Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Windows Vista Prices and Release Date Leaked 378

Posted by Zonk
from the keep-that-stuff-quiet-if-you-don't-want-us-to-know dept.
Nieske writes "Prices and the release date for Windows Vista have leaked online. Ed Bott's Microsoft Report has information on pricing, and the release date is currently January 30th, 2007. Are they really going to make the deadline this time?" From the ZDNet article: "In Canada, at least, the rumors of a 'modest' price increase were true, based on this list. Will these same relative prices hold true in the U.S.? Who knows? But if they do, then it's mostly good news for Windows customers. There's no price increase for Home Basic. Home Premium, the Vista version that maps most closely to the OEM-only Windows XP Media Center Edition, will finally be available as a retail product for a slight bump over the Home Basic product, similar to the $39 premium typically charged by large OEMs for Media Center upgrades. And Vista Business buyers will get a break with a small discount relative to XP Professional."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista Prices and Release Date Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • Not Quite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:21AM (#15999517) Journal
    So our "authority" is a man from Microsoft Monitor Weblog that is owned by Jupitermedia, not Microsoft. And he's speculating that these are the leaked prices. Has anyone stopped and thought that if Amazon is posting these, that they probably weren't leaked? Or maybe the fact that Amazon constantly offers products and pushes back the release date means that these aren't the real release dates?

    What I'm guessing is that these are estimates for the release date but it will most likely be pushed back and that these prices are correct and direct from Microsoft. Intentional, though, not 'leaked.'
  • Pandemic (Score:1, Insightful)

    by codepunk (167897) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:21AM (#15999522)
    Mark January 30'th on your calendar, the date of the next internet Pandemic.
  • SP1 Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wiseazz (267052) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:23AM (#15999533)
    That's the important one!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:23AM (#15999536)
    There is also the loss of your freedom. To paraphrase the "Linux is only free.." corollary:

    Windows is only reasonably priced because you can't put a price on freedom.


    Enjoy your DRM.

  • by GoatMonkey2112 (875417) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:24AM (#15999539)
    I want to see the OEM version prices. Nobody here normally pays full retail price for Windows.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:29AM (#15999583)
    Does anybody outside of Microsoft actually care about Vista? WinXP is fairly stable, it runs all the software (or nearly all of it) developed for every version of Windows since Win95. Also, WinXP does not have perverted-control-freak class DRM embedded into it, like Vista does/will. Personally I view Vista as a significant downgrade from WinXP - it will negatively affect the utility offered by a Windows computer.
  • by xtracto (837672) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:31AM (#15999596) Journal
    Just go to Amazon [amazon.com] and see the prices in USD.

    Wow $399.00 for the Operating System... and, how much is the hardware?, and what can this Operating System can do?
    I guess we (in Mexico) will continue to get it the Aye! way, it would be stupid to think that people will pay $400 for Windows when they payed $300 for the computer.

    Ha!
  • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:37AM (#15999641)
    I love this. Windows fanboys often mock OS X releases for being $120 apiece, yet from Amazon.com we see that Vista Home Basic will cost an entire $200. Ultimate will cost $400! I can guarantee Leopard (and most of Tiger) match Ultimate without costing me the price of an XBox 360.

    The myth that OS X costs more than Windows is officially dead.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:45AM (#15999701)
    The myth that OS X costs more than Windows is officially dead.

    Incorrect.

    1) It's not official until we have something from the official software producer.
    2) Microsoft releases an OS & you get the service packs for free. Apple releases an OS, and the service packs as another OS. (I mean how many of the tiger updates were changes to desktop artwork?)

    The really funny thing of course is that the BSD & Linux guys are going to laugh at both the Apple & MS fanboys arguing over which of their overprices OSes is cheaper ^_^
  • Re:Not Quite (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:47AM (#15999716)
    Regarding the leak date, I think January 30th is probably not a wise move (or maybe it is?) After the holiday spending spree, most people won't have money left and those who got new computers as gifts will need to upgrade their OS.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:52AM (#15999744)
    What is the real worth of Windows? Is an OPerating system really worth $129 for a BASIC stripped down version?
    Essentially a single-user operating system:

    For:

    -NO BACKUP Utility (Even *NIX has tar/gzip) and crond
    -An integrated Web browser, inseperable (or with great effort) from the core OS
    -NO Support for Firewall (I don't trust Microsoft's FireWall)
    -NO NATIVE DVD Player (due to "licence" cost)
    -NO Ability to set permissions on files for multiple users
    -PISS-POOR Command Line Interface (try renaming 10 files, under Windows)
    -PISS-POOR User Management (try creating more than 10 accounts)
    -NO SECURE AUTOMATION of COMMON TASKS (user management, file management ,etc )
    No Thanks, I don't like any OS that attempts to Dictate what I can and can't do on my own files. I'd rather spend the 40-50 bucks and get a commercial Linux distro.

    I'm a computing die-hard, I dual boot, running XP for Half-Life II, thats about it.

    Office 97 still runs on my system, I paid the microsoft tax since I bought a laptop, thats all I'm willing to pay for Windows, about say $50.00, what a normal Linux distro would cost.

    For the "PRO" version, I would pay about $100.

    There is NOTHING in XP that is worth 129.99.
  • Re:Not Quite (Score:2, Insightful)

    by johnlittledotorg (858326) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @10:58AM (#15999802) Homepage
    I agree about the timing. Why spend even more money when there's no real compelling reason to upgrade in the first place? New PC owners may want to upgrade but they certainly won't need to.
  • by jonesy16 (595988) <jonesy@gmGAUSSail.com minus math_god> on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:08AM (#15999883)
    I'm confused why Microsoft would make a move like this. Their pricing scheme is not competitive with any other OS's on the market that I can think of. Retail boxes of most Linux distributions are between $50 and $100 USD. A new copy of OSX costs $129 (and people still complain about that!). But at least with OSX you can buy a 5-pack "family" license for $199. And yet, Microsoft comes out and expects people to pay $199 minimum to run Windows on their non-Dell/HP/SONY prebundled computer. I mean, if Microsoft is right about the number of pirated copies on computers then they can't count on "upgrade" customers cause there must be some check to prevent it from being upgraded on a pirated copy.

    A good question to ask is what they consider an upgrade to be? Can you upgrade Win 3.1/95/ME? Cause I'm sure you can find a copy of one of those for less than the $100 difference between retail/upgrade. Does anyone else think this pricing scheme will fuel more people to switch over to Mac/Linux computers? Or will it have no impact and people will just buy their Dell/HP/ computer with it prebundled and not care?
  • by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:15AM (#15999946)
    >Apple releases an OS, and the service packs as another OS

    total BS.

    Tiger gives you Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator etc.

    are you saying MS gives these "service pack features" for free? NO, that's what you're paying for Vista for (except you don't get Automator).

    MS service packs give you features that Apple include in the first place, such as a firewall and the ability to go on the internet for more than 12 minutes.

    Apple service packs are free (security updates and "minor" program updates).

    Also Apple only sells full OS versions. if 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 didn't interest you then you can go straight from 10.0 to 10.5 for the same single low price (10.1 was free). Apple releasing more often gives users options about when to update. for MS users the choice is between a very expensive OS or a less expensive but feature-crippled version.

    Also the OS X licence requires no activation and is legal to use on several computers (not sure the exact number since I only have 1 anyway).
  • by Bastian (66383) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:24AM (#16000024)
    It is interesting that Apple do not do this, they don't even have separate "upgrade" prices.


    Of course, at least on the OS it doesn't make sense for Apple to offer a separate upgrade price. All Macs come with OS X, so all Mac users are upgrade users.
  • by blanks (108019) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:43AM (#16000176) Homepage Journal

    The prices he lists are for canada only. The information for America is just him guessing what the prices will be.

    "Based on current U.S. prices (which I wrote about last week), I would expect Windows Vista to sell in the U.S. for the following prices (full/upgrade):"

    "Of course, these are guesses only. Some discounts will probably be available in the retail channel"

    This isn't leaked information, it's guesses made by the guy.

  • by WebCowboy (196209) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:16PM (#16000433)
    No, the reason budget airlines have grown in popularity is that they are undercutting ALL of the segmented prices of the major airlines.

    That is incorrect, at least in North America (I know firsthand about Canada and I'm told the US it was the same). I remember when WestJet began operations (it was the first truly viable independent budget airline in Canada). It was less than a week before the competition had seat sales that often matched or even slightly undercut WestJet's offerings. If price alone was a factor then WestJet would've gone out of business in its first year. This is especially true because the biggest airline (Air Canada) was a recently privatised Crown corporation that was still run by a management team with very tight connections to government departments. For many years after Air Canada (nicknamed "MapleFlot") was sold by the government it received hundreds of millions (perhaps into the billions) in guaranteed loans, grants and other subsidies and used its favoured posistion to undercut competition regardless of actual operationg costs. Air Canada destroyed or absorbed WardAir, Canadian International, etc this way both in its days as a crown corporation and afterwards. However the competition tried to run their businesses like traditional airlines, especially Air Canada. WestJet "broke the rules" so it was able to withstand price pressures based on other factors.

    Trust me, if British Airways had a 'Cargo Class' flight that was cheaper than all the 'budget' airlines, I'd be packing myself into a suitcase and going on a cheap holiday.

    No you wouldn't, unless you were lucky enough to have a flexible schedule and were willing to compromise. If British Airways had the option of "steerage" then you'd have to be willing to limit your travelling options to certain destianations, fly off-season, take overnight flights and so on. There would be no flight attendants at all, no in-flight movie ore even music to listen to, no in-flight meals, snacks or beverages, except for bottled water which would be extra-charged. You'd be limited to continental flights (no trans-oceanic flights) to non-vacation destinations. This is because universally-available "cargo class" would break the whole segmented pricing model because it would undercut their own segmented offerings and turn British Ariways into just another discount airline.

    WestJet and other discount airlines trim costs by limiting on-flight food options and other such extras, however they still have friendly and convenient service (still superior to much-improved Air Canada) and were first to offer extras like live in-flight sattelite TVs on every seatback, and have the most modern fleet in North America. You can fly to vacation destinations like Las Vegas, Orlando, LA and Hawaii (Air Canada's successful discount service does NOT fly to such destinations). Their change-booking charge is very minimal--usually $10 unless it is same-day, which is still considerably cheaper than Air Canada (if you chood their discount segment and you need to reschedule the fee can be as high as $150). For WestJet there is always ONE price offered per flight at any given time. Air Canada's simplified segmented system STILL has about a half-dozen different prices for the same flights, which most often are even for the exact same seating options. Westjet's pricing is only a minor factor in its success. The two biggest reasons by far are the high-quality service and the LACK OF SEGMENTED PRICING.

    The reason that Apple don't have seperate upgrade prices, is because their market is loyal enough that they can be meticulously gouged, and will still come back for more.

    That is also incorrect. Apple has gained marketshare, and given that how can someone be loyal to Macs if they have just bought their first Mac? Also, the one-and-only price for a single copy of the FULL VERSION of MacOS X is IDENTICAL to the UPGRADE price for the MOST BASIC edition of Windows Vista or XP Home. It is hard to argue that Apple is goug
  • Re:Not Quite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IIH (33751) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:18PM (#16000452)

    Regarding the leak date, I think January 30th is probably not a wise move (or maybe it is?) After the holiday spending spree, most people won't have money left and those who got new computers as gifts will need to upgrade their OS.

    As you said, people who get computers for Christmas will be tempted/forced/suggested to upgrade their OS to the latest one, if not immediately, sooner than if they were sold vista on day one.

    As a sales ploy, it's cunning, how many other companys can make you an offer of selling you one OS for the price of two?

    As marketing, it's also smart, coming up to christmas there are many ads for toys/presents/holidays/etc, so peoples attention will be split, so planning a release for a slower time of year means that the coverage it receives is under less pressure from other issues.

    Also, just prior to a major holiday is the last time IT would like to roll out a major upgrade, so if available pre-christmas, it mightn't get the demand till afterwards, and the last thing any company wants is apparent lack of demand for their new product. They want to release statements like "sold X in first month!", not "only sold Y in first month, but that's due to seasonal factors, honest!"

  • by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:25PM (#16000498)
    Does anybody outside of Microsoft actually care about Vista? WinXP is fairly stable, it runs all the software (or nearly all of it) developed for every version of Windows since Win95.

    Unfortunately the next version of DirectX will only be released for Vista. That means that any new games using later versions of DirectX will require you to shell out the $399US for Vista in order to play the game.

    It's a play right out of the abusive monopoly handbook.
  • by ben there... (946946) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:40PM (#16000603) Journal
    >Apple releases an OS, and the service packs as another OS

    total BS.

    Tiger gives you Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator etc.

    are you saying MS gives these "service pack features" for free? NO, that's what you're paying for Vista for (except you don't get Automator).

    You each are saying different things. You talk about features that aren't service pack updates and asking if MS gives them away. He's talking about service pack updates that you need to pay to receive. You can't stay on 10.1 and still be up to date, for free, can you?

    Apple service packs are free (security updates and "minor" program updates).

    What are the '"minor" program updates'? MS gives you free updates to DirectX (think of it as CoreImage, etc.), Windows Movie Maker, and the obvious ones: WMP and IE. Mac has similar updates except you need to upgrade to get CoreImage and all that. MS doesn't have the whole iLife suite, but the photo app, mail app, etc. that will be included with Vista will probably have years of free updates as well. So what program updates do you mean?

    Also the OS X licence requires no activation and is legal to use on several computers (not sure the exact number since I only have 1 anyway).

    That's illegal, actually. They wouldn't sell Family Packs of licenses if that was legal.
  • by Zevon 2000 (593515) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:53PM (#16000696)
    Apple does do it. What do you think that 10% student discount is?

    Also, I second the others who question your assertion that price discrimination is becoming less popular. It's never been popular when done poorly, and isn't usually noticed when done well. To wit: Old Navy, The Gap, and Banana Republic are all owned by Gap Stores (GPS). They get their clothes from the same factories. But they are marketed differently in different stores and with different tags, and people will pay a lot more for the same shirt from Banana Republic than Old Navy.
  • by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @01:03PM (#16000774)
    OEM means that the OS is tied to the MOTHERBOARD. You upgrade that motherboard and the license is no longer valid. If you use that same license on that new motherboard you are effectively doing the same thing as stealing from Microsoft.

    Frankly, I could care less about Microsoft, and I certainly don't agree with the OEM restrictions, but nonetheless the legal ramifications are there. I just want people to understand that OEM is not always a good thing, especially since so many people will have to make a more powerful computer to use Vista fully. That normally means an upgrade.

    If Vista costs so much, then the revamping of the systems will generally come afterwards not before hand. That means a license tied to an old motherboard when users find out they need to upgrade that motherboard. A new motherboard equates to buying a new copy of Vista even if 3 months ago you just bought an OEM Vista license.

    This is not the case with the RETAIL version of Windows.

A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer

Working...