Thracks: The Win 7 family pack officially slashes the p

Robert Hallock 9 Jul, 2009 at 3:19pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 3:29pm MAGIC How about a win7 pro family pack...
2. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 3:48pm Thrax No such animal.
3. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 11:25pm QCH Ultimate?
4. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 11:28pm Thrax No. Ultimate is useless for home users, and only of marginal value to corporate users.
5. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 11:41pm Garg Pro and Ultimate have XP virtualization, but Home doesn't, right?
   
   If so: damn.
6. 
   9 Jul 2009 ~ 11:49pm Thrax No dice on Home. Correct. Stands to reason that your average home user has no need for or knowledge of what virtualization even is.
7. 
   10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:26am Cliff_Forster

   Gargoyle wrote:

   Pro and Ultimate have XP virtualization, but Home doesn't, right?
   
   If so: damn.

   
   Gosh, this would be far less confusing if there were a single SKU and license type to serve the entire market.
8. 
   10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:41am Snarkasm Yeah, it would be awesome if EVERY copy of Windows cost $320. Wouldn't that be swell, guys?
9. 
   10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:44am Thrax

   Cliff_Forster wrote:

   Gosh, this would be far less confusing if there were a single SKU and license type to serve the entire market.

   
   Yeah, it would be awesome if loyal customers didn't benefit from owning a prior copy of Windows. It would also be totally sweet if every person had to pay for the dev time of every feature, even if they didn't need it.
10. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:51am Cliff_Forster

    Snarkasm wrote:

    Yeah, it would be awesome if EVERY copy of Windows cost $320. Wouldn't that be swell, guys?

    
    That is a huge exaggeration. You know they would not have to charge that to be amazingly profitable.
11. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 1:02am Cliff_Forster

    Thrax wrote:

    Yeah, it would be awesome if loyal customers didn't benefit from owning a prior copy of Windows. It would also be totally sweet if every person had to pay for the dev time of every feature, even if they didn't need it.

    
    What would be awesome is not having to do the install twice as a workaround. Why should a new customer have to pay a higher price for a retail copy? To fund their prior failures (Vista).
    
    I love Windows 7, I just think they could be doing much more to simplify how they bring it to market.
12. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 1:19am Thrax Why would they have to install it twice? They have a prior edition of Windws. They're loyal customers who have received a discount for owning that prior copy of Windows. They should be rewarded for their patronage.
    
    Besides, Windows 7 is cheaper than Vista.
13. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 4:28am Nate_LapT [me]* Nate_LapT switches the flame ware and installs debian[/me]
    though I cant afford to buy anything right now, I will remain using my RC copy until it expires or I find a better job.
14. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 9:44am Cliff_Forster http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_upgrade_clean.asp
    
    Matt / Robert,
    
    Check this out. Now this is specifically about the Vista "upgrade" work around. Paul Thurrott says that the workaround is effective, but if you do it without a prior version of windows then technically you are in violation of the EULA.
    
    Okay, so if Paul Thurrott windows expert is not 100% sure this is technically ethical to the point where he has to start asking around, how are the license terms not confusing to the average consumer? I mean, if that guy was not sure then, how exactly am I to know what version I technically can buy and still be within the terms of the EULA? I want to be legal, but I also want to buy as many $50 keys as I can get my grubby mitts onto.
    
    My point is this, if its ethically questionable, why even include the work around? It seems intentionally programed into the base to do so? Okay, so you can buy Vista, and I assume a 7 upgrade copy for $49.99 right now, and nothing is technically going to prevent me from doing a clean install without a prior version of windows, why even have an upgrade EULA and a full retail EULA, its the same software either way, its just confusing to consumers.
    
    The only purpose for that work around is so a more savvy user can beat the system, its the only reason it exists, so why screw the less savvy users by making them think then need a full retail copy?
    
    We can argue the merits of several different feature sets, I still think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not simplifying that, but I can see your argument there. With the anytime upgrade though, its not too big of an issue, I just think they would be able to simplify their marketing and reduce consumer confusion if they just had a single version, but once again, I am less interested in that argument and can see both sides.
    
    What I don't accept is the need for an upgrade EULA vs. a full retail EULA. Especially when MS just builds a workaround into the "upgrade" copy so I can just use it on a fresh new install anyway? How can anyone be expected not to cheat the terms with a $150 discount staring them in the face? If your going to build your own workaround in, why even bother to offer the other license, just have a single EULA and price it for everyone.
    
    Anyone else here see where I am coming from?
15. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 9:57am Thrax Or it may be an oversight that Microsoft has retroactively blessed because they can't be assed to fix it.
    
    It's not confusing for consumers at all, Cliff. They don't know about the workaround, so this fixation you have with it is -- to be blunt -- irrelevant. A tiny selection of users will get to do a clean install without a prior copy of Windows. Hooray? The vast majority will go buy their upgrade copy and smile because they didn't have to pay all that money for the full copy. They've been rewarded for their past purchase, and it doesn't even matter that an infinitely small body of users got a slightly sweeter deal.
    
    Lowering the full retail SKU price and abolishing customer loyalty incentives to eliminate this mythical confusion just fucks over existing Windows customers to make it cheaper for a select few Apple or Linux converts to join Windows.
16. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 10:34am Grimnoc Abolishing customer loyalty incentives?
    
    I think that's a tad strong considering that Microsoft is selling at a "discount" to make up for a product that had problems with a botched launch (whether that be only perceived or real).
    
    I completely agree with Cliff as far as the need to go with less versions, and I do think that it is confusing for most people. Confusion stemming from the multiple versions of Windows (Home, Pro, Ultimate) to the choice between the upgrade or full versions.
17. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 10:52am mas0n In the emerging advertisements I've seen that are aimed at Joe Consumer, Ultimate is not even mentioned. They mention Home and Professional, Upgrade or Full. If a consumer can't look at these basic choices and know what they need, too fucking bad. Seriously. I'm not sure how else to say that.
    
    I paid $299 for a Full copy of XP Pro almost 6 years ago. I just pre-ordered Windows 7 Pro Upgrade for $99 and it felt damn good. Having a few basic options for consumers is a good thing IMO. Especially since most home users will have no use for Domain Join or XP Mode, and can easily find a 3rd party backup solution. Offering them a dirt-cheap upgrade path is pure awesome.
18. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 11:08am Thrax

    Grimnoc wrote:

    Abolishing customer loyalty incentives?
    
    I think that's a tad strong considering that Microsoft is selling at a "discount" to make up for a product that had problems with a botched launch (whether that be only perceived or real).

    
    Uh, what? What are you talking about?
    
    Cliff believes that customers should not receive a discount (the upgrade version) for owning a prior version of Windows, be it XP or Vista. Do you believe the same thing? Do you believe that customers who are loyal to your business should pay the maximum retail price of your product?
    

    I completely agree with Cliff as far as the need to go with less versions, and I do think that it is confusing for most people. Confusion stemming from the multiple versions of Windows (Home, Pro, Ultimate) to the choice between the upgrade or full versions.

    
    Go to Best Buy when Windows 7 launches. I promise that you will not find Ultimate on the shelves. You will see 7 Home, 7 Pro, and the customer will choose a full or an upgrade.
    
    I don't see how it's really all that complicated, or in any way different from trading in your car to receive a discount on your next purchase. In fact, it's the same thing. Is that too confusing too?
19. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 11:35am Cliff_Forster Thrax,
    
    Do you believe that consumers that have never purchased a windows product should have to pay four times as much to install it on their first ever windows machine?
    
    Its contrary to any other business. Normally there are introductory incentives to get your business. Cable companies, and cell phone companies are good examples. I honestly don't care for that model either. I say, the same price, the same license for everyone.
    
    A newcomer should not be forced to pay more just because they did not see the value in XP or Vista.
20. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 11:56am Snarkasm No, but they SHOULD be forced to pay the actual full price of the product. The $100 upgrade versions are not the market price of Windows 7 Professional - $299 is.
21. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:02pm Thrax Yes, I do believe that, because doing anything else would shit directly on the heads of loyal customers who have bought and employed Microsoft products.
    
    Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade is $119. The full boxed edition is $229. That means loyal customers receive a 49% discount for their past purchases. What if we lower the price to even $149 for everyone? Now everyone is paying 100% of the full price. All those loyal consumers just lost their 49% discount to accommodate a select few users who haven't touched Windows in a decade.
    
    And that's fair? Loyal customers shouldn't benefit from their purchase?
    
    You're spinning it in entirely the wrong direction. You keep saying that consumers who have never purchased a Windows product are getting screwed. Well what about the MAJORITY of users who would get screwed by MS if they followed your line of reasoning?
    
    //EDIT: And regarding the upgrade clean install, here's a Microsoft spokesman quote from February 2007.
    
    "We believe only a very small percentage of people will take the time to implement this workaround, and we encourage all customers to follow our official guidelines for upgrading to Windows Vista."
    
    Even Microsoft agrees that it's irrelevant, and they made the product.
22. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:08pm Cliff_Forster My point is this. If the new user base is relatively small (because nearly everyone has used windows). Why shit on anyone?
    
    They built a loophole to exploit in their own upgrade that was against the EULA, but yet, they gladly screw those willing to do the right thing? No way to spin that, it screws the guy that wants to comply, while it rewards the people that play in the gray area.
    
    That is why they need to go with a single license type, your prior purchase should have absolutely zero bearing on what you pay today.
23. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 12:16pm Thrax Cliff, I'm afraid you've got the upgrade thing all wrong. The loophole was not built in so people could dick around with an exploit to dodge a bigger receipt, it was built in so savvy users could perform a clean install without having a prior OS running. The EULA clearly states that the customer must have a valid prior license to use an upgrade edition.
    
    You and Snark are 100% right that it is unethical to use the upgrade edition for a clean install without a prior version of Windows, but that's not what Microsoft says it's for. All it does is scratch "must have installed OS already" from the list of requirements, and that's it.
    
    You still need a prior past license. The EULA clearly says it.
    
    But you feel that loyal customers shouldn't get a discount for their past patronage. You said so yourself: "your prior purchase should have absolutely zero bearing on what you pay today."
    
    What about credit cards? Grocery stores? Airlines? Blockbuster? Best Buy? Costco? All of these companies and business models incentivize future patronage by offering various avenues that all amount to a discount on a future purchase.
    
    Should we do away with these too?
24. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 1:11pm Cliff_Forster To be fair, I would have to look at each program individually, but as a general rule, I am not a big fan of having to take a discount card into a grocery store to get the best price, or programs similar to that.
    
    Wal-Mart, as crooked as they may be in some areas, kind of has it right on how you price, "always low prices". Offer your best value, make it your everyday price, offer it to everyone who walks through the door. No need to haggle, no need to debate if it will go on sale tomorrow, you just know, its their best offer, and to me, that's an ethical way of offering a product.
    
    And, don't tell me I have the economic IQ of a four year old, because that model has served them, very, very well. In that store there are not special sales, loopholes, special one time only promotions, or consumer loyalty bonuses. They just set their best price, and people flock through their doors each day.
    
    Now, to be fair, I am not suggesting everyone run their business like Wal-Mart, lord knows we don't need that. What I am saying, is that consumers obviously do value that kind of simplicity in a retail partner. They know when they walk through the door, or any given day, they are going to get their best deal. They are not going to buy it today to find out on Tuesday it went on sale for 20% off for one day only, they are not going to pay more because its the first time they ever walked through the doors, they know they are afforded all the same advantages and rewards as any shopper in the building, and people obviously like that, because they pass a bunch of other retailers to go there instead.
25. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 1:13pm Thrax You know, if everyone agreed that the one low price deal was the best way to do business in the OS industry, Apple or Linux would be #1.
26. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 1:15pm MAGIC Software adoption, particularly for opperating systems, is a sloooowwww process. This pricing incentive is simply a way to mitigate that a bit, and also a reward for returning customers. I see no problem with that at all, its smart business practice.
27. 
    10 Jul 2009 ~ 2:03pm Garg Regarding the way the upgrade works:
    
    I don't care about Joe Consumer. I care about us geeks that can't do a full install without a hokey double-install workaround. What a pain in the ass.
    
    The general perception I've gotten is that upgrade installs are sometimes flakier than clean installs. If you had your choice, what would you do? Removing the check for previous media is lame.
28. 
    11 Jul 2009 ~ 4:21am ardichoke Cliff, I have to say you're a bit naive if you think that WalMart always offers the lowest possible price. They are out to make money any way they can. Generally that means offering comparable though poorly made goods at a lower price than other places. However, they also do sales same as any other store to try and move merch that isn't selling well. I can't tell you how many times I bought something from WalMart (it was the only big store in the town in went to college in, now that I have a choice I don't set foot in that place) only to return a few days later and find it on sale or marked down again. They do it same as any other company.
    
    Now then, if Microsoft got rid of the Full v. Upgrade versions you can bet your butt that two things would be true. One, they would charge everyone the full retail cost... this is because the price of the full version is the real price of the OS. The upgrade version is a special price to encourage current customers to upgrade and pay them more money. Much the same way your cell phone company gives you a discount on a phone every time you recontract. Did you necessarily NEED that new phone? No. Did you buy it anyway? Probably because they gave you a good price on it and it's shiny and new. Second, Microsoft's new OSes wouldn't go out in as high of volume and they would not make as much money. Sure, there would be a fair number of people who upgraded anyway but you can bet that there would be a lot more that would say "hey, what I have right now works, why pay full retail price for a new OS when I'll just get it bundled in the next computer I buy." Offering the lower upgrade price point gives these consumers and incentive to rush out and deposit their money firmly in the bank of Gates in order to have.... the new shiny.
    
    Finally, can't we all just..... switch to Linux? *runs away before the beatings commence*
29. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 1:45pm Cliff_Forster ardichoke,
    
    You understand what I am saying about the Wal-Mart model, if you go into the store today, no other person will have a specific advantage on pricing, its all the same. And if they lower the price, its not a sale, its the new lower price they incorporated for a product line, its not intended to be marked back up after a specific period. Its how they go to market, simply, and transparently as far as price goes.
    
    "Finally, can't we all just..... switch to Linux?" - I don't know, perhaps I like having a properly functioning driver for my printer?
30. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 2:13pm Leonardo I think some of us here vastly overestimate the market effect our niche community has. In the grand scheme of things, we are minor agents of influence, that's about it. For every one of us "geeks," there are several hundred ordinary consumers at Wal Mart, Best Buy, and Amazon. They couldn't be bothered with splitting tech hairs, as we are wont to due.
31. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 2:22pm Thrax And they will -- as with XP and Vista -- happily buy their upgrades and enjoy their discount pricing.
32. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 5:49pm ardichoke Cliff,
    
    I have seen WalMart run sales many times where the price went back up after the sale is over. They may not do it as much as other retailers but they surely do it. Case in point, Black Friday. They run all sorts of sales that day and the prices go right back up the next day.
    
    As for Linux and printers, when is the last time you used Linux with a printer? I haven't had problems with print drivers for a good 4 years now but I think that's a discussion for a different thread.
33. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 7:28pm mirage I agree with Cliff on the confusing branching and outrageous pricing of the full license of Windows. What keeps me with Windows is the applications (Office, overclocking/benchmarking tools, and games) not the beauty of OS. I use Linux or MacOS X when I want to play with a well designed, high performance OS. As long as I can use the applications I want, I am staying with Vista instead of paying for Windows 7.
34. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 8:08pm Snarkasm I think you're officially the only person on the planet that would want to stay with Vista over moving to Win 7.
35. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 8:13pm lordbean I'm giving Win7 6 months or so to prove itself before I actually upgrade over vista. At least vista is fairly stable, for the moment.
    
    As long as Win7 has no serious issues found with security or gaming performance I'll move on up. I've heard it's supposed to be a lot more streamlined than vista, from a coding standpoint.
36. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 8:24pm primesuspect have you.... used Win 7 at all?
    
    Why wait six months to rely on what others say? Just use it for yourself (it's free to try); I am now firmly married to Win 7, as it improves on XP (and especially vista) in almost every way.
    
    Just try it, make up your mind for yourself.
37. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 8:38pm mirage

    Snarkasm wrote:

    I think you're officially the only person on the planet that would want to stay with Vista over moving to Win 7.

    
    I am upgrading to Snow Leopard as soon as it is released. If Win 7 Pro was $29 to upgrade like Snow Leopard, I would want Win 7 too. I can guarantee you that I will not be alone with a $199 ($99 now) upgrade price.
    
    This upgrade price makes me like Vista. Besides, I upgraded to Vista only about 1 year ago and I have just got used to it. Vista is working absolutely fine with my tweaking and service packs. And, I like my little Quick Launch icons. :o
38. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 8:51pm mirage The question was not to me, I think. But I installed and tested the beta of Win 7 64 bit before I deleted it. It might be faster on lower end computers but on my Q6600@3.3, 6GB RAM computer I did not see much performance difference compared to Vista 64 bit I have been using on the main disk other than slightly (~250MB) smaller memory use. I must admit that I did not do the post installation tuning/tweaking on Windows 7.
39. 
    13 Jul 2009 ~ 9:14pm Nate_LapT

    Cliff_Forster wrote:

    ardichoke,
    
    "Finally, can't we all just..... switch to Linux?" - I don't know, perhaps I like having a properly functioning driver for my printer?

    
    Get a better printer :P