backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by RjBass.. on Jul 15 at 5:01 PM

Pricing varies between sources but part numbers have remained the same

Windows Vista has been one of the most maligned operating systems to ever come from Microsoft. Things were bad early with Vista after it was seriously delayed from its original launch date and then launched with some very significant issues.

Microsoft is gearing up to launch windows 7 this year to replace Vista and hopefully get computer users to upgrade from XP. Earlier this month DailyTech reported that Windows 7 was set to release to manufacturing on July 13.

Some more pricing information on Windows 7 has been leaked. Pricing info has shown up on a couple of Microsoft's smaller retailers' websites. Neowin reports that Expercom has pricing live on their site and that University IT Computer Sales had pricing up but pulled it quickly.

The leaked information offers pricing on the Anytime Upgrade options for Windows 7. According to Expercom, upgrading from Windows 7 Starter to Home premium will cost $81.95. Going from Home Premium to Professional will cost $90.95 and going from Home Premium to Ultimate will cost $137.95.

Some details have also been uncovered that point to Microsoft possibly offering a family pack that allows users to install Windows 7 on up to three computers in their home. The Windows 7 Family Pack upgrade for Home Premium is priced at $136.95.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Most maligned?
By sdsdv10 on 7/9/2009 10:49:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Windows Vista has been one of the most maligned operating systems to ever come from Microsoft.


In my view, that would be Windows Millenium Edition (ME). Compared to ME, Vista has been walk in the park. The big thing was MS never actually fixed ME, they just replaced it with XP. It took a little while, but MS did fix Vista. I've been running Vista UE for over a year without issue. I couldn't say the same for ME...




RE: Most maligned?
By invidious on 7/9/2009 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 4
agreed


RE: Most maligned?
By icanhascpu on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Most maligned?
By robert5c on 7/10/2009 12:30:47 PM , Rating: 4
Let me guess you refuse to buy another one, but are happily working on a pirated version right now huh...

Microsoft doesn't owe you nothing for no ammount of time, they run a buisness not a charity. Is this the only product you ever paid for that didn't turn out to be as great as you expected or died soon after? ME actually works fine, just not as well as XP newer versions...

...buddy your the only thing thats BS that i see in this whole situation.


RE: Most maligned?
By AwesomeSauce on 7/13/2009 4:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are the only one to ever day ME works fine. My dad had it on one of his office computers (it came with it) and had nothing but trouble with it constantly. He had me swap it for XP.


RE: Most maligned?
By RjBass on 7/15/2009 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say he is the only one. I have gotten ME to run solid and stable a few times in the past. Most of the later updates that MS pushed out fixed all of the most common serious issues, and other little issues were of no bother to most. While ME was far far from a perfect OS, and certainly one of MS's worst OS's to date, it wasn't as bad in the end as most make it out to be.


RE: Most maligned?
By Radnor on 7/9/2009 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 1
If you used Windows update on ME back in the days you would find out it was a very good OS.

I had it on several pcs and it worked fine. Of course back in days, a internet connection was a rare thing.


RE: Most maligned?
By sdsdv10 on 7/9/2009 12:20:40 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure what I did wrong then, as I did have Windows Update on.

Nonetheless, with ME the computer would randomly lock up or BSOD and I wasn't running any power hungry software. This was on a standard Dell Deminsion 8100, only used IE and Window's office apps. As soon as I installed Windows XP SP1 upgrade, most my OS problems went away (and this was a true upgrade not a fresh install, so the software base didn't change at all). After XP SP2 came out I never had another OS problem. In fact, it's still running XP SP3 now some eight years after I bought it.

Oh well. I'm still looking forward to Windows 7, not because I hate Vista but because I like checking out new stuff! ;)


RE: Most maligned?
By Ristogod on 7/9/2009 2:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
Oh gee, yeah, that must have been it. No one was updating ME. Out of the almost unanimous opinion of people using ME, the only reason they all could have come to that conclusion had to have been that not a one of them was updating. Sure yep.


RE: Most maligned?
By Captin Crunch on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Most maligned?
By christojojo on 7/9/2009 6:48:55 PM , Rating: 1
ME worked great for me once I replaced it with Win 98 and even better, once, I got the courage Linux. It was like ME wasn't there to BSOD any more.....(key drums in dramatic 2001 soundtrack)


RE: Most maligned?
By TA152H on 7/10/2009 2:38:59 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with you.

Most of the people who comment on ME are just like the people who talk about the Alpha. They heard it from someone else, and like most cattle, just repeat it, and really believe it, without having any experience with it.

In reality, ME was the best of the 9x releases, and was a decent OS, although far from great. It was pretty much worthless, like Windows XP. Neither were really enough different from their predecessors to really do anything but be disappointing. Of course, the cattle don't remember that XP was considered rubbish when it came out, and just a slower, bloated version of Windows 2000 with a bad interface design, that thankfully could be made to look like Windows 2000. Sadly though, the bloat of Windows XP could not be made like Windows 2000. But, being as most people aren't really capable of original thought, ME was terrible and horrible, and XP was great.

Mind you, I'm not saying in any way ME was a lot better than 98 SE, it was only very slightly better. In fact, so much so, you have to ask what the point was. Unlike most people that never used it, I actually found the biggest advantage over 98 to be the stability, although probably the cattle have a negative view of it from that perspective based on comparisons with NT derivatives. I guess from the context of time, being released after Windows 2000, and not a terribly long time before Windows XP, you could say Windows ME was really bad in terms of reliability, and missing a lot of features. But, compared to its predecessors, it was hardly a bad operating system, and is still my favorite of that group if I need to run certain apps that won't run in NT. I still have machines running 98 and ME, and I don't really know why anyone would claim clear superiority for 98. While ME may not have been a great OS in 2000, it was still at least as good as 98, and in my opinion, slightly better.


RE: Most maligned?
By Russell on 7/10/2009 2:38:36 PM , Rating: 3
ME was an incredibly unstable OS. Sure, it had desireable features - there's no denying that. The problem is that those features caused it to crash regularly.

I worked in tech support during the ME days. I regularly worked with 98, ME, 2000 and later XP. Out of all those OS's, none of them suffered from the chronic, constant problems that ME had. Where 98 had USB issues and 2000 liked to suffer from broken MBR's (which was easily fixable), ME suffered from crashes ranging from failed windows updates corrupting the OS to registry corruption to system restore wrecking the system requiring a format.

The scorn people have toward Win ME is completely justified. Me was absolutely awful.


RE: Most maligned?
By Targon on 7/10/2009 7:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly were not in the habit of swapping hardware in the days of ME, or you would not be defending that thing. It had some major flaws in the plug and play and resource allocation system that were the source of most problems.

That is why so many people had problems with ME, because just moving a card from one PCI slot to another could result in a blue screen error, and due to the nature of Plug and Play in those days, you could NEVER get the machine back to the way it was prior to the slot change. If it were not for those problems, then it wouldn't have seemed that bad.

To be fair, it could have been problems with the drivers(the source of MOST problems with Vista), but at the same time, since there was no fix available before XP was released, most people dumped ME as soon as they could.


RE: Most maligned?
By fownde on 7/13/2009 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
ME was a complete bust. I knew a couple people with ME. They bought it soon as it came out. I had 2 computers running 98, one of my roommates had 98 and my 2nd roommate had ME. His computer would BSOD almost every day. He hated the thing. Mine had a BSOD maybe once a month. The other guy I knew that got it hated it as well. after a couple months with it he said he regretted buying it. I also worked in tech support and had so many complaints about ME. I find it funny that ME was EOL a very short time after 98 did. If it was that great, why did they release XP so fast and EOL ME? cuz it sucked.


RE: Most maligned?
By omnicronx on 7/14/2009 7:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that most people here probably never used ME and are basing their opinions from others, when it comes down to it they were right. Windows ME was a terrible OS, XP's problems were mainly the same as Vista, they changed the driver model, it did not have major instability problems.

With ME they changed the way windows worked especially since they removed true DOS support which it made it incompatible with other 9x versions in many cases. Most people didnt even know that system wide environmental variables were set in a completely different way, nor was it documented very well.

Essentially all that you got with ME was system restore and slightly faster boot times, in exchange for sub par performance and instability and for some reason used more resources (to what benefit I am not sure as it was not faster). Saying it was a good OS and on par with 98SE tells me that you did not spend very much time with it. Just having an ME machine does not paint a good picture, heavily use it as your day to day OS and you would be singing a different tune. ME was a stopgap fix for MS and they have publicly admitted that many people had problems with the OS compared to 98SE.


RE: Most maligned?
By Indigo64 on 7/10/2009 11:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
I used Windows ME to run an ICS system in my house. My sister and I were heavy EverQuest players back then, and we didn't have access to a broadband connection, so I ran a 56k dialup with a company called Cognisurf that didn't boot me for inactivity (and it was cheap too) and the system was on 24/7, all the time handling the network traffic for my house.

Good uptime too.

http://www.amdarchive.com/remote/cognisurf_connect... <~ Proof


RE: Most maligned?
By SiliconAddict on 7/10/2009 9:00:44 PM , Rating: 1
Bullshit. We tried doing some product evaluations for ME as a replacement to 98SE at the time. Rolled out.....I think about 20 desktops. We never got past even the beta stage of the image before we scrapped it and started eyeballing Windows 2000.
The networking stack alone was the most god awful thing in the history of computer science. I shit you not. I could be across the room, look at the computer and TCP/IP would stop working. (OK that just happened once. But still it happened when no one was working on the thing and BAM...unable to connect.....)
For all the complaining about Vista. Not once did I ever have the OS break 5 minutes after install with all the current patches installed.
I know that there was a point in the evaluation process that I dreamt that I arrived at the Redmond campus located the developers, broke a ME CD in half and went at them with both halves al la Scream. I was a bit...enthusiastic with my hate of that OS at the time....just a tad.


RE: Most maligned?
By MonkeyPaw on 7/9/2009 12:40:53 PM , Rating: 5
That's the thing, Vista has never been a problem for me, even when it was still a release candidate. The "much maligned" was just from the press and people who never even used it, which of course people always seem to eat up.

The only real problem with Vista was the delays. XP had been around way too long, and people forgot what it was like to deal with the issues of a mostly-new OS. From my own memory, XP had its share of issues at launch as well. And guess what--it was mostly DRIVER issues! My old Kyro II card couldn't draw XP's translucent selection rectangle without bogging the system down, my NIC didn't have good drivers ready, etc. Just like XP, Vista's early problems were from poor driver support--it's just been so long that people forgot that XP had problems too. Vista introduced the changes necessary for the future, and it was the first good desktop implementation of 64bit from MS.

I'll say it again, Vista has done so well for me that it is staying on my desktop. I will be replacing XP with Win7 on my Eee for $49, however.


RE: Most maligned?
By hyvonen on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Most maligned?
By hyvonen on 7/9/2009 1:13:55 PM , Rating: 5
Um.. you are full of crap, sir.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/wind...


The installer will verify that XP is genuine and Windows 7 will have to be installed on the same partition as the XP installation. The good news is that Microsoft is allowing XP users to buy the cheaper upgrade version if they want to (Microsoft typically lets owners of the two previous releases of Windows to do this, in this case XP and Vista).


However, if you ever need to do a new clean install of Win7 later, do you have to reinstall XP first...?


RE: Most maligned?
By slacker57 on 7/9/2009 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 4
Lol, way to stick it to yourself.


RE: Most maligned?
By Soodey on 7/9/2009 8:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm so confused what just happened there...


RE: Most maligned?
By iamezza on 7/10/2009 7:46:44 AM , Rating: 1
Multiple personality disorder?


RE: Most maligned?
By saiga6360 on 7/9/2009 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
You will probably be asked for the original XP CD and enter in the key. You should not have to reinstall XP.


RE: Most maligned?
By Norseman4 on 7/9/2009 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if they go like Vista, the upgrade didn't allow you to enter a key from prior OSes. (At least I don't remember any)

Of course, you could install the Vista upgrade on a clean install, skip the registration, then install it again then register it. (Was a hassle, but a cheaper way of getting VU on a new machine)


RE: Most maligned?
By Belard on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Most maligned?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 3:12:55 PM , Rating: 4
Dude you're full of shit.

When Vista came out memory was dirt cheap. And it ran/runs fine on 2GB of RAM. I built a computer for my parents shortly after release and bought 2GB of ram for like $40. And not cheap POS memory either.

The only issue with Vista when it was released was driver support. An issue Microsoft couldn't control since they don't develop drivers for everyone else's hardware.

And yes Vista wasn't that impressive on the surface. All the major changes were under the hood where no one would notice or appreciate them.


RE: Most maligned?
By Belard on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Most maligned?
By kkwst2 on 7/10/2009 12:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
WTF are there $300 bottom end PCs with 3~4GB of RAM? No, 2 years ago - 1GB of RAM was about $100


Nice try.

Just browsed my receipts. Bought 2 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 dual channel memory kit for $105 from Newegg.

Configured/bought a HP Core 2 Duo PC with 4 GB of RAM for $500 (that's pretty entry-level no?) for a friend on 10/23/07. And by your count the just the RAM should have been $400.

I think you were voted down because YOUR opinion was weak, not the other way around.


RE: Most maligned?
By saiga6360 on 7/9/2009 2:03:15 PM , Rating: 4
What part of "one of" don't you understand?

And yes they did fix Vista, it's called Windows 7.


RE: Most maligned?
By hughlle on 7/10/2009 6:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
not to be mr negative, but i've got RC1 of iwn7 (yes, it's not the public release yet i know!) and vista ultimate on the toher machine. while win 7 has some little tweaks which make it quite nice to use, trying to think of one, ,ummm, o, so the only thing in windows 7 that is useful over vista is that you can right click an icon and have a list of frequent actions.

other than that i use the 7 machine every day and it's jyust plain tripe compared to vista. the amount of issues ive run into that are not in vista that should not exist is scary.


RE: Most maligned?
By anonymo on 7/10/2009 9:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
Are you just trying to make me feel better about buying Vista Ultimate barely a month before MS announced they were abandoning it for Win7?


RE: Most maligned?
By leexgx on 7/11/2009 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
windows 7 far better then vista

windows 7 does Way less Disk trashing, system restore/shadow copy service copying files and in the process making the hard disk go to an crawl

i did 2 pcs in the last day and they did tasks that should of only taken 10 mins ended up lasting more then 1 hr as the systems seem like they was operating like it was 10 years old, most of the time it is fast just some times it goes slow for pointless reasons


RE: Most maligned?
By rburnham on 7/9/2009 5:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well put.


RE: Most maligned?
By AstroCreep on 7/9/2009 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Bah, that was nine years ago; you can't expect most people these days to remember what happened nine months ago, let alone nine years!

Seriously though, ME was only in the market for a short period of time before XP came out; it didn't get the same..."Exposure" that Vista has (or had, perhaps). I agree, ME was more the bastard-child than Vista, but because XP had been around for so long before Vista...everyone needing to get used to the new interface, trying to get their software patched...it irked more of the "General Consumer" than the more tech-savvy, simply because ME was much closer to 98 in the way it operated than Vista is to XP.

My view, anyway.


About Time
By Zagor on 7/9/2009 10:43:32 AM , Rating: 1
Families with more than one computer is the norm not the exception. It is way past due...Welcome to the 21st Century...




RE: About Time
By aftlizard on 7/9/2009 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 5
Believe it or not MS has offered family packs in the past. Such as for Office, and yes even for Vista(which IIRC was a time limited offer).


RE: About Time
By ShapeGSX on 7/9/2009 10:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
There was a Vista Family Pack, too.


RE: About Time
By sxr7171 on 7/9/2009 11:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they have to. Before when it was one computer per family per unit pricing was understandable. Now, with 3-4 machines in a home, they'd have to be crazy to expect people to go and buy 4 copies of $120 OS software.

Volume pricing for the home, it's about time.


RE: About Time
By drebo on 7/9/2009 11:13:10 AM , Rating: 3
In their defense, most families buy pre-assembled computers which have OEM copies of the OS on them already, which do not cost $120.


RE: About Time
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2009 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 5
Yes but us do-it-yourselfers need the love too. :)


RE: About Time
By bhieb on 7/9/2009 12:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking to OEM issue, since licensing is so much different on those versions, I wonder if the OEM versions of XP qualify?


RE: About Time
By EasyC on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
How does this worked for mixed OS households?
By Lord Zado on 7/9/2009 11:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the $136 is for upgrading. I have 2 XP machines and 1 Vista machine at home. Would the upgrade fee be different if you are going from Vista -> Windows 7 vs XP -> Windows 7? Hopefully it's the same price either way.




By aftlizard on 7/9/2009 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
Don't see why it would be different pricing.


RE: How does this worked for mixed OS households?
By peldor on 7/9/2009 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Given the huge XP install base, it's very unlikely MS would try to charge more to upgrade from XP.


RE: How does this worked for mixed OS households?
By hyvonen on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
By PitViper007 on 7/9/2009 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
No, you don't have to buy the full version of W7 to make the move from XP. What you will have to do is a clean install. You can't do an in-place upgrade from XP to W7. You CAN use the Upgrade to do this though.


By Spuke on 7/9/2009 2:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your out of luck: gotta buy the full version
No. With XP, you have to do a clean install which you can do with the upgrade versions.


By Entropy42 on 7/9/2009 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Its the same price to upgrade from either XP or Vista, the only difference is the that from XP you have to do a "clean install" upgrade, which means you'll have to back up files first.


By taisingera on 7/9/2009 6:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
What happens if you buy this family pack, and because it is an upgrade version, you need to reinstall on a laptop that came with no Vista DVD? What do you do then? If it only asks for a key, that's not a problem as the key is on the bottom of the laptop. Last OS disk I bought was a second license of XP OEM disk in 2007.


By Wonga on 7/10/2009 5:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
If the Win7 installer behaves anything like the Vista/XP installers, as long as you don't wipe the old partition off the hard disk before running the Win7 installer, the installer will still detect an old version of Windows and allow an upgrade without the need to put an old CD in... even if you want to delete the old partition and start afresh.


136.95?
By aftlizard on 7/9/2009 10:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I will take it. Unless, of course, it is only a time limited offer.




RE: 136.95?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 10:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah 3 licenses for $136 is a deal. Will definitely be jumping on that.


RE: 136.95?
By Spuke on 7/9/2009 11:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
That IS a deal and I will definitely jump on that.


RE: 136.95?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2009 12:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a Sams Club Membership you can pre-order Windows 7 for $45.00 a copy.

$45.00 x 3 = $135.00


RE: 136.95?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 3:14:28 PM , Rating: 1
Oh really....upgrade or full version?


RE: 136.95?
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2009 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrade the family pack price is for upgrade also.

The Windows 7 Family Pack upgrade for Home Premium is priced at $136.95.


RE: 136.95?
By Pudro on 7/9/2009 1:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
That is the price for the UPGRADE. That means the price of one OS PLUS $137. So the $137 is essentially for 2 computers, not 3. Still not bad though.


Family Packs for Pro/Ultimate?
By bmheiar on 7/9/2009 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't Microsoft do Family Packs for Pro &/or Ultimate? Though I prefer the full install not the upgrade install versions. I have 3 computers in my home, plus I build/rebuild computers for my dad, mother, and 2 brothers. And I prefer to use and for them to use the full complete version of the OS instead of the stripped down lower end versions Basic/Starter/Home/Home Premium or whatever they are called. I prefer to have the full complete OS to use. It does not matter to me, if I do not use everything in the OS.




RE: Family Packs for Pro/Ultimate?
By bodar on 7/9/2009 3:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
So, you pay for Pro/Ultimate when you may not even use the features that differentiate it from Home Premium? Do you just like paying more or what? Seriously, how many home users are going to be joining domains or RDP'ing into their PC?

That said, it would be nice if they offered a Small Business Pack for Pro/Ultimate, with discounted pricing.


By bmheiar on 7/9/2009 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, when I can get a full retail version of Pro/Ultimate still factory sealed off of ebay for $150 or less. I have purchased one copy of full retail packaged Vista Ultimate ($150) and several copies of full retail packaged XP Pro SP2 (all for less than $150 each), all off of eBay. Though it can take some time and patience on bidding and being outbided on ones over weeks and sometimes months of trying. And I have purchased 4 copies of OEM XP Pro SP2 from Fry's a couple of years ago for my Dad's, Mom's, & brothers' computers. When I needed them immediately.

Since my younger brother still lives with our parents, a Family Pack of Pro/Ultimate would be really beneficial for me. Instead of buying individual copies of the same software same discs, just different codes. So when I can get a full retail version of Pro/Ultimate for about the same price of the lower end "crippled" versions, then I will get it.

Well everyone is different. To each his or her own. For me, I prefer to have everything that is supposed to be there complete package, instead of buying a item that is missing something or something was removed from the item just so to sell it cheaper.


still waiting for a good sale
By Morphine06 on 7/9/2009 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is why I haven't bought with the retail sale yet. They have got to have more promotions still to come. The OEM pricing hasn't even been released.

I've got another year of RC, I'm sure something will come along I can't refuse. What is your source on those prices though?




By Morphine06 on 7/9/2009 11:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
nvm neowin, I'm blind.


pricing
By buzznut on 7/9/2009 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
It seems home premium will have everything a power user will need. I will be getting the family pack as my wife already digs win7 and our daughter wanted to move to vista. I'll put the other on my lappy, which already runs rc.
I don't see any need right now to migrate my power rig from X64. But eventually I will I suppose.

I would like to see pricing that would allow add ons to the family pack, say $30-40 per liscence added. Including the server and laptop, we have 6 pc's in our house. And they all get used daily.




RE: pricing
By mfed3 on 7/10/2009 9:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would like to see pricing that would allow add ons to the family pack, say $30-40 per license added.


That would be a great idea to further discount the family pack per extra license. I have 6 PCs in my house as well, and it would be great to only have to keep track of one DVD for all of them, plus save some cash.


By QueBall on 7/10/2009 4:49:53 AM , Rating: 2
I would be interested in what the cost of the anytime upgrade from the Pro to the Ultimate edition would cost.

Personally I have used the Bitlocker encryption before on a laptop and it's a decent thing to have. It's nice to be able to encrypt the boot volume. I know you can use Truecrypt but it's not really going to be as convenient when you have to partition your drive and then make sure you store your sensitive data on the encrypted partition.

Also I wonder if there will be a family pack of Pro or Ultimate available? Still I have my preorder with Amazon. If something better comes along before release I can always cancel that order.

And Yes I use the RDP serving feature extensively. I routinely do remote control over my desktop from a netbook. There are many things the netbook doesn't handle well that I do remotely on the full blown desktop instead.




By Cheesew1z69 on 7/10/2009 8:56:17 AM , Rating: 1
Bitlocker is not convenient.....

"In order for BitLocker to operate, the hard disk requires at least two NTFS-formatted volumes: one for the operating system (usually C:) and another with a minimum size of 1.5GB where the operating system boots from. BitLocker requires the boot volume to remain unencrypted, so it should not be used to store confidential information. Unlike previous versions of Windows, Vista's "diskpart" command-line tool includes the ability to shrink the size of an NTFS volume so that the system volume for BitLocker can be created. A tool called the "Bitlocker Drive Preparation Tool" is also available from Microsoft that allows an existing volume to be shrunk to make room for a new boot volume, and for the necessary bootstrapping files to be transferred to it.[12] Since BitLocker requires at least two NTFS formatted partitions, some users may prefer to encrypt the entire hard disk, without the need for partitioning, which can be done using 3rd party encryption software."


Greed as always wins over common sense
By crystal clear on 7/10/2009 7:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
Windows Vista team member Nick White had said about "The Windows Vista Family Discount program ":

Posted on: June 27, 2007 at 9:17PM
Hey hartelc: sorry you're disappointed with the program and its pricing structure.

This was a trial for us to see how people responded to the offer and we've gotten lots of constructive criticsm as to how we could make it better if we were to do it again in future.

Know that your words are have been heard and will be taken into account if we do go that route.

Nick white.



http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arch...

Thats was 2007 Vista family pack & now Win 7 ...

Note his words - how we could make it better if we were to do it again in future.

The future is NOW with Win 7 they dont seem to make it better.

This program will expire sooner or later like the earlier one due to a poor response from prospective buyers.




By Cheesew1z69 on 7/10/2009 8:58:18 AM , Rating: 1
"if we were to do it again", key words here....


What a joke
By Breathless on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: What a joke
By teriba on 7/9/2009 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to take a guess and say it's because what you said is illegal? Technet is for one person only and is for evaluation purposes only.


RE: What a joke
By mfed3 on 7/10/2009 9:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Its $350 + $250 PER YEAR for a technet subscription, and its for one person, for test purposes, illegal for what you are trying to use it for.

Win7 family pack is $135 for 3 licenses, one time deal, free service packs forever.

How does it make any sense whatsoever for someone to get a technet subscription.

That half a brain you grew is completely useless and you are an invalid.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki