backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 95 comment(s) - last by overzealot.. on Sep 3 at 12:25 AM

Full versions of Windows 7 are on sale for 57 percent off in the UK -- less than the standard price of the upgrade version, even, in the U.S.
The British get cheaper copies of Windows 7

Usually on the short end of the stick when it comes to pricing, the British finally have some good news to cheer about.  The UK will be receiving special pricing on the Windows 7 that will make full versions of the software cheaper than the upgrade edition in the U.S.  The U.S. is, meanwhile, left out for once.

A full version of Windows Home Premium -- not an upgrade edition -- will weigh in at £65 (57 percent off), while in the U.S. the upgrade version alone costs $120 (£72).  In the U.S. the full version costs considerably more -- $200 (£122). 

As the UK is part of the European Union, this pricing may be extended to other parts of the EU, but it is unknown if Microsoft will do so.  The version will be the full copy of Windows 7 and include Internet Explorer 8, included thanks to a last minute deal with the EU to include a browser ballot screen.

The full version of Windows 7 is the only one that can legally be installed without a valid copy of Windows XP or Windows Vista, which you own.  For the vast majority of consumers this is a non-issue, especially considering that nearly all new computers are shipping with free upgrades to Windows 7.  Also, the U.S. did get a special pre-order on Windows Home Premium Upgrades that dropped the price to $50 (£30.5), the cheapest price of all -- though that price was for the upgrades only.

Microsoft has not commented on the price disparity and has yet to officially announce the UK pricing.  The pricing was first noticed when units popped up for sale at Amazon.co.uk for £65, and at Play.com for £75 plus free shipping.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 8:59:25 AM , Rating: 5
For once the UK gets the best deal, instead of being ripped off all the time.

Cue the whining yanks who don't know how good they've had it until now...




RE: wow
By SiliconJon on 8/19/2009 9:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, but I will say good news for the UK. And I'm still waiting on my wager that the current MSRP is far too high in the states - which I will win or lose by Christmas.


RE: wow
By Lord 666 on 8/19/2009 9:08:20 AM , Rating: 1
Nah, I prefer better dental care and democracy versus cheaper software.

Hell, in the US they give out for free for just listening to Microsoft detail the new features - http://www.microsoft.com/business/thenewefficiency...


RE: wow
By jadeskye on 8/19/2009 9:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that the United kingdom isn't a democracy?


RE: wow
By mdogs444 on 8/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By joeymac on 8/19/2009 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yes there is. Bitch got pissed at the high cost of operating systems and liked the RC so much she and laid down the law on MS. Yay! Cheap Windows 7 for us. Good luck with Obama.. pfttt!


RE: wow
By mikefarinha on 8/19/2009 10:47:51 AM , Rating: 4
Good luck with Obama.. pfttt!
Maybe we can make a trade? Of course this offer will only be good until Obama's 4 year term is up


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 11:00:39 AM , Rating: 2
Obama was a much better choice than the Mccain palin ticket.

what were the republicans thinking?

Ron Paul is your best chance to get your country back on track. Bring him in to gut your federeal government then bring in a dem afterwards to build it back up in a sensible way, it's the only way!


RE: wow
By Schrag4 on 8/19/2009 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 1
The conspiracy theorist in my (it's weak so don't worry) would suggest that the left, not Republicans, picked McCain.

...and personally I think a totally inept administration such as Bush or McCain is a much better alternative to Obama's intentionally destructive administration. Actually, I think the ABSOLUTELY perfect administration (and congress for that matter) would be a rock...that just sits there...and does nothing.


RE: wow
By Murst on 8/19/2009 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, I think the ABSOLUTELY perfect administration (and congress for that matter) would be a rock...that just sits there...and does nothing

Like they did w/ Katrina? Or perhaps after the bombings of 9/11, we should have just done absolutely nothing? Or would it have been better to stay out of WWII even after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?


RE: wow
By Murst on 8/19/2009 12:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
Err, attacks of 9/11... I was thinking of my next topic while typing that one...


RE: wow
By Schrag4 on 8/19/2009 2:10:03 PM , Rating: 4
Military attacks by foreign entities is one of the few REAL crises that the government should be handling. All we hear from Washington is that everything is a crisis and legislation to 'fix' it must be rammed through RIGHT THIS SECOND (before anyone actually reads what's in the legislation - oops, did I say that?). Of course that's completely untrue. Almost nothing that comes out of Washington has any real benefit to anyone except the special interest groups (or others) that are paying the sponsors of legislation with votes or cold-hard-cash. If you want examples, I'm sure as a group we can come up with dozens and dozens of specific pieces of legislation that benefit one group of people to the detriment to everyone else.

Since you brought it up, as far as Katrina is concerned, there's plenty of blame to go around. Working backward through time, (1) the federal government didn't recognize that Katrina victims weren't getting help. Before that, (2) the governor of LA didn't request FEMA's help (which is what's supposed to initiate FEMA's response). Before that (and before the storm hit), (3) the mayor of New Orleans denied the use of school buses for evacuation because they weren't swanky enough ("Where are the Greyhound buses?" he asked). Around the same time, (4) the citizens didn't G T F O themselves. And long, LONG before that, (5) LA took federal money to repair/upgrade the levees protecting New Orleans and instead used it for other things. Would it ultimately have prevented the disaster? Who knows. But they took the money and didn't make the appropriate repairs/upgrades. But I guess this is all Bush's fault.


RE: wow
By sinful on 8/19/2009 2:46:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
(5) LA took federal money to repair/upgrade the levees protecting New Orleans and instead used it for other things. Would it ultimately have prevented the disaster? Who knows.


Actually, what I think you meant was
"The Army Corp of Engineers was supposed to receive funding to repair/upgrade the levees protecting New Orleans, but instead the president only allocated 1/2 of what was requested, which Congress then bumped up because it was essentially disasterously underfunded".

LA wasn't in charge of the levees, it was the Army Corp of Engineers.
In some cases they were funded at less than 50% of what was requested.

Would have it made a difference? Hard to say.
However, some of the "Hurricane Category 3" levees were in such disrepair and had sunk into the ground that they wouldn't have even been able to withstand a Cat-3 storm.

It seems conceivable that a few hundred million to upgrade/repair some of those dams might have made a huge difference - if it's just one levee that fails, well, maybe they can focus their resources on that spot and reduce damage.

However, if 7 levees fail, well, then it's kind of pointless.

In any case, it seems obvious that a few hundred million in prevention would probably have averted BILLIONS in economic damage.


RE: wow
By teldar on 8/19/2009 3:11:19 PM , Rating: 4
I'm going to go to point 4.
People who don't evacuate when they are told their lives are at risk deserve whatever nature brings them.
Period.
The End.

I abhor the idea of spending money saving ignorant bastards from themselves. At my expense.
Bitches.


RE: wow
By Donkeyshins on 8/19/2009 4:07:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm going to go to point 4.
People who don't evacuate when they are told their lives are at risk deserve whatever nature brings them.
Period.
The End.

I abhor the idea of spending money saving ignorant bastards from themselves. At my expense.
Bitches.


A large number of the 'bitches' who didn't leave did not have any means to leave (e.g. they didn't own a car, couldn't afford a bus ticket, etc.). Have some compassion.


RE: wow
By Schrag4 on 8/19/2009 5:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A large number of the 'bitches' who didn't leave did not have any means to leave (e.g. they didn't own a car, couldn't afford a bus ticket, etc.).


Which brings us to point (3) from my post.


RE: wow
By Samus on 8/20/2009 4:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe you just compared Pearl Harbor, an attack on our contry, to September 11th, an attack by our country. You should be burned at the steak.


RE: wow
By messyunkempt on 8/21/2009 4:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
mmmmmmm steak...


RE: wow
By sl68 on 8/19/2009 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
We already had one of those.His name is Jimmy Carter.


RE: wow
By themaster08 on 8/19/2009 5:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good luck with Obama.. pfttt!

I'm British, but at least the U.S is ruled by someone their people actually voted into power.


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/20/2009 4:34:27 AM , Rating: 4
so is Britian.

Now go away and learn how our political system works.


RE: wow
By Nimon on 8/24/2009 11:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed i'm 100% sure that our government controls what happens... not the queen... and yes we do get to vote who goes in every 4 years so technically we do get a choice


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/25/2009 7:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
huh?

when you vote, you elect your local MP, you do not vote for your prime minister unless you live in his constituency.

When you vote you, rightfully, elect somebody to parliament whom you trust will use his superior political knowledge and judgment to select which member of his party will be the leader of his party and hence prime minister... if his party has the majority.

The party leader is usually already decided before a general election.


RE: wow
By jadeskye on 8/19/2009 9:59:56 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but the queen and royal family have no real power. Parliament and the prime minister has ruled britain for hundreds of years. Arguably even before most powers were transfered from the monarchy hundreds of years ago.


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 10:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
The Royale family have more power than the Royal family!

The only power the queen has is to dissolve parliament... and she can only do this when the prime minister asks her to at a general election.


RE: wow
By Daphault on 8/19/2009 10:57:35 AM , Rating: 1
They are still an excessive waste of money, which has been amassed for hundreds of years at the detriment of the people.


RE: wow
By HrilL on 8/19/2009 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 3
A lot of people visit Brittan because of the queen and royal family. The whole thing brings in far more money to the country than it loses.


RE: wow
By joeymac on 8/19/2009 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Apart from the fact the royal family is a tourist magnet which brings in 10-20 times the cash it costs to keep them. Plus all of the Royal family's art and antiquity assets belong to the public because they belong to the national collection. So it is actually in our interests to spend money to maintain it. Both for investment purposes and historical preservation. If it was possible to sell the Royal collection of art, buildings and land, which it isn't, then every man woman and child in the UK would be given 30-40K as their cut.


RE: wow
By Daphault on 8/19/2009 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
So it was okay for the Egyptians to have enslave hordes of people because "now we have cool pyramids people come to see"? I'm suggesting the means can't justify the very recent benefits.


RE: wow
By xsilver on 8/19/2009 12:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
So are you saying that we should punish living egyptians for the past misgivings of their ancestors?

or should we dig up their bones so we can flog them silly and blow up the pyramids because they were not created out of acceptable labour? (hell is minimum wage even "acceptable labour"?)

the monarchy has happened whether you like it or not. The only thing now is whether to dissolve it or keep it for which the above posters have said that actually costs less.


RE: wow
By Spuke on 8/19/2009 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it was okay for the Egyptians to have enslave hordes of people because
Actually, they were paid.


RE: wow
By ClownPuncher on 8/19/2009 3:36:40 PM , Rating: 5
Screen shots or it didn't happen.


RE: wow
By GaryJohnson on 8/19/2009 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
quoth the wiki:
quote:
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy


RE: wow
By GaryJohnson on 8/19/2009 10:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
quoth the wiki, the U.S. isn't a democracy either:
quote:
[The United States] is a constitutional republic


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 10:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
At least we have an unalienable right to habeus corpus over here.


RE: wow
By mmntech on 8/19/2009 10:59:52 AM , Rating: 5
Constitutional monarchies and constitutional republics are types of democracies. With the former, you have an unelected head of state who's powers are limited to act only on the advice of a duly democratically elected parliament. The head of government, the Prime Minister, acts as parliament's representative to the Crown. In reality, the monarch is only a figurehead due to unwritten constitutional conventions and norms. A Constitutional republic places the roles of both head of state and government into a single democratically elected executive who is checked and balanced by a democratically elected congress and a supreme court.

This is the second time this week that I've heard someone claim the US is not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic. They're the same thing. It's like saying a Beagle isn't a dog.


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 11:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
A beagle is that little horn instrument played at soldiers funerals is it not?

/facetiousness


RE: wow
By overzealot on 9/3/2009 12:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
You could try to blow a tune on a beagle, though I think you'd be disappointed with the results.


RE: wow
By FITCamaro on 8/19/2009 12:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's because we're not a democracy. The wiki got it right. We're a democratic republic where individuals are elected to represent the people. Of course these days they're not doing that anymore and care more about their own views and opinions.


RE: wow
By sebmel on 8/19/2009 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 3
The US: a democracy of a type in which the population has such faith that it has the lowest turnout at elections of any established democratic country.

A country which prohibits around 5% of the electorate from even trying to vote.

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm


RE: wow
By invidious on 8/19/2009 10:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't able to vote in 2008 because of a last minute business trip, that doesn't mean I don't like democracy.

Also anyone who is prohibitted from voting is not a part of the electorate, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make there.


RE: wow
By Lord 666 on 8/19/2009 10:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
Or previously arrested and convicted of a crime.


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By invidious on 8/19/2009 10:30:43 AM , Rating: 5
Your confusing democracy with capitalism.


RE: wow
By DonkeyRhubarb on 8/19/2009 9:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but you got rated down cos this is an American site and anyone who says anything that is any anti-that will get rated down.

Prices generally are lower in the states. I'm in the Euro zone and the UK generally has it better than us, so we really are bottom of the pile as far as prices go.

There's no sense to it...


RE: wow
By invidious on 8/19/2009 10:28:42 AM , Rating: 1
There is plenty of sense to it, you just don't understand it. Go take an economics course.


RE: wow
By BZDTemp on 8/19/2009 12:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of sense. We have more money so our prices are higher. Where it looks bad is when the multinational take advantage.

One example that really makes me mad. Lego cost almost double in Denmark compared to the US. And Lego is a Danish company and while some production has been outsourced it has been outsourced to eastern Europe so any Lego has traveled a lot longer when sold in the US. I pressed Lego for an explanation and eventually they admitted their prices are based on what they can get. This is normal business of course but still sucks for us consumers :-(


RE: wow
By rockyct on 8/20/2009 12:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
The US Legos are made in Mexico now. They get trucked to a warehouse in Texas and from there get truck around the US.


RE: wow
By joeymac on 8/19/2009 9:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
I got full version of Home Premium for £39.99($65) at Argos while the initial (cheaper) pre-orders were available. And another one for £45 from play.com.


RE: wow
By 91TTZ on 8/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By joeymac on 8/19/2009 10:11:08 AM , Rating: 3
But the anti-UK jabs are fine? Crap like that does have a place on this site?
It's funny you didn't just say both sides stop with the bickering.. isn't it?


RE: wow
By invidious on 8/19/2009 10:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
This whole thread started with a brit criticizing americans. What do you expect? When you go around looking for trouble you are probably going to find it.


RE: wow
By 91TTZ on 8/19/2009 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've never taken jabs at the UK and I'd think it were idiotic if someone from the US injected that kind of nonsense into a thread about Windows 7 pricing.


RE: wow
By chagrinnin on 8/20/2009 1:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
Lerm: "You wanna go that way? 'Cause we can go that way. We just went that way,..and now we're goin' back. Hah haa,...Unbelievable. Death to America!

Lerm: "Sooo,...you got Danglers?"


RE: wow
By invidious on 8/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/19/2009 10:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
and the UK isn't a capitalist society????


RE: wow
By bobvodka on 8/19/2009 11:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly with our NHS we are a socialist country...


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/20/2009 4:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
because we have socialism that doesn't mean we are a socialist country per say. There is plenty of socialism in the Us government but I only ever heard it called socialist when a republican is not in power;)


RE: wow
By ClownPuncher on 8/19/2009 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 4
Since when is the UK not capitalist, you silly man? Of course they have some social services, but the economy is definitely a capitalist foundation.

The UK is also one of the largest allies to the USA.

I honestly don't understand where all the nationalist chest thumping comes into play when talking about the sales of an OS.


RE: wow
By Procurion on 8/20/2009 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when citizens of a third-world has-been country think that an American product from an American company should be less expensive in their country. We make more money, moron, we're richer and can afford to let some droppings be licked from the pan.


RE: wow
By MrPoletski on 8/24/2009 9:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love it when citizens of a third-world has-been country think that an American product from an American company should be less expensive in their country.


LMFAO!

quote:
We make more money, moron, we're richer and can afford to let some droppings be licked from the pan.


Actually, genius, the eurozone is a bigger economy than the USA, it's just Europe hasn't got to the stage of calling itself a single country. We can afford to let some droppings be licked from the pan though... so that explains all the sha-hit that comes out your mouth.


MSRP
By Spivonious on 8/19/2009 9:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
All this means is Amazon is selling it for £65, not that Microsoft has lowered the MSRP.

Although I have to admit that if they're selling the Home Pack for $150, then no one will spend $100 for the single version. Maybe the upgrade price will be dropped to $75?




RE: MSRP
By marvdmartian on 8/19/2009 9:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
So really....what's to stop a person in the US from ordering from Amazon's UK site? Shipping would be higher, but would it be high enough to make up the price difference?

Personally, I cancelled my pre-order of 2 copies of the upgrade. I figured I'd wait and see, instead of staying on the bandwagon I jumped on, with my "let's spend money to save money!" attitude.


RE: MSRP
By FoundationII on 8/19/2009 9:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
Amazon.co.uk doesn't ship software to the US (and pretty much every other item except for books) and vice versa.


RE: MSRP
By Spivonious on 8/19/2009 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the UK version would let you legally use it. Also, the text would all be "British" with things spelled with "s" instead "z" and so on.


RE: MSRP
By idboracle on 8/19/2009 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
the text would all be "British" with things spelled with "s" instead "z" and so on


you mean spelt correctly, not bastardised


RE: MSRP
By marvdmartian on 8/20/2009 9:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
While the ability to "shed-yule" things would be welcome, I think it would be far overshadowed by my new habit of adding an extra I to aluminum! ;)


RE: MSRP
By exanimas on 8/21/2009 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wait... so they really do that and I'm not just hearing things when I watch Top Gear?


RE: MSRP
By MrPoletski on 8/24/2009 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
no, you really remove the letter I from the correctly spelt aluminium. You are pretty much the only country in the world to remove this I.

Aluminium is not the only element to end in 'Ium'

Indium, americium, einstinium, calcium, magnesium, barium, strontium, helium, cadmium, germanium and more.

It's a common ending usually added to mean the 'elemnt form' of something else. In the case of aluminium, that's alumine. Alumine being the decided name for the 'base' that made up Alum, used by the ancient Romans and Greek


Woohoo
By damianrobertjones on 8/19/2009 9:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yay! Something that costs less!

Didn't everyone get a pre-release offer to buy cheaper anyway?




RE: Woohoo
By damianrobertjones on 8/19/2009 9:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, best read the entire article first:

"Also, the U.S. did get a special pre-order on Windows Home Premium Upgrades"


RE: Woohoo
By Targon on 8/19/2009 10:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
When many will want to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit versions, you can't do a true upgrade, and the new method of only being able to upgrade from an installed and activated Windows XP or Vista installation means you can't do a clean install with an upgrade edition.


RE: Woohoo
By Akrovah on 8/19/2009 11:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
Except that even with the upgrade version if going from 32 to 64 bit a clean install is required. Same if you are downgrading editions, such as going from Vista Ultimate to 7 Home. Also all upgrades from XP require a clean install.

So really, even with the upgrade disc there are more scenarios where you will be doing a clean install with it rather than an in place upgrade.


RE: Woohoo
By damianrobertjones on 8/19/2009 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
I always, always, install clean.

Also, if more people install clean then the system is less likely to be bogged down with malware, seven years of porn trawling, rubbish apps, every single internet add on bar etc. Microsoft will thus not be blamed for the state of the earlier os.

Plus, where possible x64 all the way.


By trajan on 8/19/2009 9:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
I missed out on the discount window in the US. Is there any reason I could have a friend in England buy me a copy and mail across the pond for use in the US?




By Norseman4 on 8/19/2009 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
As mentioned above, do what you can to attend a Launch Event. (I just registered for one in NYC)


By eddieroolz on 8/19/2009 10:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly Microsoft never hosts a launch event in the West Coast of Canada. I feel so left out, even though Redmond is only a few hours' drive away.


By mmatis on 8/19/2009 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 3
Arrrrrrrrrr, matey! Piracy don't pay! The BSA be after ye now! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


Exchange Rate
By crownvx on 8/19/2009 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
I tried converting some of those numbers between pounds and USD and they are adding up fine. The pound is currently stronger then the USD. And as the website mentioned this was not official, but amazons take on pricing. Hardware sales get fudged all the time on first posts to get people simply worked up.




RE: Exchange Rate
By Lonyo on 8/19/2009 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 3
It is official, it's the MS price on the MS website (£80), minus a small discount, it's the price which has been known about since June.

Some journalistic research would have meant this story would have been much better.


RE: Exchange Rate
By MrPoletski on 8/20/2009 4:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The pound is currently stronger then the USD.


You make it sound like it has been weaker at some point, ever...


Discount won't make up for the Canon G11
By sebmel on 8/19/2009 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
The Canon G11 has been announced with recommended prices of:

US $499
UK £569 - today that's $935

OUCH!




By MrPoletski on 8/24/2009 9:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, uk consumers should club together and boycott companies that do this.


By MrPoletski on 8/24/2009 9:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Inaccurate
By Alarchy on 8/19/2009 10:32:58 AM , Rating: 5
Jason, you might want to mention that the Recommended Retail Price (the price set by Microsoft) is £149.99, not £65.

Amazon is running a discount on pre-orders (similar to the earlier discounts for the US).




Pffft on both UK and US!
By DarkElfa on 8/19/2009 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 3
You are both Capitalist swine! In Soviet Russia we are being true democratic nation. Everyone here chooses to work for comrade Putin or he chooses to die, now that is true democracy, eh comrades?




RE: Pffft on both UK and US!
By eddieroolz on 8/19/2009 9:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
You sir deserve a point but I've ran out!


Great news
By themaster08 on 8/19/2009 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
This is great news for us in the UK. I was planning on installing Windows 7 on all of the machines in my home, but was waiting for an official price to make that decision.

Now if this turns out to be official, all of my computers will be getting the Windows 7 treatment.




I'm sure MS announced pricing
By Lonyo on 8/19/2009 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
There are 3 tiers of UK pricing.

Early Preorder pricing: £50 RRP
Early pricing (from end of early pre-orders until end of 2009): Current price ( £80 RRP or less if discounted).
Regular price: £150 or so (from 2010 on)

This isn't just an Amazon only offer, as you can see the same pricing on the official Microsoft Store site (http://emea.microsoftstore.com/uk/Microsoft/Window...


Come on Dailytech, this isn't news . This has been known about for almost a month already. Even the BBC has run a story on the pricing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8118749.stm




By BZDTemp on 8/19/2009 12:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. For example here in Denmark Microsoft is not selling the family package - to small a market they say. Funny enough Apple is happy to sell a family license and one should think their market is much smaller.

Oh well - I'm staying with XP until there are some great Dx11 games so maybe it will have to be Windows 8 for me :-)




Stop taking the Mickey!
By Proteusza on 8/19/2009 5:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Come on Jason Mick, its called research. Ever heard of it?

Prices are as low as they are because there is no upgrade version. None at all. You have to buy the full copy. Because they knew customers would complain, they lowered the price of the full copy until the end of the year. Thats all there is to it. After that, the price will return sky high. Its either deal with the EU regulators and a huge fine or just lower prices for the first few months.




It's funny
By eddieroolz on 8/19/2009 9:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny how so many people who post here have absolutely no idea about foreign governments.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki