If you want a copy of the newest Windows OS, you can spend as little as $300 on a new desktop computer. It might not be the top edition, but it will still be an upgrade.

Not to start a debate but $300 for PC with newest Windows OS, really? None of Dell, HP or Lenovo offer this. Currently cheapest is Dell Inspiron 531s with obsolete XP SP3 for $249+taxes. Seeing the specs it is rather rock bottom than 'not the top'. Vista based Inspirons are offered by Dell at $449+.

Originally Posted by shifuimam

On the other hand, you can either spend $129 to use Apple's newest version of OS X (on your older hardware), or you can buy a new Mac at a minimum of $600 (not to mention the crap return policy and warranty options compared to Dell, HP, and Lenovo).

Your representation of crap return policy is subjective. So is mine: iPhone replaced 5 times without any questions asked, BT keyboard replaced in store (although purchased through retailer) without any receipts, more than a year after it was sold to retailed by Apple (tracked via S/N), couple IOMEGA drives that were swapped in store regardless of really crappy IOMEGA return policy. By far Apple is currently the only mfg who's after sales care I'm positively impressed with. Not to say that Dell or Lenovo are bad but Apple is doing more than alright in this sense.

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Now, an upgrade to Windows 7 can be had for as little as $50 because of the preordering deal Microsoft has going on.

I still have fresh memories of upgrading to Vista. Relatively cheap too. Oh well I forgot about graphics card that wasn't DX10 compatible. And another couple of things here and there that weren't compatible with it too and eventually had to be replaced, thus costing even more than predicted. Snow Leopard on the other hand can be had for as little as £7 (for those who bought hardware within 3 months before it is due date but still a deal).

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Even if you go by MSRP on upgrade pricing (which is most realistic, since people buying OS X retail are going to be installing it on existing hardware already running OS X), Windows is cheaper in most cases - the upgrade prices for XP Home ($100), Vista Home Premium ($123), and 7 Home Premium ($120) total about $340 - nearly $200 in savings over the four OS X releases over the past years (10.2-10.5; IIRC 10.1 was a free upgrade for 10.0 licenses). If you go the top-end route, the cost ends up being about $100 more (based on MSRP; the prices are different if you buy Windows copies online).

Well what you say probably works in theory but in real world nobody upgrades same compuer from 98 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 (to save nearly $200). At every stage of Windows OS release normally a new, relevant computer is bought. Well known, this is because of growing OS hardware requirements and quick obsolescence of computer components. Mac OS X though keeps supporting legacy hardware a lot better than Windows (partially because there's not much to support comparing to PC world).

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Not to mention that with OS X, you can expect to upgrade your system every thirteen months or so. Personally, that's not a very appealing idea to me. I don't want to risk losing data, system configurations, application settings, etc. While I do realize that upgrading to a new OS X version is pretty simple, there's still a risk involved.

Well you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to. Risk of losing data or system configs is there in any system upgrade.

Originally Posted by shifuimam

OS X does cost more. People are willing to pay a premium for whatever reason they have for using OS X (wanting to look cool, hating Microsoft, wanting to try something new, bad experiences with Windows in the past, etc.).

Whilst in absolute figures comparing to Windows it might cost more, still Apple supports their legacy products better than Microsoft does, thus enabling to run newest OS X even on not-so-newish hardware, whereas with Windows it's all new computer every time which is a lot more than any copy of OS X.

PS: I am not a die hard Apple fan, neither am I a MS fan. Both are buggy, both cost money.

angelmb · Jul 12, 2009, 04:56 AM

Is is true that if you buy Windows 7 you can't get using your previous XP license?, is it a rent or what?.

ghporter · Jul 12, 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by angelmb

Is is true that if you buy Windows 7 you can't get using your previous XP license?, is it a rent or what?.

If you use your XP license for an UPGRADE installation, that license is now tied to the Win7 installation and thus not legally usable for XP. If you upgrade through buying a full version of 7, which will come with its own license, then your XP license is still attached to your XP installation and thus not affected. Technically there are OEM XP licenses that say you can't move that copy of XP to a different machine, but I doubt that this is going to be an issue...

Laminar · Jul 12, 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple

Whilst in absolute figures comparing to Windows it might cost more, still Apple supports their legacy products better than Microsoft does, thus enabling to run newest OS X even on not-so-newish hardware, whereas with Windows it's all new computer every time which is a lot more than any copy of OS X.

I wouldn't be so sure. Leopard required at least an 867MHz G4 to install, when slower systems still would have been able to run it about the same. While they did have to cut it off somewhere, it's a complaint I've heard more than once.

NeverTriedApple · Jul 12, 2009, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I wouldn't be so sure. Leopard required at least an 867MHz G4 to install, when slower systems still would have been able to run it about the same. While they did have to cut it off somewhere, it's a complaint I've heard more than once.

Fair enough. 867MHz G4 was introduced in like 2001? Although one will be able to run XP on 2001 hardware (the year XP was introduced), one won't be able to even dream of running Vista & 7 on the same hardware (disregard what MS writes in system reqs for Vista, it simply won't work).

shifuimam · Jul 14, 2009, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by NeverTriedApple

Not to start a debate but $300 for PC with newest Windows OS, really? None of Dell, HP or Lenovo offer this. Currently cheapest is Dell Inspiron 531s with obsolete XP SP3 for $249+taxes. Seeing the specs it is rather rock bottom than 'not the top'. Vista based Inspirons are offered by Dell at $449+.

Dell's got Inspirons for $250 with Vista Home Basic. Admittedly, Home Basic is pretty shitty compared to the other Vista editions, but you can get Vista on a cheap machine. $460 will get you a desktop with Home Premium. When I posted this, I saw a machine on Dell's website for $299 with Home Premium - it must have been a limited-time deal.

Your representation of crap return policy is subjective. So is mine: iPhone replaced 5 times without any questions asked, BT keyboard replaced in store (although purchased through retailer) without any receipts, more than a year after it was sold to retailed by Apple (tracked via S/N), couple IOMEGA drives that were swapped in store regardless of really crappy IOMEGA return policy. By far Apple is currently the only mfg who's after sales care I'm positively impressed with. Not to say that Dell or Lenovo are bad but Apple is doing more than alright in this sense.

Returns are not the same as replacements - I'm talking about someone who buys a MacBook, has buyer's remorse, and decides to return it - or someone who buys a Mac for the first time, decides they hate OS X, and returns it. In both cases, the issue is that in order to get your money back and take your business elsewhere, Apple hits you with a 15% restocking fee - which can amount to a couple hundred dollars when you consider Apple's more expensive MacBook Pros and Mac Pros. Dell's total-satisfaction 20-day return period allows you to return a machine, no questions asked, for a full refund.

Well what you say probably works in theory but in real world nobody upgrades same compuer from 98 -> XP -> Vista -> 7 (to save nearly $200). At every stage of Windows OS release normally a new, relevant computer is bought. Well known, this is because of growing OS hardware requirements and quick obsolescence of computer components. Mac OS X though keeps supporting legacy hardware a lot better than Windows (partially because there's not much to support comparing to PC world).

While it's true that few people are still running a Windows 98-era machine and wanting to run Vista on it, it's not true that PC hardware reaches obsolescence faster than Mac hardware. Windows XP can run perfectly well on ancient hardware, like a Pentium II or III. Vista can't, but Leopard can't even run on some G4s, so I wouldn't say that Apple supports legacy hardware any more than Windows does. You couldn't install Tiger on a machine without FireWire, IIRC, which knocks out some G3 hardware (early-model iBooks and iMacs specifically).

Well you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to. Risk of losing data or system configs is there in any system upgrade.

This isn't entirely true - there are lots of applications that require newer versions of OS X to run. Until I upgraded my iBook to Tiger, I couldn't run the latest versions of Firefox and Adium, because they required updated libraries that didn't exist in Panther. You're going to run into problems if you drag your heels on upgrading OS X to whatever the latest version is.

Whilst in absolute figures comparing to Windows it might cost more, still Apple supports their legacy products better than Microsoft does, thus enabling to run newest OS X even on not-so-newish hardware, whereas with Windows it's all new computer every time which is a lot more than any copy of OS X.

See my above comment - Leopard and Vista both have increased system requirements that prevent them from being installed on some legacy hardware. Snow Leopard won't even install on PowerPC Macs, which knocks out every piece of Apple hardware made before 2006. You can probably say about the same thing for Vista - it'll probably run on late-model Pentium 4 processors, but you're better off with newer Intel/AMD CPUs.

Chuckit · Jul 14, 2009, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Returns are not the same as replacements - I'm talking about someone who buys a MacBook, has buyer's remorse, and decides to return it - or someone who buys a Mac for the first time, decides they hate OS X, and returns it. In both cases, the issue is that in order to get your money back and take your business elsewhere, Apple hits you with a 15% restocking fee - which can amount to a couple hundred dollars when you consider Apple's more expensive MacBook Pros and Mac Pros. Dell's total-satisfaction 20-day return period allows you to return a machine, no questions asked, for a full refund.

If this is a major issue for someone, they have got issues. You know how many computers I've purchased and immediately decided I didn't want (and not only that, but didn't want to replace with something else)? Not a single one, and nor has anyone I know.

Wiskedjak · Jul 14, 2009, 08:04 PM

I'm on the same page with shifuimam here. I always find myself defending Microsoft in threads like these because of all the blind loyalty to Apple. The reality is that they both have their issues.

On that, Microsoft announced today that Windows 7 upgrades will require XP or Vista to be *installed* on the computer. Boooo ... a lot of us thought that since Vista only wants to see a valid XP serial that the same would hold true for 7.

ghporter · Jul 14, 2009, 09:15 PM

The term "installed" has been used before. In the past, the "new" installer checked for some signature file or the content of that file to decide that the legacy OS was "installed." This has been spoofed and otherwise fooled so many times that I'm guessing they'll use some really arcane and bizarrely located file for this sort of check. I do not think that the legacy "installation" will need to actually run for the new installer to approve of it.

Plus as I mentioned in another thread on Win7 Upgrades, there are ways to make an upgrade disc do a complete, clean install, so some old XP image would be more than adequate to tell it "go for it." Microsoft wants to defeat "casual pirates" and people who never bought a MS OS. They make it cumbersome for those of us who HAVE paid for their products to get good, clean installs with upgrade discs because of this, but I don't think they'll do much more than they already have in the past to defeat the baddies.

angelmb · Jul 15, 2009, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

If you use your XP license for an UPGRADE installation, that license is now tied to the Win7 installation and thus not legally usable for XP. If you upgrade through buying a full version of 7, which will come with its own license, then your XP license is still attached to your XP installation and thus not affected. Technically there are OEM XP licenses that say you can't move that copy of XP to a different machine, but I doubt that this is going to be an issue...

So if a go for an upgrade version I can't use anymore that previous Windows OS version I upgraded from?, that makes (both) expensive. I still can install and use 10.3, 10.4 or any other Mac OS iteration even when I'm running 10.5, and my next 10.6 is going to be an upgrade buy.

ghporter · Jul 15, 2009, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by angelmb

So if a go for an upgrade version I can't use anymore that previous Windows OS version I upgraded from?, that makes (both) expensive. I still can install and use 10.3, 10.4 or any other Mac OS iteration even when I'm running 10.5, and my next 10.6 is going to be an upgrade buy.

Windows licensing is different, especially "upgrade" licensing. The way they wrote the current upgrade license, the license key from the OLD OS is transferred to Win7 and thus not usable by another installation. Since they check this sort of thing when you authenticate a new Windows installation, you cannot use the old OS after using its key to upgrade a machine to Win7. This only matters if you're not really "upgrading a machine" but actually "passing on the old OS" to another machine. That's a common practice, but its no longer practical with this new license.

msuper69 · Jul 15, 2009, 11:53 AM

My cost for Windows 7?

$0

'cause I don't do Windows.

shifuimam · Jul 15, 2009, 02:09 PM

There is the possibility that upgrading from a non-activated version of XP (e.g. some OEM licenses, volume licenses) will allow you to continue to use your XP license in addition to your new Windows 7 license...although it will likely still be an EULA violation.

Chuckit · Jul 15, 2009, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by msuper69

My cost for Windows 7?

$0

'cause I don't do Windows.

$0 here as well, because Windows XP still runs the few Windows games I play just fine.

I wonder how many people will consider Windows 7 compelling where Vista wasn't. I certainly wouldn't want an upgrade version that can't do a clean install.