Comments on: Dell says Windows 7 price is possible barrier

A Dell marketing executive says Windows 7 pricing is potentially an obstacle for Windows 7 adoption.

[JimPratt3]

This is no time for Microsoft to get greedy, Balmer! Match the price points for Vista and be done with it. Making W7 more expensive than Vista will also be seen as adding a penalty/insult to injury, for those who felt burned by Vista as a whole.

[stockyjoe]

I agree, but MIcrosoft is stuck in the conundrum that is being a public company. They have to make windows 7 a success, but they will need to sell it at a lower price. On the other hand their shareholders will be angry if their earning (billions) arent higher. Who do you think will win? The consumer or the sharholders? I wouldn't hold your breathe for the consumers.

[Angmarr]

ya i hope Balmer doesn't F -up. Still think Win 7 will rock!

[stockyjoe]

Microsoft pulled this bullcrap in the past. They released windows 2000. then they figured win 2000 wasnt really the complete version they envisioned so they come out with XP which is enhanced win 2000 and those who paid for win 2000 had to pay "again" for windows XP.

They realize Vista was full of bad quirks, slower then XP in some cases and a resource hog. So they come out with windows 2007 which really is an enhancement and rebuild on windows vista and those who bought Vista will have to pay for windows 7 again.

So basically its a brilliant tactic which forces owners to buy an OS "twice" within a matter of a year or so. The problem is, its pissing off a generation who is very familiar with the behavior. This isnt 1985 anymore Microsoft. The consumer isnt as naive as you think.

[gertruded]

This is all a sick joke.

The joke is on us.

Ivy league marketing always says raise the price for more short term profits. Kodak is still raising the price of film, and GM is rating a new electric car at $40,000 per copy, and Microsoft is raising the price of Windows 7.

[Otto Holland]

Clowns or no clowns...is not the point. I am using XP, Vista business at the job and Vista Home Premium on my daughters computer. I don't have a problem with any of these and find them working just fine. I beta test Windows 7 on an older PC and it ran very well with only 256MB RAM; can't say that for Vista.

On another serious note; as an IT person, I have to look beyond the versions and also take into consideration compatibility with the Server versions. Vista has features can't be found in XP and Windows 7 is almost totally compatible with Windows 2008 Active Directory infastructure. Both in management and ease of use, browsing and resourse sharing.

My conclusion is that for home users, always go with Premium and for the business group; the business version. For all others who wants to have the full features, go with Ultimate; best for gaming , video and music sharing. Techically, the ultimate version will be the smallest sale point of all versions as very few needs all it has to offer.

If any of you guys test Windows 7 on your corporate network, you'll see that it is super fast and all resourse in AD pops up in no time; reason? it has it's own built in method of finding resourses and don't have to rely on an AD/PDC/GC server.

[1812dave]

" by Suboculis May 17, 2009 5:07 PM PDT
Windows 7 isnt even close to being twins with Vista. It has a way better taskbar, redesigned media center, service triggering, improved performance for multi core procs. The list goes on and on.
"


Man, you are way to easy! "way better taskbar"? Yeah, it's different. Not worth spending hundreds of bucks for. Media center? Rarely used by me. perhaps you could convince me if you trot out something else more useful from that "list' in your head.

[gertruded]

The media center is full of draconian DRM. Why would anyone use it when there are many alternatives.

Trusted computing,

WGA,

Draconian DRM,

it is all still there.

[hladikraft]

Oh great another microsoft brainstorm. Lets rip off the consumers by calling the vista "fix" windows 7. What a cheap shot. Just bring back XP and everything will be back to normal, or actually you could go and get a Mac. Just wait till windows 7 FAILS on you. Then you'll see if you like the P.O.S. operating system. Like I said, just bring back XP and make everyone happy again...

[davrosthedalek]

Why are computer people so cheap? Its not a hobby you can be cheap with. I picked up a oem copy of vista home premium and it was $69 on newegg. If I use it for 3 years that is well worth the money. I'm sure newegg with have windows 7 for $99 on sale in a year after its released.

[The_Cinderz]

Tough times or not Microsoft's pricing is greedy plain and simple. Windows and Office, the most used are also the most expensive. They want to stop piracy they have to drop prices,, or price themselves out. Ubuntu and the like, here we come :)

[BigGuns149]

With the exception of MS-DOS back in the days of the IBM-PC, Microsoft has virtually always been more expensive than the competition. I am surprised people are just figuring this out now. I've heard people whine for years, but most people who whine never seriously considers the alternatives.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ BigGuns149 :"With the exception of MS-DOS back in the days of the IBM-PC, Microsoft has virtually always been more expensive than the competition. "

What competition is that?
Apple macs are vastly more expensive than Window PC's.

Average selling price on Mac laptops : $1,512
Average selling price on Windows laptops: $560
http://www.internetnews.com/breakingnews/print.php/3810711

Mac laptops are selling for a staggering THREE times as much, on average as a Windows laptop, which is on average even better configured.

[yacahuma]

Please, dont bring price into the equation. You can buy a 10K boat or an 80K boat, same size. Both will float. Its all in the quality and materials. Have you ever used a mac? I am not going for one or the other. Just understand that some people prefer nicer things in life. Mac is just one of those.

[baconstang]

The last (and only) time I bought a new OS from Apple (10.4) It was $140. Seems a bit cheaper than buying Vista.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ by yacahuma :"Please, dont bring price into the equation"

No?
Go back to the top and read this artivcle again will ya?
This article is all about PRICE.
Thats what its all about.
It's the one thing we SHOULD bring into the equation.
I know the fact that Apple is ripping off the Applebots by selling their mac laptops for an average THREE times as much as better configured Windows laptops, is not something that Apple wants to be publicised too much..understanderbly.

[Seaspray0]

@baconstang. Read the fine print. You are only authorized to run your $140 OSX on a mac. Note: Average selling price on Mac laptops: $1,512. Average Selling price on Windows laptops: $560.

[smartuser77]

One piece of advice for Micrsoft
For a limited time, allow user searching for Windows 7 upgrade on Live.com Search to get rebates of upto 15-20% through MS Cashback Program, and they have a Win-Win (or Windows-Windows) Proposition.

[ralfthedog]

I am a heavy Mac and Linux user. I normally don't defend Microsoft. From what I can see, there are two classes of computer users. Those of us who cost is not a factor and those where cost is the primary factor.

For many of us any drop in performance and or productivity cost us far more than any hardware or software. Price becomes irrelevant. Others have money issues and little time pressure. Microsoft needs to find a way to differentiate between those of us who find time expensive and money cheep VS those who find time cheep and money expensive. Selling a very stripped down7 Starter for advanced hardware might be the best solution.

[Imalittleteapot]

They're comparing to Vista but I wonder if they forgot Vista went through a price reduction because nobody wanted it. Are they comparing to the current reduced prices for Vista or the original when Vista shipped?

[Shannon_VanWagner]

Uh oh... But what about this article:
"Under the Hood, Windows 7 Is Vista's Twin"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html

And this article shows that XP outperforms Vista:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

And so if XP > Vista , and Win 7 !> Vista, then XP > Win7 - performance wise..

On the other hand... Ubuntu GNU/Linux has great performance points.
Checkout this article:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_9_10_Off_To_A_Great_Performance_Start

What's all this mean? There's never been a better time to break the
glass and FREE yourself!!

getgnulinux.org
ubuntu.com
distrowatch.com

[pithenumber]

No, Win7 is significantly faster than Vista and even faster than XP some times even with all the fancy UI stuff
download it and try for yourself, I'm running my dual boot computers on Windows near full time now

[Gorifyny]

Sorry, but "XP>Vista" and "Win7>Vista" does not imply "XP>Vista." In fact, these statements cannot be used to imply anything regarding the relationship between XP and Vista. Please refer to math and logic textbooks if you do not believe this.

[chuchucuhi]

How many people purchase an OS outside of actually buying another computer where the OS comes preinstalled? Most people compare the cost of what they purchased and what they have compared to what the can get now for that same price or less so to some degree the cost of the OS for many is a moot point.

[wshwe]

If 7 is more expensive than Vista and XP many people will hold off.

[maeckg]

Maybe the CNET comment section should automatically create a "RANT and FANBOY" thread so certain people can spew their venom, but the rest of us do not have to wade through their comments to read some useful comments.

Win 7 is coming and an improvement. It has worked fine on three different PCs and one of them is older hardware. RAM is cheaper now and Win7 responds nicely to more RAM. MS would be smart to make it attractive with stable price and special offers for early adopters who got Vista. Make a good deal on upgrade retail and on volume business. It will be the default installation on new OEM machines soon, but MS would profit more from widespread use than a few dollars from higher price right now. A lot of people are not going to be able to afford to upgrade hardware, but have been frustrated with Vista. It would encourage hardware and software developers to get drivers and updates finished.

One tricky issue with the virtual XP mode will be all the CPUs that do not have the hardware VT feature although just months old. If one has business applications with compatibility issues, these newer machines will not be able to use virtual XP mode even though they have the RAM and CPU power otherwise. I installed VMware player without a problem on Win7 RC 64bit on a laptop that has a CPU missing the hardware VT; MS screwed up a viable solution again to let the competition do it right.
Virtual XP mode could show the way for more than compatibility; running a web browser in a virtual machine guest OS is a great way to protect your system. Especially when we start using more webapps on desktop with Silverlight, Firefox Prism and Adobe AIR. I think MS could make it easy to make websurfing safer by making it standard to do it in virtual mode.

[niall_Bradley]

Sounds to me like its more of a warning shot from Dell across Microsofts bow. Obviously as a large OEM Dell aren't interested in retail. What Dell are saying here is we know Windows 7 is good but don't charge us too much or you will suffer. I would imagine Dell and Microsoft are aware that Vista sucks and as such i would imagine the price for Dell is screwed to the floor. With a new operating system comes a new round of negotiation, firing a few gun shots in the air summs up the Dell hardcore cost saving attitude. Am I on the right lines?

[wizball1974]

Some very sensible comments, Niall. I am amazed that people are taking as read that because some Dell bloke said so, it must be true. The Dell Exec vaguely references the AVERAGE PRICE, but clearly says it is higher in the BUSINESS SECTOR. If they raise the cost of Windows 7 SERVER it could be enough for his comments to be true, because he has been sparse with concrete facts. After all, according to this report, we don't even know HOW MUCH dearer. It all seems like a lot of posturing.

Furthermore, I am unaware that Microsoft have announce the pricing for retail users. However, most comments seem to focus on the impact to home users of Windows. The majority of them with Vista will have obtained it with a new PC they bought (and if they haven't bought it in the last 2 years or so, they will be XP owners). To them, Windows 7 will be irrelevant until they buy a new computer, and then it will come pre-installed and they won't be aware of any "cost". I guess those people are unlikely to be the people posting on here...

[inachu1]

The very first day of Microsoft selling Windows 2000 on retail was $700.
Did I buy it?
Heck yeah.
Will I ever do that again?
No!

[rturner2]

The amount of time I have had to waste with Vista Ultimate edition, MS should give me a free upgrade or minimal charge.

I don't own a Mac, but the PC ads point to "cheaper" PCs. I am not so sure with the Windows 7 upgrade charge!

[cwatts547]

If price is going to be the major obstacle to take up, is not the giving of Windows 7 for a couple of months akin to a drug dealer giving away drugs free or cheap until their hooked? Even though those who install Windows 7 RC will have to do a clean install when it starts shutting down, surely they aren't going to want to go back to XP?

[donsms]

And we all thought Apple cornered the greed market!

[BigGuns149]

They charge whatever people are willing to pay just like everybody does regardless of their industry.