Print 73 comment(s) - last by Calin.. on Sep 7 at 9:39 AM

Amazon's leaked pricing holds up

Last week, leaked pricing for Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista operating system. Today, Microsoft has updated its Windows Vista site with official pricing for the various versions of the operating system. Not surprisingly, Amazon's figures were right on the money (prices listed as full/upgrade):

  • Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95
  • Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159
  • Windows Vista Business, $299/$199
  • Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259

Microsoft didn't elaborate on Amazon's suggested ship date of January 30, but simply stated that volume license customers would receive the OS in November while general public availability will be in January of 2007.

On Friday, Microsoft released Windows Vista RC1 to testers. Microsoft announced today that it would be expanding the availability of RC1 this week with the Windows Vista Customer Preview Program (CPP). When all is said and done, Windows Vista RC1 will have been made available to over 5 million customers worldwide.

Comments     Threshold

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

Rip off prices!
By urosv on 9/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Rip off prices!
By tacoburrito on 9/5/2006 3:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
I can't imagine anyone paying for retail or upgrade their OS from XP. It took 3 years for XP to play nice with all the legacy software and hardware, and who would want to upgrade again just when XP is finally starting to be bug-free?

RE: Rip off prices!
By Sunday Ironfoot on 9/5/2006 3:35:41 PM , Rating: 5
Simple solution....

If you think it's a ripoff, don't buy it!

RE: Rip off prices!
By mendocinosummit on 9/5/2006 4:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
But there needs more alternatives. I a like to game and build computers for a small profit, what else good I use? I like linux, but many people with little comp experience are afraid to try it. When another OS, like a linux alliance, can play all new games, as plenty of online help, and many of the perks thtat MS offers then there will be an alternative.

RE: Rip off prices!
By Oxygenthief on 9/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Rip off prices!
By Calin on 9/7/2006 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think that you could buy an upgrade, but if you are unhappy keep running the older operating system...

RE: Rip off prices!
By retrospooty on 9/5/2006 4:38:59 PM , Rating: 5
"I can't imagine anyone paying for retail or upgrade their OS from XP."

I totally understand why you would not want to upgrade, but beleive me, millions will buy it in the first few months, and within a few years MS expects 100's of millions of copies to be sold... It will happen like it or not.

I for one, and the vast majority of people out there had no issues at all with XP from day one. The same will hold true for Vista. The few users with issues are always the loudest, the silent majority is trouble free.

RE: Rip off prices!
By ChronoReverse on 9/5/2006 4:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Still, it's not worth upgrading unless you have a significant rig in the first place. XP is still very good.

With new computers, I see little reason not to have Vista instead of course and I've posted several times about how much I'm liking Vista now that the Release Candidate builds are out. Nonetheless, it's still not very compelling to upgrade and the prices are not going to help that either.

If MS halved the prices, I'd probably recommend upgrading to Vista to anyone who has a system that would run smoother with it.

RE: Rip off prices!
By kmmatney on 9/5/2006 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, windows 2000 is still very good. I still have two windows 2000 machines (my wife's and my son's) and several work machines on it, and have no trouble whatsoever inastalling new devices and software on them. Everything just works.

RE: Rip off prices!
By NoSoftwarePatents on 9/5/2006 5:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in the future, you might be able to get an OEM version for cheap. For example, Windows XP Professional is less than $150 brand new. You mostly don't get a paper box, but the license is legit.

Also, a vendor could have a discount. For example, I bought a fully legit copy of Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition with no CAL's for $400 from a company called 9software. They no longer have that deal, but I have my holographic Microsoft CD-ROM at my house...

RE: Rip off prices!
By nilepez on 9/5/2006 7:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what problems you were having, but XP worked with my Win9x software (with the exception of certain tools, which weren't designed for an NT system).

That said, I think the prices are high...especially if they REALLY plan to come out with a new OS in 2 years. I don't want to see a new OS every year or 2 (esp at these prices).

I think the way to go is sign up for a cheap class at a community college and buy a student version. These prices only make sense for businesses, IMO.

RE: Rip off prices!
By ryandmiller1 on 9/5/2006 4:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Windows Ultimate is technically the full version yes. But it isnt intended for most peolpe to use, why in the world would you need ultimate? Home Pro is all you need. Their pricing is interesting though. Not for Windows, but for Office. It isnt an OS and they charge $400 for it? What is more complicatedf, an OS or spreadsheet and word processing software?

RE: Rip off prices!
By GreenEnvt on 9/5/2006 4:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, $400 is a lot of money, but it is the "heart" of your computer, you use it every time you use your computer (yea, yea, I know if you boot into Linux or similar you are not, but generally). Assume a similar lifetime to XP, 5 years, you are then paying about 22 cents a day to use the OS.

RE: Rip off prices!
By OvErHeAtInG on 9/5/2006 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
22 cents a day is quite a lot if you ask me... Given the fact that if you want the media capabilities and the ability to log on to a domain, you have to get Ultimate, that's very steep. I paid $140 for XP Pro, and now it's twice that just to maintain the feature set! Very steep.

RE: Rip off prices!
By jkresh on 9/5/2006 6:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would suspect that you bought an oem copy for the $140 and I would guess the Vista ultimate will be $199 for oem (upgrade for xp pro was $199 and oem was $140), so its not as big an increase as you are making it out to be (and ultimate has features that were not in xp pro (and some that were not in mce2005))

RE: Rip off prices!
By JackTheLad on 9/6/2006 1:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
I hate when people come out with this logic, "it works out at blah blah a day"

Do you do that when you buy music cds or games?

I have CDs from years and years ago, and I did not buy them thinking: oh that works out at 1p a day to listen to for the next 15 years.

RE: Rip off prices!
By ET on 9/6/2006 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I actually count games in dollars per month ($15, usually). I also count DVDs like this, sometimes. I compare my DVD buys to what I'd have paid for cable TV, just to keep myself in check.

In the case of Vista, it's just a way to convince yourself it's not a lot of money. I wouldn't count it per day, but buying anything is a matter of price vs. how much you think it's beneficial (enjoyable, ...) times the length of time you'd use it. So if you expect to use something for several years, pricing it per year makes sense.

By gramboh on 9/5/2006 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not even considering installing Vista until there is a compelling reason to do so. Given that my desktop PC usage is mostly gaming, internet browsing, media viewing, Vista offers me nothing over XP until DX10 games are mainstream. Not to mention performance will probably be worse in Vista with 2GB RAM than I get in XP with 2GB.

Feels a lot different than when XP was released as I wanted it shortly after launch. Same with Win98 and Win95 of course (the big one).

Will probably buy/install it in fall 2007.

RE: Meh
By IamKindaHungry on 9/5/2006 3:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you havent used RC1 of Vista, its as fast if not faster than my current XP installation. I have 1GB of Ram.
Vista has come a long way since that piece of crap they released known as Beta 2

RE: Meh
By lennylim on 9/5/2006 4:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
With Microsoft's track record (and, frankly, the complexity of an OS that needs to support so much legacy hardware and software), I'm more interested in Vista SP1 than RC1.

RE: Meh
By MrDiSante on 9/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Draco on 9/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Korvon on 9/5/2006 5:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, still had to install several codecs to get some movies to play. But K-Lite Mega Codec Pack installs on Vista and now it will play anything under the sun. :)

RE: Meh
By Crank the Planet on 9/5/2006 7:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
Even with the many features stripped out, Vista is 10 times more bloated than XP? Why can't MS with all of it's vast resources keep the code small. There is no justification for Vista being as large as it is- even with all of the features it's supposed to have. Which brings me to my next question....what is Microsoft doing under the hood? What are they really doing?

RE: Meh
By ET on 9/6/2006 10:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think that the problem is "MS with all of it's vast resources" (and I don't mean the incorrect "it's"). MS is already past deadline. Obviously its resources aren't enough. Making the code small isn't a top priority, certainly not on the disk (where a single game can take more disk space than the OS), and not even in RAM, if it works at least as well as XP (which it seems to, from reports of RC1).

RE: Meh
By Ringold on 9/5/2006 8:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've got 2GB RAM, and Beta 2 performed smoother under all usages (didnt try gaming, but everything else I need day to day I did). No disk thrashing ever. I haven't tried RC1 yet, but from what I hear, it's even better.

Instead of trolling with "it'll probably be worse" when you really have no idea, try reading third party reviews first, huh? If you did, you'd know almost every aspect of it is improved. Now, whether or not you still can justify the expense is a personal matter between you, a balance of your needs/wants, and your income, none of which should prompt you to bug others about it.

By Schadenfroh on 9/5/2006 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
So, which one of these would be best for a gamer (mainly play OpenGL games) that gets to the net via a campus network and/or small home network based off of a router?

RE: best
By bersl2 on 9/5/2006 4:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason a gamer would want to upgrade would be for DirectX 10. OpenGL does not depend on DirectX. I would say not to.

Think about what else you could buy for $150-$200. Hell, you could get yourself a pretty damn good video card for the price of the Ultimate edition!

RE: best
By KCjoker on 9/5/2006 7:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
What good is that video card with no OS? Unless you simply mean staying with XP for a while. I just don't get why people think $200 for an OS is way too high a price but will pay $300 and higher for a video card.

RE: best
By bersl2 on 9/5/2006 8:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hardware is a tangible thing, and software is information. If the differences aren't obvious to you, perhaps you should think about them for a bit.

BTW, while XP will not receive DX10, OpenGL will* be updated to take advantage of all the new features that MS mandates graphics cards to have. Yes, on XP.

* No, I don't know this for sure, but I still expect at least NVidia to do it, as they seem to make a strong commitment to OpenGL.

RE: best
By Helbore on 9/6/2006 8:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Someone's obviously not a programmer!

RE: best
By OvErHeAtInG on 9/5/2006 5:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
OGL games? Linux. Or, Win2k/XP will do you just as well as Vista.

RE: best
By Ringold on 9/5/2006 8:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not *quite* as well. I've heard more then one game dev in the past month specifically say that performance in games is better in Vista than in XP on the same hardware, due to improved driver systems.

So since the OP said "best", the "best" is Vista, not XP. Considering the under the hood improvements, best by a long shot if he's going to be buying a new Windows version regardless.

Volume vs. Retail
By NoBull6 on 9/5/2006 3:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone enlighten me as to why there's a two month delay between volume customers and retail? Is it just a delay for packaging?

RE: Volume vs. Retail
By kamel5547 on 9/5/2006 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the packaging/shipping to retailers. SELECT and other volume plans involve shipping CD's in a plain CD cover (like the ones you find in the carrying cases). In addition to being less packaging, you also just need one set of CD's per location so logistically it takes a lot less to get these out the door.

However, there are additional factors, including not shipping the OS at Christmas when OEM's are not ready to offer products based on it. It takes sometime to prepare and test desktops for a new OS (especially since drivers aren't really there for everything yet). I'm sure OEM's don't want 4th quarter sales jepordized by the release of an OS that they don't offer, and told Micrsoft so...

RE: Volume vs. Retail
By hughlle on 9/5/2006 4:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
i stil dont understand what was wring with a simple "home" and "professional"

does this mean that with business we get to have an FTP server included and if we spend that teeny weeny bit more we can have FTP and Remote Desktop :S

RE: Volume vs. Retail
By Calin on 9/7/2006 9:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if this will remain as in XP, but you can't run IIS in XP home edition. There are other differences as well

RE: Volume vs. Retail
By Crank the Planet on 9/5/2006 7:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you people insist on feeding the Monster? It will bite you... he he he

Vista Home Premium (upgrade)
By Merry on 9/5/2006 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
What is in it, and does anybody know if you can upgrade to it from a legit version of win 2K?

RE: Vista Home Premium (upgrade)
By mendocinosummit on 9/5/2006 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not.

RE: Vista Home Premium (upgrade)
By Merry on 9/5/2006 5:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
In that case i wont be getting vista for a while then

By jachristie79 on 9/5/2006 5:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
From Microsoft's site:

If you are currently using Windows 2000 Professional or Windows XP Professional x64, you are eligible for an upgrade copy to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista, but a clean install is required.

For versions of Windows earlier than Windows 2000, upgrade copies are not available. These earlier versions of Windows require you to install a full copy of Windows Vista.

If the edition of Windows Vista that you choose to install will result in a loss of functionality over your current edition of Windows, a clean install must be done or the installation must be completed to a new partition on your PC.

OEM edition
By restrada on 9/5/2006 3:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know about price for Ultimate OEM edition?

RE: OEM edition
By Master Kenobi on 9/5/2006 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the trick. Ultime OEM if it follows normal OEM reductions, I would say will be around 250. 150 bux less. For 250, I think I would be willing to buy one copy of ultimate, prolly go with an OEM home premium for my other machines.

RE: OEM edition
By mendocinosummit on 9/5/2006 4:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
I bought, my comps, I will install one copy on all my computers.

By GNStudios on 9/5/2006 4:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
Which version do I need if I want to connect to my home domain (running Server 2003)? To use my profile of couse...

RE: Domain
By OvErHeAtInG on 9/5/2006 5:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Vista Business. If you want the extra features of the Home edition, then you're stuck with Ultimate.

RE: Domain
By GNStudios on 9/6/2006 8:05:28 AM , Rating: 2

$399 then...

too much $$
By FXi on 9/5/2006 8:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone who is at home and needs to do work too that ultimate is both overkill and too much $$ all in one.

In fact for the few things they are genuinely changing this whole thing is too much money. But as has been said, the simple answer is, let the boxes sit on the shelves. Until there is a compelling reason to upgrade, and maybe even that would be weighed carefully, the prices are too high and the product is not worth the price.

Oh well. Nice try MS. Go back and try again.

RE: too much $$
By Ringold on 9/5/2006 8:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
For all the complaining about price you'd think they were asking for a first born son.

No, MS has had economists, accountants, marketing professionals, etc, crunch the numbers, and the prices we see above are what they suspect will be their equilibrium price to maximize profit. In other words, they're going to make their money at that price 'cause it IS just low enough to get the masses to include it in their next upgrade cycle. It'll discourage some; it's supposed to. MS isn't a communist establishment that has to please you and everyone else. They'd charge about a $5 if they were. It's like Americans these days think companies exist to serve the people or some such crap; no, they exist to make money! And money makes life good. Socialists dont get that :)

Anyway, you wouldn't be complaining if you were a stock holder ;)

RE: too much $$
By laok on 9/6/2006 9:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
Because so many people including myself actually are just stuck with Microsoft Windows. It is even pricer to change yourself into loving another OS. It is a pain in the ass to get into using some other softwares under another OS. Microsoft is the only company that sells OS that can run your lovely daily software and games. Whatever version Windows you have used before, copyright-ed or copyleft-ed, home or professional, you will have to update to an version of Vista and another more-feature-rich or more-bug-rich MS OS one day. You do have choices: stay with MS or start to learn to love another OS. We know this and MS know this too.

I hate this site
By ET on 9/6/2006 5:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
On a note unrelated to this new item, let me say that 90% of the time I try to log in I get "oops, something went wrong". Which means that most of the time I want to comment I don't. In this case, since I've tried logging in over a few minutes now, and finally made it, I no longer feel like going back over this thread and trying to remember what I wanted to comment. I'll make do with this rant. And DailyTech, please fix this problem. It's been happening for months now, and it makes me want to shoot someone.

RE: I hate this site
By cjc1103 on 9/6/2006 9:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
No one else seems to be having a problem posting. I logged right in. Perhaps it's a PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair)

RE: I hate this site
By ET on 9/6/2006 10:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
Logically, everyone who is capable of posting obviously managed to log in. Those who can't log in can't complain. (BTW, problems for what's between the keyboard and chair are usually solved with Viagra and the like, and I don't think that's really relevant to this matter.)

Never Mind
By SakuraChan on 9/6/2006 1:25:08 AM , Rating: 1
^__^ I'll buy a pirated one of course :Dhehe....

RE: Never Mind
By Ghostdog on 9/6/2006 5:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
Heck, windows 2000 is still very good.

Agreed. A few years ago (when XP was out) I decided to buy Win2000 instead of XP and I haven´t really come to regret my decission. Well, at least not until about a year back.

Having two active PC-gamers in my household effectively means that I have to buy Vista. It´s sucks that studios are being encouraged/paid off by MS to make Windows XP a system requirement - even when Windows 2000 is otherwise a prefectly useable OS - but what am I going to do? Boycott those games. A lot of good that will do.

So, thanks to game developers and Microsoft, if I want to keep playing games on my PC I´m left with little choice but to buy Windows Vista. It´s not like I´m not looking forward to all the new features it includes. I am. It´s just that if it wasn´t for games, I could be perfectly happy using Win2000 for a few yearsmore.

RE: Never Mind
By ET on 9/6/2006 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
It makes sense, certainly these days, to develop only for XP. It's a 5 year old OS, most users have it, and the cost of making sure it works on earlier versions is simply not worth it for most developers. And it's true that Microsoft discourages it in many ways (like having dev kits run only on XP). Which also makes sense for them, for the same reason.

64-bit Vista?
By ZeBuddha on 9/6/2006 8:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe a stupid question, but I got a 64-bit Turion cpu (yeah, laptop) and, considering there appears to be no 64-bit specific Vista, how it works. Do I just have to suffer a 32-bit OS or is it automatically adapted to 64-bit processors? Or maybe the 64-bit version is the one coming out in a couple of years or something?

Not that I'm going to buy Vista before at least SP1... just wondering how it is.

I've been looking for months into this question now and have found NO answers whatsoever...

RE: 64-bit Vista?
By ET on 9/6/2006 10:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you're not buying before SP1, then you really shouldn't care. You might not even have a Turion by then. :)

Anyway, there's a 64-bit version of Vista. I guess that one option is that both versions will ship together.

By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 9/5/2006 5:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a chart I can see what it is included (or not) in each version?

RE: Features
By wrack on 9/5/2006 6:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
Yes there is one.

Go the end of the web page below.

What is Ultimate?
By GhandiInstinct on 9/5/2006 11:10:51 PM , Rating: 1
And why is it priced higher than Business?

RE: What is Ultimate?
By INeedCache on 9/6/2006 1:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
FYI: Plural of virus is viruses.

First Post
By shivaextreme on 9/5/2006 3:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they will have sorted out the kinks that were in the preRC1. The media center kept hanging with two ati 550 pro cards, that I had to go back to XP and Beyond tv. Other than that its not half as slow as it originally was.

$259 for the upgrade?
By therealnickdanger on 9/5/2006 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
The only version I would consider getting is Ultimate... but having messed around with a couple Vista betas, the full package had better be a lot more "ultimate". Good Lord, who's gonna pay $400 for the full version? I own several legit full copies of XP MCE2K5 and XP Pro, I think Microsoft may hurt themselves with the huge pricetag - considering we will also need to buy DX10 hardware to get the full experience. I want to be there on launch day, geeking out over my new install, but that's a tough one to swallow.

New TCP/IP stack!?!?
By gez on 9/6/2006 12:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Rumor has it the TCP/IP stack in Vista is BRAND NEW. If there is any credence to that rumor, I won't be touching Vista with a 10 foot pole, no matter how many neat new features it may have. An untested stack is a virus (or viri) waiting to happen.

OEM prices
By mobutu on 9/5/06, Rating: 0
why the stress?
By albundee on 9/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: why the stress?
By MrDiSante on 9/5/06, Rating: -1
Watch the sheep line up for Vista
By cornfedone on 9/5/06, Rating: -1
By mforce on 9/5/2006 6:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Well I don't really know about this Vista thing. I could get it for free ( pirated ) just like I got my Windows XP but still I'm not interested. Why do I need it ? I usually run Linux and for the few Windows programs I need XP runs them just as well .
As for security and stuff I don't really buy it . At least XP is in the market for some time and most of the security bugs have been taken care of. Let's face it there's only so much security an OS can provide you if you don't have too much PC experience (most Windows users) and you click all that .exe stuff you find online and istall it .
I do believe Microsoft will find ways to make you need Vista like games/apps that will only run on it . It's normal , M$ is a company and companies need to make money .

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles
Windows Vista RC1 Released
September 1, 2006, 3:25 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki