Microsoft sets Windows 7 pricing, upgrade programs
Microsoft on Wednesday announced retail pricing for Windows 7 that's at or below comparable Windows Vista prices, while also offering a chance for people to preorder the software at a substantial discount.
From Friday through July 11, consumers in the U.S. will be able to buy an upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home premium for $49 or Windows 7 Professional for $99. That offer is good for both XP and Windows Vista PCs, regardless of whether someone has been trying out the pre-release version of the operating system. That matches the details in a memo from Best Buy that leaked earlier this month.
(Credit:
Microsoft)
The offer, however, is limited in both duration and by the number of copies Microsoft is willing to sell, although Microsoft would not specify that figure. The upgrade will be available at Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft's own store, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Costco, Staples, Wal-Mart and several other retailers.
"That truly is a price that we have never even come close to in terms of an operating system release," Corporate Vice President Brad Brooks said. "We've still got a business to run."
Of course, even at the preorder price, Microsoft still finds itself undercut by Apple, which has said it will only charge $29 for Leopard users moving to Snow Leopard (those on older versions of the Mac OS will have to buy a full-boxed copy combining Leopard and Snow Leopard).
Brooks, however, said that comparing the two upgrades is unfair.
"Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, it's a service pack and we don't charge for service packs."
Microsoft also confirmed, as expected, that a program offering Vista PC buyers a free copy of Windows 7 will kick off on Friday.
When boxed copies of Windows 7 go on sale on October 22, Microsoft plans to charge $119 for Home Premium, $199 for Professional and $219 for Ultimate. The Home Premium upgrade is down $40 from the product's original price, although the Vista product had already gotten a price cut along the way. The Professional and Ultimate versions are priced similar to where Microsoft was with Vista. The upgrade prices apply to those moving from a previous version of Windows to Windows 7, but only those from Windows Vista will be able to upgrade without doing a clean installation of the product.
The full versions of Windows 7--the editions for those without a copy of Windows--will be priced at $199 for Home Premium, $299 for Professional and $319 for Ultimate. The Ultimate and Professional editions are again on par with their Vista counterparts, while Home Premium is down from the $239 that Microsoft had charged with Vista. Microsoft also plans to offer the operating system in an easier-to-open box.
Things are trickier in Europe, where Microsoft has said it will only ship a special "E" version, which has the browser removed. Because of that, Microsoft is requiring all users to do a clean installation of the product. So there, Microsoft has said it will offer the full version of Windows 7 for the upgrade price.
Brooks said Microsoft made that move to avoid having to delay its launch in Europe and added that boxed copy sales make up only a fraction of its total Windows sales in Europe and throughout the world. "It does not delay the introduction of Windows 7 into the market and it gives our European customers the best possible price."
The software maker is speeding up the pace of the international launch of Windows 7 compared with past launches. Computer makers will be able to ship new PCs in all languages on launch day.
As for the retail product, Microsoft plans to have 14 languages ready by October 22: English, Spanish, Japanese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, Korean, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Hong Kong Chinese.
Then, on October 31, Windows 7 will be available in the remaining 21 languages--Turkish, Czech, Portuguese, Hungarian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, Arabic, Lithuanian, Bulgarian, Estonian, Slovenian, Hebrew, Thai, Croatian, Serbian Latin, and Latvian.
"It truly will be a global release and make it a Windows 7 holiday for everybody this year," Brooks said. "People wanted it faster. We're giving it to them."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
200 for home wow a $40 cut damn for a lot of people that's a tank of gas now a days. If the price was cut $140 people would cheer and buy it.
Vista was only a failure on welfare machines."
You are probably right about that I would even try to install it on my two older PCs. I also wouldn't try to install Leopard on my old iBook. Eventually you need to get a new computer to use the latest OS. That being said I am looking forward to "upgrading" to Snow Leopard on my iMacs and MacBooks.
Former XP users and former Vista users would only need to pay the upgrade price which is $49 for Home Premium now.
If you are getting a new PC, you don't have to pay any additional money since it will be preloaded or you get a free upgrade from Vista.
Few people will need to pay the full retail price.
Even those building a new PC themselves can get an OEM copy for less instead of paying full retail.
A lot of them will say I want the full version then look at the price and walk away when they would be fine with an upgrade. Not to mention the store clerks that are full of useless info and will talk the customer into the hire price for no reason at all just to boost their own commission checks.
Hoping that 7 will be better, but the pricing is terrible. Microsoft needs to take after Apple and sell all versions of the OS at one same price.
That's one thing that got me into Linux in the first place; up to date and secure system on my EXISTING system, not some new system I have to pay and pay to get all the bits and pieces and to keep things up-to-date.
Since then I've gotten better machines, but I am in no rush to put something on them that wants a bigger system when I have something that runs happy as a clam on it *now*.
"Vista was a failure on more than "welfare machines." It was a failure to many of us who need to support computers for a living!"
perhaps it is you that is the failure! a 3rd of all the machines that I support at work are running Vista. I have had no problems with it at home or at work. I love Vista! I rarely even use XP anymore. I get most of my stuff done between Vista and Ubuntu with no issues or hassles.
I often wonder what a lot of people who hate Vista are doing on their PCs. I seem to remember a lot of people hating XP when it first came out because it was different and nothing worked on it...
Isn't Windows 7 just a Vista service pack? They just remove tons of useless service, adding new themes and some other minor new features.
From what I have seen of both Win7 and Snow Leopard they are both under the hood changes, average users wont see the difference between Vista-win7 or Leopard-Snow Leopard. They only ones the will see the difference are the Techies that follow the different OS's.
Clearly Brooks is clueless.
7 is built on Vista's underpinnings. When people say 7 is Vista that works. They are simply saying the truth. When I used 7 it was pretty much like Vista with some tweaks.
Then what the hell would you call Snow Leopard half the features don't benefit average users at all.
Actually, it was Vista that was almost all "under the hood" changes other than in the desktop UI. It introduced changes in memory management, process management, security architecture, storage management, device management and lots of things more. That is why it caused so much trouble. Windows 7 does not introduce as many architectural changes, and it is focused on optimizing what Vista dodn't do well (performance, compatibility and the like) and in providing new features (lots of them). Neither could be called a Service Pack, but for differen treasons.
You want to call it a "service pack" fine, it's a service pack. You want to think it's a new version? Knock yourself out, it's a new version. All rational people should care about is that we get a bit of stability (I know a lot of people wanted stability as a return to XP - but really that was never going to happen).
Is this like Snow Leopard? Sure: same thing. Does it matter there? Not so much (there are fewer Mac users, and generally Mac users are more able to absorb tectonic shifts in their OS - because Apple do that). However I think Apple too have done the right thing, big changes under the covers to better support the computers they have been selling over the last few years, and not too many changes the user will see.
Pricing? Sure Apple are cheaper - but Mac users had to get their system from Apple originally, so that's a factor. I think both companies are basically on track (yeah, of course we'd like it cheaper...) I think Microsoft's pricing is too complex - but that's Microsoft all over, complex prices, terms, etc. Given this is how Microsoft roll, we can't be surprised, and given this I think these prices seem in line with what I'd expect. Apple's prices are in line with what I might have hoped (Well I'd hoped for "free" but realistically this isn't far off - it's on a par with what Microsoft/Apple charge for getting media to you if you have a license).
That said.. these are decent prices from Microsoft for this upgrade. I am looking forward to playing with 7... I hope MS finally has their junk together..
XP introduced the personal firewall, lots of security features (DEP and the like), a mainstream 64 bit release (though 32 bit remained available), and plenty of upgraded tools, among other things.
I prefer a Mac service pack to a so called new Windows version. What happened to all those price comparison ads Microsoft!! Now eat your own crap.
Apple needs to learn or have it SMACKED INTO THEM that they should not be overcharging for their Mac's just because they can.... people wonder why Mac's are STILL an also-ran platform.... the price is why!
Even corporations cannot justify that difference in price, because in reality...... PC vs. Mac, neither one has any more or less problems than the other!
I guarantee I didn't pay any more for my Mac than you did your PC. In dollars the cost was higher, yes. But in productivity, longevity and resale value I think I got the better deal.
No worries, someday you'll "get the picture". And unlike you, this will be my only post on this MS article, as I am not here to troll. Was just interested in seeing if I am going to waste the $$ upgrade on my single Windows PC. By the way... you own how many Macs?
The EU finds reasons to b**** and moan about anything...
My guess is that most OEMs will install IE and Firefox (since FF has 30+% of the market in Europe). I'd want both. I don't use IE very much, but I like having it for some tasks and/or for opening to email accounts from the same provider.
They could slap a whole new kernel in it and call it 6.1 would that make it the same kernel? No.
You are seriously misinformed, dude.
The version number change in Windows 7 from 6.0 to 6.1 rather than from 6.0 to 7.0 was to accomodate those programs and processes from third parties that check the OS version.
_________________________________________
Right in one. There are some programs out there (for some reason I don't understand) that still check the version number of Windows and throw up an error saying "Oh, you can't run me on this!" when you try to run it on a higher number OS when they change that first number.
Why, I don't know: it's ******* STUPID to do! Even my cousin had to say that it was bleeping stupid to do!
While Microsoft see Windows 7 as a new OS.
Regardless of how the consumer are seeing both cases.
BTW, what is the difference between:
> When boxed copies of Windows 7 go on sale on October 22,
and
> The full versions of Windows 7
Is the first one (9th paragraph) refers to the pre-order limited-edition Windows 7 ?
So basically, it runs faster by making better use of more of the hardware, and it takes up less disk space from having the PPC code removed. Many new features are introduced as well, like Quicktime X which includes GPU-accelerated video encoding. Read up on it all here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html
Re: "The entire system's codebase has been moved to 64-bit..."
This isn't right, Mac OS X has been "mostly" 64 bit for a while, the 32 bit-ness is actually programs that are installed as part of the OS (We can argue all day about is the Finder part of the OS or is "just" a program - there is no right answer, it's a matter of perception). In Leopard Cocoa was duplicated in 64 bit (so code that used Cocoa could be either 32 or 64 bit). The "other" Mac API - Carbon is 32 bit, and won't be upgraded (essentially a Carbon 64 would require so much work for an application that was written against Carbon that you might as well re-implement it in Cocoa 64 - so Apple won't offer a 64 bit version). Now the big problem for the Finder is that it is a Carbon app, so in Snow Leopard the Finder has been rewritten as a Cocoa app and runs in either 32 or 64 bit mode (depending on the hardware). Finder isn't the only system application reworked for 64 bit, most have been either rewritten or (where they were already Cocoa) reworked. This is why Apple have trotted out the "64 bit" logo again.
Is this a good thing? Yes, it's a good thing. But Mac OS X isn't 100% 64 bit and won't be even after Snow Leopard, in most of the ways that matter Leopard is 64 bit, and in Snow Leopard programs that are part of the system all almost all available in 64 bit versions (early Intel Macs had 32 bit Intel Core Duo processors that are 32 bit - these will also run Snow Leopard).
Interestingly it is amazing how low the 64 bit penetration is on the PC, most PCs come with 32 bit versions of Vista (OEMs install 32 bit for everything except "Ultimate"). It is also amazing how often 64 bit causes problems with software on Windows (technically this isn't a shortcoming in the OS - it's an application problem). If you're a gamer on the PC - well you probably have no idea what I'm talking about (it's just not a problem). But if you're running "business" software (especially something industry specific) then you may find the 64 bit is a problem for your application.
What good is an Operating System if it can't run the apps I need, on the hardware I have, with the devices I want?
Hmm, let's see... I'm a university student who uses word processing, presentation software, datasheets, photo-processing software, painting software, video/audio processing software, scientific software (MatLAB etc.), referencing software (Endnote), internet messaging software, etc., etc.
I have Leopard, and I have XP. I never use XP anymore (except for the occasional game), and manage to perform all my tasks on my Macbook. These tasks are usually much easier and faster for me to complete on Leopard than on XP, and offer me better usability. In fact, 99% of the applications I need/use are available for the Mac. And given that probably 90% of computer users do not require something that needs-to-sync-with-the-IT-firm-database, I and many others function perfectly well with Leopard.
Most users don't have exotic needs - they will find 100% of what they need (or even want) on the Mac (might not be the names you as a PC user know - but perfectly good). For a lot of people who DO have exotic needs, those are open source applications - mostly, these are available on the Mac often being the "best" versions. If you need something running on say "Ubuntu" you don't need to spend anything. Download Ubuntu, download Sun's VirtualBox, install VirtualBox on Mac OS X, install Ubuntu on that. You're done.
Windows isn't the centre of the universe anymore - most users CAN get by without Microsoft (you can argue they might not WANT to ... but that's a whole different issue). In fact, I'd say that vanilla Windows isn't a very good choice anymore - most people will want a better browser (for performance reasons - especially JavaScript).
Macs are not disadvantaged funny little boxes anymore.
I have 7 copies of Leopard on 7 Macs. Not one of them has a single bit of Microsoft code on it.
They run all the applications I have and they all do it extremely well.
I have no compelling reason to use any Microsoft product at all.
And you can buy it now for $50, or one tank of gas, 12 cups of coffee or one month of the cheapest AT&T iPhone plan.
Do you really think that's expensive?
If Microsoft offered you a plan of $10 per month for Windows 7, would you take it?
If bit locker is that important to you, then stick with Vista (seriously). I wouldn't pay that much for the OS.
I would pay $100.00.
thx to zero competition
If you only need drive encryption, there is a free piece of software called TrueCrypt that seems to do most of what BitLocker does (although I don't know too much about BitLocker), so the biggest draw for Ultimate is to run more than 1 language at a time.
Its called Mac,
I personally think I would have a hard time getting work done with a MAC(Media Access Controller)
Even Macs can't live without Intel chips and Bootcamp, who you fooling.
Oh, and about that Windows 7 isn't a service pack comment, um... so why does Microsoft's own server unit calling it only a MINOR RELEASE, and giving it an R2 designation, something used for VERY MINOR updates??? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10112149-56.html)
Regardless, it's not a service pack. SPs just roll up already existing fixes into a single package. The exception to that was XP SP2, which was supposed to be a new OS that you had to pay for (thus the reason for the incredibly long period between XP and XP's successor).
There's more new stuff in 7 than there was in 98, never mind Windows 98 SE (both required you to buy them).
They act like Mac is not a PC now itself. If Apple was so confident with OSX, they would offer the OS to be installed on other hardware, but they are not. They want to create this little "cult" of "cool people" that use Macs.. but they are now mad because Windows 7 is cooler than OSX.
When it's time to do real business or play some real games or connect your computer to the HDMI port of your HDTV, Mac just doesn't deliver.
For instance, when your browsing for a file while in Photoshop (or any app) in OSX, you cant command+click to "sort by", you can only view in alphabetical order, this sucks...
On Windows, you can right click and "sort by" date created, date modified ect... when your doing real work, Windows delivers!
If it was old times, you could use the floppies though :)
Sad thing is, people actually demo a RC of an operating system. They havent tested it in real usage conditions like trying tens of different software, having disk corruption, bought the latest 3D game (e.g. EA title) etc. So, it impresses of course. Well, my XP Virtual Machines have excellent boot time, performance too since they have absolutely nothing in them except default OS installation ;)
Anyone remember Windows ME, how long after ME released did it get quickly pulled from shelves in favor of 2000 and XP?
So far, MS has good track record of keeping the older major version up to date with security and performance enhancements. I am not joking BTW, they even keep XP up to date somehow.
Maybe a lot of people just realize how valuable Windows is, despite loathing it, and get it regardless, even if they have a Mac.
- by Sardonik June 25, 2009 7:28 AM PDT
- This is probably a really dumb question but do I have to have the full version if I want to install the OS on a different hard drive than the one I currently have XP on? My XP Hard drive is ridiculously old, and i'd rather not.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Ted Miller June 25, 2009 7:36 AM PDT
- Usually all you need is the original install CD. Every time I installed using an upgrade on a fresh harddrive, the install program simply asked me to put in the origianal cd. Please forgive bad spelling, Im in a rush here...
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (220 Comments)Also is thee any place to preorder the full package?