Windows 7 Retail Jewel-case Designs Surface

[nicolais86]

Well, i guess after all, (of the point of view of a company, its a nice way to sell more licenses) but as a consumer, that makes me think that if exist one version only, it would certainly be more cheaper that the ultimate.

 

[farlex85]

Well, i guess after all, (of the point of view of a company, its a nice way to sell more licenses) but as a consumer, that makes me think that if exist one version only, it would certainly be more cheaper that the ultimate.

Yeah, but I can kind of see where MS is coming from, as their OS is used on such a vast array of systems w/ numerous applications. For most any home consumer, home premium of vista was all you would ever need, w/ Ultimate adding virtually nothing to that. Ultimate really was only practical if you wanted the e-peen or the very best, like buying an extreme intel processor. HP will probably be able to be had for about $100 OEM like vista.

 

[btarunr]

it is not written if 64bit or not

Typically the retail box carries both 64-bit and 32-bit DVDs (?).

 

[Easy Rhino]

Typically the retail box carries both 64-bit and 32-bit DVDs (?).

yea. and everyone should remember that you are paying for a license, not the software.

 

[my_name_is_earl]

Because OSX is sooo much bet-http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/6600/beachball.png

Lol, I remember that rainbow of death beach ball. At least with MS I got use to being crash that it doesn't bothers me anymore. My system is 99.9% stable all the time using Vista 64bit. It'll be some time for hardware/software to support 64bit Win7 so I don't think I'll be joining anytime soon.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

ultimate has everything not pro or home
home got everything you need for home, professional got everything you need for work AND home

I know that. You miss my point.

Instead of having multiple flavors of an operating system you could either have a) A home version like XP and a pro version like XP or b) have one entire OS and during the install process, choose what you want to install. (like you do with linux)

 

[Wile E]

OS X's business model is much better. One reasonable price gets you ALL the features. Usually $130 at launch. That's a hell of a lot better than MS's pricing scheme.

 

[Hayder_Master]

Typically the retail box carries both 64-bit and 32-bit DVDs (?).

yea. and everyone should remember that you are paying for a license, not the software.

really , 2 dvd's that's mean two license , i think Microsoft fault form the begging is made new os not support 4G ram or over , it should be one official os like 64 data base


thanx btarunr and Easy Rhino

 

[a_ump]

is anyone here actually going to PAY for windows 7? i PAID the $200 for vista, i dont think i will be paying for windows 7.

well who in the hell would buy it when you can have Windows 7 RC and get all the same updates till next year march 1st? i sure as hell am not buying it. well not for a year at least

 

[farlex85]

OS X's business model is much better. One reasonable price gets you ALL the features. Usually $130 at launch. That's a hell of a lot better than MS's pricing scheme.

OS X isn't used as widely as Windows, and it doesn't have as great of a need for varied feature release. They also price it better b/c you are already paying them for the machine, it's self-contained. They aren't really comparable.

 

[p3ngwin]

I know that. You miss my point.

Instead of having multiple flavors of an operating system you could either have a) A home version like XP and a pro version like XP or b) have one entire OS and during the install process, choose what you want to install. (like you do with linux)

people like you and me understand the spreading energy idea, like Tesla did with giving free energy to the world.

Now, think in MS's way.:
how do you bill people if they want different versions from the same disk? what do you charge them at the shop? is there an internet shop to unlock the disk features?

 

[AllHopeIsGone1]

Absolutely no difference from Vista right?

 

[farlex85]

Absolutely no difference from Vista right?

Just different enough to call it 7.

 

[Studabaker]

Nice
I like their new Frosty designs

It's actually the four seasons.

 

[Wile E]

OS X isn't used as widely as Windows, and it doesn't have as great of a need for varied feature release. They also price it better b/c you are already paying them for the machine, it's self-contained. They aren't really comparable.

When you buy it retail off of the store shelf, it is comparable, especially because Windows runs on a Mac as well.

 

[farlex85]

When you buy it retail off of the store shelf, it is comparable, especially because Windows runs on a Mac as well.

I suppose. But when you buy Windows it could be for a vast amount of computers for a vast amount of situations. When you buy Mac OS X it is for a handful of computers with a handful of uses. Not to say I wouldn't love to have a $100 7 Ultimate, I just can see why they don't do it. Besides, like I said, you can get OEM Home Premium for $100 and Ultimate really doesn't add anything to that other than the features of Business, which I don't know why I would want those anyway, although I have run into a few people who need the domain functions from Business but don't want to pay for it.

 

[Polarman]

Come on...

I'm trying to figure out how much $$$$ did the guy make to design THAT!

Microsoft should have asked us (TPU Members) to design a new box.

 

[AllHopeIsGone1]

Looks same as Vista so no upgrade for me

 

[Studabaker]

Looks same as Vista so no upgrade for me

... because it looks the same?

quit flaming.

 

[AllHopeIsGone1]

You're obviously old.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Both of you knock it off before it gets out of hand.

 

[newtekie1]

M$ take a pointer from Apple.

Release one os version

Not that great of an idea. It works for Apple because Apply users are used to only having one option. However, breaking it down to different levels and charging different prices dependant on needs and included features is what most Window's users want. A lot of my customers would freak if I told them they had to pay $250+ for an OS that is loaded with a large number of features they don't want. Most do not need or want Ultimate edition.

OS X's business model is much better. One reasonable price gets you ALL the features. Usually $130 at launch. That's a hell of a lot better than MS's pricing scheme.

OSX's business model isn't better, at least not from a finacial standpoint. Since version 10.0 was released in 2001, there has been a new OS release in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and soon 2009. Each time requiring the entire OS to be repurchased at full price. So in the course of 3 OS releases for Microsoft, OSX has gone through 5.

Assume we get the best version of Windows possible each time, XP Pro, Vista Ultimate, and Win7 Ultimate, buying OEM licences amounts to ~$600(At launch, OEM copies went for about $200 a pop for each).

Assuming $130 a pop for OSX licences, because I don't believe they offer OEM licences, the 5 upgrades cost ~$650. And there will likely be at least one more OSX release in the life of Win7, if not 2 or 3. So your going to be shelling out another $130 to $390 on top of the $650.

Of course you can say "well you don't have to upgrade each time a new version of OSX comes out", and that is true, you don't have to. But the same is true with Windows, you don't have to upgrade to the latest version of Windows, people are still functioning perfectly fine on XP. On top of this, I don't believe any version prior to 10.4 has seen any regular updates or support from Apple, while Windows XP is still supported by Microsoft. Correct me if I am wrong here, as I don't use anything older than 10.5.

So while OSX might have a lower upfront cost, the cost over time is greater. I prefer the higher upfront cost, but lower cost over time. Windows has a greater longevity compared to OSX.

I know that. You miss my point.

Instead of having multiple flavors of an operating system you could either have a) A home version like XP and a pro version like XP or b) have one entire OS and during the install process, choose what you want to install. (like you do with linux)

I would love to have an option that asks me what I want installed and what I don't during install, with pre-configured defaults of course for the stupid people.

really , 2 dvd's that's mean two license , i think Microsoft fault form the begging is made new os not support 4G ram or over , it should be one official os like 64 data base


thanx btarunr and Easy Rhino

2 DVDs does not mean 2 licences. You are buying one licence to install either the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the software.

 

[Wile E]

Not that great of an idea. It works for Apple because Apply users are used to only having one option. However, breaking it down to different levels and charging different prices dependant on needs and included features is what most Window's users want. A lot of my customers would freak if I told them they had to pay $250+ for an OS that is loaded with a large number of features they don't want. Most do not need or want Ultimate edition.



OSX's business model isn't better, at least not from a finacial standpoint. Since version 10.0 was released in 2001, there has been a new OS release in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and soon 2009. Each time requiring the entire OS to be repurchased at full price. So in the course of 3 OS releases for Microsoft, OSX has gone through 5.

Assume we get the best version of Windows possible each time, XP Pro, Vista Ultimate, and Win7 Ultimate, buying OEM licences amounts to ~$600(At launch, OEM copies went for about $200 a pop for each).

Assuming $130 a pop for OSX licences, because I don't believe they offer OEM licences, the 5 upgrades cost ~$650. And there will likely be at least one more OSX release in the life of Win7, if not 2 or 3. So your going to be shelling out another $130 to $390 on top of the $650.

Of course you can say "well you don't have to upgrade each time a new version of OSX comes out", and that is true, you don't have to. But the same is true with Windows, you don't have to upgrade to the latest version of Windows, people are still functioning perfectly fine on XP.

So while OSX might have a lower upfront cost, the cost over time is greater. I prefer the higher upfront cost, but lower cost over time. Windows has a greater longevity compared to OSX.



I would love to have an option that asks me what I want installed and what I don't during install, with pre-configured defaults of course for the stupid people.



2 DVDs does not mean 2 licences. You are buying one licence to install either the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the software.

We aren't talking OEM. We are talking Retail. That's what this thread is about, the retail boxes. Windows is more expensive in the long run as well.

 

[CDdude55]

Awesome, must be very close to being released.

EDIT: Its going to be impossible to find drivers for older hardware tho.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Awesome, must be very close to being released.

EDIT: Its going to be impossible to find drivers for older hardware tho.

true but why would you want to run windows 7 on old hardware?