Comments on: Is Windows getting more expensive?

Microsoft has introduced pricier higher-end versions, as other PC components have fallen in price. So how does it all add up?

[jd1023948]

Windows TCO is defintely increasing

The cost of securing and patching it keeps increasing. Vista is going to make training and administration increasingly expensive for enterprise customers. Not to mention the increasing hardware requirements -- this means you have to shorten your hardware upgrade cycle.

[rstinnett]

TCO huh?

I guess that $100,000 Redhat support contract we just signed is "free". Back up your statements with some facts instead of just pulling them out of thin air.

[Orion Blastar]

Microsoft needs to offer Windows Vista Lite

which is just the core of the OS, without extra features like Anti virus, Media Player, Internet Explorer, Media Center, Aero, Bit Locker, Firewall, etc. Offer Windows Vista Lite for $50USD and $35 for an upgrade. That way it meets those Anti-Trust laws by the DOJ and EU and allows the user to download any version they want to use for media, Anti virus, firewall, security, etc.

Windows Vista Lite will also cut into piracy, because with a cheaper version of Windows, there will be less need to pirate it. The number one cause of the piracy of Windows is because most people cannot afford it, so they buy it from a pirate company or pirate it off a friend.

Just don't make it like Starter Edition and limit the number of programs it can run at once. Seesh, who wants to limit the number of programs they can run anyway?

Just the core of the OS of Vista, without all of the bells and whistles of the more expensive versions.

[dmm]

I totally agree, but

would VistaLite be secure without AV, firewall, etc.? After all these iterations, you would think that they could accomplish that, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Microsoft_Facts]

Factor in cost of ownership, the costs are now astronomical

Compared to other platforms Microsoft products have a much higher cost of ownership for home and business users.

[richto]

Except for open source of course

Except for open source like Linux of course - which has a massively higher TCO.

[richto]

Except for open source of course

Except for open source like Linux of course - which has a massively higher TCO.

[PolarUpgrade]

The in-practice real dollar cost is up

The reality is that the real dollar cost is up, if one factors in the generally declining cost of other computer components even relative to inflation, and the fact the so many PCs are being sold with Vista Basic--which will have to be upgraded at higher cost in many cases post-buy.

Microsoft has effected a price increase by nominally offering Visa in a tiered pricing, and by reserving Vista Ultimate as the level at which one gets the full feature set (i.e. Bitlocker).

Ultimate requires a CPU-beefy video-beefy memory-beefy PC, driving up the cost substantially. While the cost has been driven up, Microsoft, by selling under-featured Windows versions on PCs with options to buy up the feature chain digitally via MS, has also taken this added consumer cost largely for itself, since the PC maker and seller are locked out of the upgrade-after-buy cycle.

How brilliant! Perhaps no firm in history has achieved what MS has here: Raising the effective price of the product (factoring in an essential step up the upgrade ladder post-purchase for Basic buyers), while securing that price rise almost all to itself!

[Siegfried Schtauffen]

It could be better

I think the price is OK, but if you are someone like me that has several computers, buying individual copies for each computer is not practical. I was hoping that they would do a group pack like Apple did, and no, the time limited deal that comes with the Ultimate Edition doesn't count. It should apply to all versions. I will probably use it as an excuse to buy a new computer when my trial expires in May.

[lianna1958]

Is Vista transferable?

Aren't we able to use Vista on a new computer, as long as we uninstall it, like we have been able to do with XP and previous versions?

[Hardrada]

Back in the day...

(Can't believe I said that). There was an old saying when trying to decide what MRP or accounting package to run the various companies I worked for: Hardware is what you run your applications on. With dirt cheap yet potent hardware around I guess the modern equivalent is: OS is what you run apps and games on. Guess the prophecy has come true, "the OS doesn't matter" Seems like all you're doing is paying for grief just to get back to where you already are. That not expensive, that's a waste.

[iZune]

Yet Another Mac Lover CNET Writer

Why does CNET love Mac so much that they have to trash Microsoft in every single article? Why not do a story on the price of Mac and how poor people can't afford it?

[trialmanager]

Mac .. who ... what ... scotch wisky?

... you mean those things with an apple? I wonder what kind of gentleman wears that ...

[richto]

Because...

Becuase many journalists are too stupid to use a real computer of course....

[richto]

Because...

Becuase many journalists are too stupid to use a real computer of course....

[mn39202]

Yet another reality-challenged astroturfer

How much does a Macintosh cost? Go to the Apple store and find out, you moron. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone stupid enough to buy a Zune.

[wanorris]

Uh... what?

The Mac doesn't even show up on the radar for this article.

This article makes a good point -- while the typical price of every other component in a PC has been dropping in price for years and years, the OS hasn't dropped at all -- and now, if you want all the features, you have to go buy a $400 version. Yikes.

[oxtail01]

Poor people don't buy computers

Poor people can't afford PCs either, especially with the expensive price of Vista included. Most of us don't trash MS, I think most of us voice a reasonable opinion that MS uses their dominance to put out crappy products at high prices and get away with it.

[ladydain]

What???

Poor people should not be buying computers.

[trialmanager]

So, so ...

... it's less burdonsome to take a retailer's windows machine ...

[jonathan_a]

OEM ...

I dunno if stores aren't allowed to do this, but I always bought OEM versions of Windows cause they are cheaper.

But this is also why I'm waiting to buy a new PC. When Vista becomes stable, and all PCs come with Vista OEM in the box, I'm buying a new PC! It's much cheaper than upgrading my current PC and buying a retail version of Vista.

Or OEM. hehe. I know, we're probably not allowed, but all computer stores do it.

[awicurrent]

Operating Software Prices

Prices have in real terms gone up a lot.

1. Far more units are sold today then years ago. As volumnes increase prices should drop. CPUs are far better today then years ago but their prices have dropped in real terms due to increased market size.

2. Microsoft has a monopoly so they force users to buy features they do not even need. For example, when you buy a DVD writer it comes with all the software needed, so why do you need DVD writing software from Microsoft.

Most users do not need remote connection to a PC, but software to do that has been on the market for atleast 25 years. Microsoft bundles it in and forces everyone to pay for it in their more advanced versions.

If there were a true free market the user would select only the features they wanted and then pay based on what they selected. Wait it sounds like Linux!!! But very little software is currently running on Linux so it is not a real option...

3. Your example of after inflation dollar evaluation is rediculus. Hardware prices have come down and operating systems should have come down at least as much. Hardware prices have not risen due to inflation. Or using your example, hardware prices have fallen even more in real terms.

[oxtail01]

It's a ripoff

Every commodity product has increased in value to the consumer over time (more bang for the bucks) EXCEPT for Windows operating system. The Vista Home Basic is a joke and shouldn't even be offered, so if you compare the cost of this to say, Windows 98 of the past (which it is not even comparable to in terms of value), then you have a clear picture of MS using their monopoly position to force consumers to pay a high price for a product that really has gone down in value.

[jl2890]

Not so much

I actually see it at a steady rate. The chart above is comparing the "basic" editions of the OS. The only jump in price is when they brought Vista Home Premium into the picture, it has no place there.

[boriken48]

Sure is expensive

Try to build your own PC and the great budget buster is the OS unless you buy OEM. The new OS is buggy, memory hungry, geared for upper or high end hardware, it feels like we are going the Apple way when the hardware demands of the OS and applications will keep the prices high.

And do not tell me about about choices because we have tons of morons who use AOL and IE because it comes with the PC, I work in a College library and telling anyone about Mozilla and you feel like you are speaking geek, all they care about are their cell phones, AIM, Youtube and MySpace.

The stories from the trenches are sad and hilarious.

[pweber5]

Technically, No, But...

While the price of entry-level Windows is staying relatively the same, the article mentions that, to get all the features of the operating system, you have to pay much more. I think that's a very important distinction to make, as Windows has never come in so many consumer forms before. With XP, you had Business and Home. Business was more full-featured, but Home containted everything most people needed.

Today, Windows Vista comes in five different editions, and that's not counting 32 bit/64 bit variants. Vista Basic is a joke, and Windows Vista Home Premium doesn't contain many of the security and features that Windows Vista Ultimate does (Ultimate 32 bit doesn't come with as many as Ultimate 64 bit). I think this is a dangerous game for Microsoft to play, as consumers who find they don't have features will view Microsoft as greedy, and Windows as expensive, decontended software. And if there's one thing consumers can't handle, it's software that doesn't work, real or perceived.

I think there's another factor at play for people feeling that Windows is getting more expensive, and that's value for their money. With reports every week of new software vulnerabilities, viruses, spyware, and myriads of other problems, what value does Windows retain to the consumer? If I bought a car that needed a recall done every week, I wouldn't feel that it was worth the price I paid for it. Microsoft better hope that they have a better handle on security this time around--otherwise, consumers will continue to be disgruntled about their Windows purchase, and it'll only get worse.

[pavbaby]

Mac OS X costs much more

Many people like to compare the new Vista to Apple OS X. Are they similar in operation - Yes, do they steal ideas from each other and add their own twist - Yes. Does Apple come up with new ideas and implement them faster than Microsoft - Yes.

Apples operating system is more nimble in that it is upgraded quicker with amazing new features. But this comes at a cost to the user - a big cost.

Cost for Vista:
2001 purchase windows XP for $149, 2007 upgrade to Vista Premium for $159. Total cost just over $300.

Cost for OS X:
2001 purchase OS X for $129. Then a few months later 10.1 is another $29 upgrade. In 2002 10.2 had some great features and another upgrade cost of $129. Same in 2003 for 10.3, 2005 for 10.4 and now the year of Vista 10.5 will be released. Total cost if you bought each upgrade almost $700.

Now Windows won't have a major upgrade for at least another 3 years but OS X is likely to keep going. So it may have an extra bell here and whistle there but at a hugely mounting cost.

Both operating systems require huge resources compared to a few years ago. You wouldn't try and install OS 10.4 on a machine from 2001 which is still running OS 9. If you want to use the latest operating system you should have the latest components in your computer. If you are happy with what you have - DON'T CHANGE.

In my opinion could Vista have had alot more, of course, but so many of its features were seen months before release so the excitement especially amongst techies is obviously going to be less.

Of course if you buy a new Mac or a new PC it doesn't matter what the cost of the OS really is you are just getting the latest and greatest.

[dirk goedseels]

not when comparing features

because then you need to upgrade to Vista Ultimate which is a
$399 upgrade, which brings the Windows bill to $550. Compared
to the Mac $675, this makes a difference of $125.

And BTW, I do am running 10.4 on my Mac of 2002 without any
problems: actually this Mac is booting faster than my 2005 Dell
laptop booting XP

[Thomas, David]

Complete Fabrication - Lies Lies Lies

OSX versions either come with a new computer, or a purchased separately. OSX updates, and upgrades cost nothing but the users time to run the install.

Since the introduction of OSX, I have only purchased one version of the operating system. That was "Jaguar". Since that time, I purchased a G4 mini-mac, and an Intel-cpu based MacBook Pro. This is true for most Apple users.

Users get ALL of the features Apple offers without a tiered pricing structure. Microsoft does not do this. In order to begin to compare the cost of the two operating systems, you have to use the price of the fully featured version of Windows, and then compare it to the cost of OSX. Already you are paying three to four times more, depending upon where you live.

I really can't get over your completely asinine statement that the two operating systems steal from one another. Vista, wasn't even released until a month ago, while OSX has been out for six years. Vista demos began after OSX debutted, and they weren't even actual code. They were mock-up screen shots of proposed features that were a direct ripoff of OSX, as well as other operating systems. The "new search", the "rss", the "gadgets", and it didn't even come close to stopping there.

By the way, OSX upgrades are continuous, thankfully. Only new versions cost more. For some reason Mac users only upgrade their OS, with new versions, only if it contains features they feel they must have, or the OS is compelling enough to drive that upgrade. Such was the case with Tiger. The other versions didn't have the same affect on the Mac users. As far as the incremental upgrades, once again, they cost nothing.

I don't know where some of you come up with your reasoning. Maybe you just dislike Apple, that's fine. But please, stop with the false statements. Unless, of course, you have an "interest" in doing so because you are a shill.

[gm2net]

$400 machine? The ones I keep fixing I guess.

Are these the same $400 machines I keep having to fix? It's really
not nice...

[Jim Harmon]

OT: American vehicles

My '85 Suburban just crossed 300,000 miles.

[videofuel]

How it adds up? IT DOESN'T

This is probably the most famous company in the US for over a decade. They believe that they will be able to keep selling their mediocre OS at excessive prices forever with their questionable tactics and the fact is that even the dumbest suckers eventually smarten up.

[Larry Launstein Jr]

What the computer stores have told me about Vista

Believe it or not, I have heard a lot of negative feedback from the computer stores such as Staples and Best Buy concerning Vista. And every one of them tell me Vista is not quite ready for use on mainstream computers.

I can tell you for a fact that even though Microsoft is pushing them to load Vista on all new machines and sell as many Vista OS products as possible, I sense a very strong reluctance on the part of the stores to do so.

I applaud those stores who have the courage to level with their customers. It is called good business.

[ferretboy88]

People at those stores are not experts

Those people that work at those stores are dopes. They make $8 per hour. If they were that smart with computers then they would be working somewhere else. Don't judge Vista until you own it. I do own it and have not had a single probelm with it. I paid $149 for my copy and thats about $30 a year if I use it for about 5 years. big deal.